Teaching video editing and motion graphics with Photoshop
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/im.13(3).2017.02
-
Article InfoVolume 13 2017, Issue #3, pp. 17-24
- 985 Views
-
456 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between teaching video editing and motion graphics skills and concepts with Adobe Photoshop in a university marketing course and teaching effectiveness. Video editing and motion graphics skills and concepts were taught in a 16-week semester upper division marketing course using Adobe Photoshop. The student evaluation of teaching effectiveness data of this 16-week semester course was analyzed. The results from this analysis suggests students found learning video editing and motion graphics skills and concepts with Photoshop to be a positive learning experience. Marketing educators can teach video editing and motion graphics skills and concepts with Photoshop by following the 16-week semester course outline presented in this paper. This 16-week semester course outline contains the weekly topics and teaching materials that were used to teach the 16-week semester upper division marketing course. Finally, three sections of a master syllabus for this course, the course description, course learning outcomes, and course content are provided to help marketing educators develop and teach a similar course at their institution.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M31
-
References22
-
Tables1
-
Figures1
-
- Fig. 1. Master syllabus
-
- Table 1. 16-week semester course outline
-
- Buzzard, C., Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & McCarty, P. (2011). The Use of Digital Technologies in the Classroom: A Teaching and Learning Perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 131-139.
- Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2004). Marketing students’ perceptions of teaching evaluations: An application of expectancy theory. Marketing Education Review, 14, 23-36.
- Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn?: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16-30.
- Clarke III, I., & Flaherty, T. (2007). Fostering Information Literacy in the Marketing Curriculum by Engaging Students with Print Marketing Resources. Marketing Education Review, 17(1), 79-85.
- Clow, K. E. (1999). Interactive distance learning: Impact on student course evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 97-105.
- Crittenden, V. L., & Crittenden, W. F. (2015). Digital and Social Media Marketing in Business Education: Implications for Student Engagement. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(3).
- Green, T. (2015). Flipped Classrooms: An Agenda for Innovative Marketing Education in the Digital Era. Marketing Education Review, 25(3), 179-191.
- Hannaford, W., Erffmeyer, R., & Tomkovick, C. (2002). Championing Technology in Marketing Education: Assessing the Value of a Discipline-Specific Technology Course. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 47-57.
- Malhotra, N. K. (2002). Integrating technology in marketing education: Perspective for the new millennium. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 1-5.
- McArthur, E., Kubacki, K., Pang, B. & Alcaraz, C. (2017). The Employers’ View of ‘Work-Ready’ Graduates: A Study of Advertisements for Marketing Jobs in Australia. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(2), 82-93.
- Miller, F. L., Mangold, W. G., Roach, J., & Holmes, T. (2013). Building the Technology Toolkit of Marketing Students: The Emerging Technologies in Marketing Initiative. Marketing Education Review, 23(2), 121-136.
- Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2001). Traditional vs. technology-mediated learning: A comparison of students’ course evaluations. Marketing Education Review, 11, 63-73.
- Mintu-Wimsatt, A., Ingram, K., Milward, M. A., & Russ, C. (2006). On different teaching delivery methods: What happens to instructor course evaluations. Marketing Education Review, 16, 49-57.
- Ortinau, D. J., Bush, A. J., Bush, R. P., & Twible, J. L. (1989). The use of importance-performance analysis for improving the quality of marketing education: Interpreting faculty-course evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 78-86.
- Paswan, A. K., & Young, J. A. (2002). Student evaluation of instructor: A nomological investigation using structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 193-202.
- Schwartz, M. L., & Thornton, R. L. (1986). Another use for course evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 8, 18-23.
- Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Student evaluations of teaching: An exploratory study of the faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 199-213.
- Staton, M. G. (2016). Improving Student Job Placement and Assessment Through the Use of Digital Marketing Certification Programs. Marketing Education Review, 26(1), 20-24.
- Webster, C. (1990). Evaluation of marketing professors: A comparison of student, peer, and self-evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 11-17.
- Wilhelm, W. B. (2004). The relative influence of published teaching evaluations and other instructor attributes on course choice. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 17-30.
- Williamson, K., Brookshire, R., & Wright, N. (2002). Building a B.S. Degree Program in E-Business. Marketing Education Review, 12(1), 1-10.
- Wymbs, C. (2011). Digital marketing: The time for a new “academic major” has arrived. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 93-106.
