the design and development of a constructivist multimedia learning

7/28/2019 The Design and Development of a Constructivist Multimedia Learning

1/14

The Design and Development of a Constructivist Multimedia Learning

Environment (CMLE):

The Universiti Sains Malaysia experience

by

Associate Professor Dr. Toh Seong Chong

Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia

Universiti Sains Malaysia

e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The paper proceeds in three stages. Firstly, it begins with a basic

characterization of constructivism, identifying what is believed to be the central

principles in learning and understanding. The philosophical assumptions of

constructivism are contrasted alongside objectivism, which holds very different

views and approaches to learning and knowing. Secondly, the discussion ensues

to identify and elaborate on those instructional principles for the design of a

constructivist learning environment based on the Jonassens (1999)

Constructivist Learning Environment Model with particular reference to

multimedia learning. Exemplars of a constructivist multimedia learning

environment developed at the Centre for Instructional Technology and

Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia will be illustrated. Thirdly,

constructivism is critically appraised to identify some of its problems and

limitations imposed on teaching and learning.

Introduction The Constructivist View of Learning

Consider the following scenario in a Chemistry lesson. A teacher teaching the mole

concept might begin the lesson by posing an ill-defined and ill-structured question to the

class like this:

A ship laden with 10,000 liters of crude oil was sailing along the Straits of

Malacca where it suddenly suffers a collision and was spewing crude oil into the

sea. The ship was 10 kilometers from the beaches Port Dickson where numerous

beach hotels are located. Assuming the oil spreading on the surface of the sea is

one molecule thick, device a project to determine how long does it take before the

beaches of Port Dickson suffer major oil pollution?

The above example illustrates how a teacher using the constructivist approach might

begin his lesson. On the other hand, a teacher using the objectivist approach might begin

a lesson on mole concept by teaching concepts like atomic mass, relative molecular

mass, the Avogadros Number, molecular size and calculation of number moles of


2/14

various elements and compounds followed by a review of past examination questions

with scant attention and merely cursory reference to real life or authentic situations.

Which approach will challenge the students and foster greater active learning?

It all depends on ones belief in what actual constitute active learning. Constructivists

believe that knowledge and truth are constructed by people and do not exist outside thehuman mind (Duffy and Jonassen, 1991). This view is radically different from what

objectivism conceives learning to be. To the objectivists, knowledge and truth exist

outside the mind of the individual and are therefore objective (Runes, 1962). The role of

education in the objectivist view is therefore to help students learn about the real world. It

is asserted that there is a particular body of knowledge that needs to be transmitted to a

learner. Learning is thus viewed as the acquisition and accumulation of a finite set of

skills and facts.

Contrary to these notions about learning and knowing is the constructivists view of

learning being personal and not purely objective (Bodner, 1986). Von Glaserfeld

(1984) has succinctly epitomized the constructivists view by saying,

learners construct understanding. They do not simply mirror and reflect

what they are told or what they read. Learners look for meaning and will try to

find regularity and order in the events of the world even in the absence of full or

complete information.

Constructivism emphasizes the construction of knowledge while objectivism concerns

mainly with the object of knowing. It is the fundamental difference about knowledge and

learning that departs the two in terms of both philosophy and implications for the

instructional design.

What is the active learning?

The central tenet of constructivism is that learning is an active process. Information may

be imposed, but understanding cannot be, for it must come from within. During the

process of learning, learners may conceive of the external reality somewhat differently,

based on their unique set of experiences with the world and their beliefs about them

(Jonassen, 1991). However, learners may discuss their understandings with others and

thus develop shared understandings (Cognition and Technology Group, 1991). While

different learners may arrive at different answers, it is not a matter of anything goes

(Spiro et al., 1991). Learners must be able to justify their position to establish its viability

(Cognition and Technology Group, 1991).

Three characteristics seem to be central to these constructivist descriptions of the learning

process:


3/14

a. Good problems

Constructivist instruction asks learners to use their knowledge to solve problems that are

meaningful and realistically complex. Good problems are required to stimulate the

exploration and reflection necessary for knowledge construction. According to Brooks

and Brooks (1993), a good problem is one that

requires students to make and test a prediction

can be solved with inexpensive equipment

is realistically complex

benefits from group effort

is seen as relevant and interesting by students.

b. Cognitive conflict is the stimulus for learning and determines the organization and

nature of what is learned

In a learning environment, there is some stimulus or goal for learning the learning has apurpose for being there. That goal is not only the stimulus for learning, but it is also the

primary factor in determining what the learner attends to, what prior experience the

learner brings to bear in constructing an understanding. In the Piagetian terms, it is the

need for accommodation when current experience cannot be assimilated in existing

schema (Piaget, 1977; von Glaserfield, 1989). In Deweys terms, it is the problematic

that leads to and is the organizer for learning (Dewey, 1938). The important point,

however, is that it is the goal of the learner that is central in considering what is learned.

c. Collaboration

The constructivist perspective supports that learners learn through interaction with others.Learners work together as peers, applying their combined knowledge to the solution of

the problem. The dialogue that results from this combined effort provides learners with

the opportunity to test and refine their understanding in an ongoing process. Savery &

Duffy, 1996).

Model for Designing a Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment

In order to translate the philosophy of constructivism into actual practice, many

instructional designers are working to develop more constructivistic environments and

instructional prescriptions. Perhaps the most articulate and comprehensive model is

provided by Jonassen (1999). This model represents an integration and crystallization of

much work in the constructivist arena into a coherent instructional and prescriptive

framework. At the Center for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains

Malaysia, the Jonassens model is adopted to design various constructivist learning

environments (CLE) with particular reference to multimedia learning and examples of

which will be described in this paper to highlight this model.


4/14

For the purpose of clarity, this model will be briefly described, and exemplars from the

CITM, USM experience will be given. Basically, this model conceives a problem,

question or project as the central focus of the environment. Cognizant to it, various

interpretative and intellectual support systems were developed by the instructional

designer to guide the learner to solve this problem. The goal of the learner is to interpret

and solve the problem or complete the project. Five support tools/systems weredeveloped namely (1) related cases, (2) information resources, (3) cognitive tools, (4)

conversation/collaboration tools and (5) social/contextual support tools. However, these

tools are generic and are used only when and where necessary. See Figure 1.

6. Social/Contextual Support

5. Conversational/Collaboration Tools

4. Cognitive tools

3. Information Tools

2. Related Cases

A. Modeling

Problem/project

1.1 Context

Problem/project

1.2 Representation

Problem/project

1.3 Manipulation

Space

C. Scaffolding

B. Coaching

Figure 1. Model for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments

(CLE) by Jonassen (1999)


5/14

1. Question or Issue for CLEs

The journey of a constructivist learning environment begins with a question or issue,

which learners attempt to solve or resolve. It is this problem that drives the learningof a topic, rather than acting as example of the concepts and previously taught. The

problems identified for a particular field in CLE should not be topical (as in

textbooks) but what practitioners do. This can be found in newspapers and

magazines. Problems in CLEs need to three components, namely, (1) the problem

context, (2) the problem representation or simulation and (3) problem manipulation

space. According to Jonassen (1999), in order to develop a CLE, one should try to

represent each in the environment.

1.1. Problem Context

The problem context is a description of the context in which it occurs. It includes

the physical, organizational and sociocultural context in which problems occur. Thesame problem in different social or work context is different. Firstly, the problem

statement should include the physical, social-cultural and organizational climate

surround the problem. This information should be made available to learners in order

to understand the problem. Secondly, it should describe the community of

practitioners, performers or stakeholders. What are the values, beliefs, social

expectations and customs of the people involved? This information can be conveyed

in stories or interview with key personnel in the form of audio or video clips.

1.2. Problem Representation/Simulation

The problem representation describes a set of events that leads up to the problem

that needs to be resolved. It can be in the form of an interesting story or it can be in

the form of high-quality video scenarios or even virtual reality. It must perturb the

learner. The story may be presented in text, audio or video. An important point in

this aspect is that it must be authentic. Authentic means that learners should engage

in activities which present the same type of cognitive challenges as those in the real

world (Savery and Duffy, 1996).

1.3. Problem Manipulation Space

The problem manipulation spaces are causal models that enable students to test the

effects of their manipulations, receiving feedback through changes in the appearance

of the physical objects they are manipulating. They include microworlds or

phenomenaria (Perkins, 1991). These microworlds can be designed using Java

applets, interactive virtual realities and Macromedia Flash files. They are necessary

because a critical characteristic of meaning learning is mindful activity. In order for

learner to be active, they must manipulate something (construct a product,

manipulate parameters, make decisions) and affect the environment in some way.

For example, Rieber (1993) created a microworld within which learners can

manipulate Newtonian physics concepts such as mass and velocity while attempting

to dock a virtual spacecraft.


6/14

According to Jonassen, 1997), in creating problem manipulation spaces, it is not

always necessary for learners to manipulate physical objects or simulation of those

objects. It may be sufficient merely to generate a hypothesis and then to argue for it.

The argument is an excellent indicator of the quality of domain knowledge

possessed by the learner. Scaffold or coach for the development of cogent arguments

using templates or checklists will assist learners develop argument skills.To illustrate the above designs, we present a screen which we created at CITM,

USM on the problem entitled Oil- spill at the Straits of Malacca. See Figure 2. Here

a scenario was presented with the story unfolds, what-ifs simulation, related cases,

information resources, cognitive tools, collaboration tools, social support tools.

Figure 2. Problem Presentation screen in a Constructivist Learning

Environment on Oil-spill at Straits of Malacca

2. Related Cases

It is important to provide learners access to a set of related

experiences that novice students can refer. The primary purpose of

describing related cases is to assist learners in understanding the

issues implicit in the problem representation. Related cases support

learning by (1) scaffolding student memory and (2) enhancing


7/14

cognitive flexibility. By scaffolding, we mean providing

representations of experiences that learners have not had. They

provide referents for comparison. By enhancing cognitive flexibility,

we mean providing multiple perspectives, themes or interpretations on

the problems or issues being examined by the learners.

For example, on the issue of Oil-spill at the Straits of Malacca,related cases can be designed by listing an index of cases connected

to the issue and when the learner clicks on the hot-text it is

hyperlinked to the description of the case.

3. Information Resources

Rich sources of information are an essential part of CLEs. It provide

learner with selectable information just-in-time. Information banks

and repositories should be linked to the environment. This includes

text documents, graphics, sound resources, video and animations that

are appropriate for helping learners comprehend the problem and itsprinciples.

The Word Wide Web is a powerful repository of information

resources. Since novice learners do not possess sophisticated literacy

skills to sieve through the information provided on the Web, the

instruction designer should carefully pre-evaluate each Web site for

its relevance and organize it for ready access to the learner.

4. Cognitive Tools

Cognitive tools are generic computer tools that are intended to engage

and facilitate specific kinds of cognitive processing. They are

intellectual devices that are used to visualize (represent), organize,

automate and supplant thinking skills . They include (1) problem/task

representation tools, such as MATHEMATICA and MATHLAB, (2)

dynamic modeling tools, such as databases, spreadsheets, expert

systems, (3) performance support tools, such as notepad, calculators,

the Periodic Table and (4) information gathering tools such as meta-

search engines for the Web.

At USM, we designed a program GRAPHER to assist learner

visually represent mathematical relationship between an equation and

its graph. See Figure 3. In another instance, we designed a series ofvisuals to represents complex microchip assembly processes entitled

AMD C4 technology. See Figure 4.


8/14

Figure 3. Cognitive Tool GRAPHER

Figure 4. Visualization tool for complex microchip assembly

processes (used with permission from Advance Micro Devices)

As a instructional designer, one should always analyze the activity

structures required to solve the problems and identify processes that


9/14

need to be represented visually and how the learner needs to

manipulate those images to test their models of the phenomena.

5. Conversation and Collaboration Tools

Learning most naturally occurs not in isolation but by teams of people workingtogether to solve problems. CLEs should provide access to shared information and

shared knowledge-building tools to help learners to collaboratively construct

socially shared knowledge. Problems are solved when a group works towards

developing a common conception of the problem, so that their energies can be

focused on solving it.

Given an appropriate instructional design, two or more learners working together

via the WWW might accomplish more than a learner who learn alone by himself

because the interactions among the learners may have more influence on their

learning than the interactions between the learners and the Web-based content. See

Figure 5 shows an example of a collaborative support tool to enable learners to

explore further the Solar System.

Figure 5. Collaborative Support Tool to enable learners explore further the Solar

System


10/14

6. Social/Contextual Support

To ensure initial and continual success in the CLE, it is important to accommodate

environmental and contextual factors affecting implementation. Due consideration

should be given to important physical, organizational and cultural aspects of the

environment in which the innovation is being implemented. They provide learners,teachers and experts a means to promote discourse, share ideas, review work, ask

questions and support. These tools may be asynchronous such as e-mails, listservs,

video and audio streaming or synchronous such as telephone, video conferencing,

telementoring and Internet Relayed Chats.

For example, at CITM, USM, during a Masters in Education Course entitled

Advance Technologies in Education, course participants are provided with Web-

based support with their personal photos, e-mails, contact numbers displayed so

that questions can be posted by course participants which are answered by their

peers or the course supervisor. At the same time the attendance and progress of the

participants can be closely monitored so that they do not fall by the wayside.

Events of Instruction and Learning Activities in CLE

According to Jonassen (1999), in most CLEs, learners need to explore, articulate what

they know and have learned, and reflect (hypothesize, test) on what they have learned

from the activities. Therefore instructional activities should be provided to match these

events. They include modeling, coaching and scaffolding. Modeling is focused on the

experts performance. Coaching is focused on the learners performance. Scaffolding is

to provide temporary frameworks to support learning and student performance beyond

the learners capacities. See Table 1.

Table 1. Relationship between Learning Events and Instructional Activities in CLE

(adapted from Jonassen, 1999)

Learning Events Instructional activities in CLE

Exploration Modeling

Articulation Coaching

Reflection Scaffolding

Hannafin, Land and Oliver (1999) provide a clear and systematic classification of

scaffolding. They suggested that scaffolding is a process through which learning efforts

are supported while engaging in an constructivist learning environment. They further

suggest that scaffolding can be differentiated by mechanisms and functions. Mechanisms

emphasize the methods through which scaffolding is provided while functions

emphasize the purpose served. See Table 2.


11/14

Table 2. CLE Scaffolding Classifications (adapted from Hannafin et al., 1999)

Scaffold Types and Functions

Conceptual

Guides learner in what to consider;

considerations when problem task is

defined

Related Methods & Mechanisms

Providing students with explicit hints and

prompts as needed (Vygotskian scaffolding) Recommending the use of certain tools at

particular stages of problem solving

Providing structure maps and content trees

Suggesting students plan ahead, evaluate

progress and determine needs

Modeling cognitive strategies and milestones

Providing pop-up help

Tutoring on system functions and features

Enabling intelligent responses to system use,

suggest alternative methods and procedures

Provided start-up questions to be considered

Providing advice from experts

Metacognitive

Guides how to think during learning:

ways to think about the problem under

study and strategies to consider; finding

and framing problems

Procedural

Guides how to utilize the available CLE

features; on going help and advice on

feature functions and usesStrategic

Guides in analyzing and approaching

learning tasks or problem; provided

initially as macrostrategy or ongoing as

needs or requests arise

For instance in the example on the Oil-spill at the Straits of Malacca, conceptual

scaffold are provided in the form of guiding questions as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Conceptual scaffolding in the form of guiding questions


12/14

Macro-Model and Micro-Model of Constructivist Multimedia Learning

Environment

The Jonassen (1999) model described is a macro-model which conceptually described

the components of a CMLE and the strategies for supporting learners performances in

them. For a micro-model on multimedia learning which describes details of howmultimedia messages should be designed to promote active learning, the reader should

refer to another paper by Toh (2002). Because of page limitations, I was unable to

articulate the details here.

Limitations of Constructivist Learning Environments

In spite of the fact that a constructivist perspective makes perfect sense from a theoretical

position, the notion of there not being right or wrong answers can easily cause

apprehension and concern in the hearts of stakeholders in education responsible for

demonstrating that his or her students are achieving world class standards, have attained

specific performance based outcomes, or mastered activities prescribed by nationaleducation goal (Wagner & McCombs, 1995).

Furthermore, the absence of specific learning objectives and outcomes has earned the

criticism for constructivism as inefficient and ineffective (Dick, 1992). Its lack of

concern for the entry behaviors of students is being criticized for ignoring the gap

between what a student must know or be able to do before beginning instruction.

Constructivists are concerned about context - but more for instruction than individual

assessment. They have been accused of showing no concern for efficiency, and little

apparent concern for certifying the competency level of individual students (Dick, 1992).

The constructivist learning environments in general are being criticized mainly for threecounts: (1) They are costly to develop (because of the lack of efficiency); (2) they require

technology to implement; and (3) they are very difficult to evaluate.

Nevertheless, these allegations can be rectified by instructional designers who are

innovative and enough to devise ways of measuring student learning and assessing

individual progress. Constructivism can provide unique and exciting learning

environments, it is the challenge for practitioners to engage the learners in authentic and

meaningful tasks, and to evaluate learning using assessment methods that reflect the

constructionist methods embedded in the learning environments.

Conclusion

Like other instructional theories, constructivism cannot be the panacea for all

instructional problems. Yet constructivism holds important lessons for how to interpret

the results of learning and for how to design environments to support learning. While

objectivism and constructivism are usually described as incompatible and mutually

exclusive, that is not an assumption of the author. On the contrary, I believe that

objectivism and constructivism offer different perspectives on the learning process.


13/14

Despite these criticisms, constructivism does present an alternative view of learning other

than the objectivistic conception of learning, and provides a set of design principles and

strategies to create learning environments wherein learners are engaged in negotiating

meaning and in socially constructing reality. Nevertheless, this does not mean that all

instructional designers should adopt constructivism as the only solution to all

instructional problems. Rather they should reflect upon and articulate their conceptions ofknowing and learning and adapt their methodology as they see fit. The possibility of

different conditions for different outcomes is completely consistent with the long-

standing notion in instructional design that different types of outcomes require different

instructional conditions (Gagn, 1965).

References

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical

Education, 63, 873-878.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991). Some thoughts about

constructivism and instructional design. In T. M. Duffy and D. H. Jonassen (Eds.)

Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 115-119.

Dick, W. (1992). An instructional designers view of constructivism. In T. M. Duffy and

D. H. Jonassen (Eds.) Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation,

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 91-98.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt and Co.

Duffy, T. M. and Jonassen, D. H. (1991). New implications for instructional technology?

Educational Technology, 31 (3), 7-12.

Gagn, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hannafin, M., Land, S., and Oliver, K., (1999). Open Learning Environments:

Foundations, Methods and Models. In C. M Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design

Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. Volume II. Hillsdale,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: do we need a new

philosophical paradigm? Journal of Educational Research, 39 (3), 5-14.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured

problem-solving outcomes. Educational Technology and Development 45(1), 65-94.

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments. In C. M

Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of

Instructional Theory. Volume II. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage?Educational Technology, 31(5), 18-23.

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibrium of Cognitive structures, New

York: Viking Press.

Rieber, L. P. (1993). A pragmatic view of instructional technology. In K. Tobin (Ed.),

The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 193-212). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


14/14

Runes, D. D. (1962). Dictionary of philosophy, 15 th ed., Paterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams

& Co.

Savery, J., Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its

constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson( Ed.), Designing constructivist learning

environments (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications.Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J. and Coulson, R. L. (1991). Knowledge

representation, content specification, and the development of skill in situation-specific

knowledge assembly: some constructivist issues as they relate to cognitive flexibility

theory and hypertext. Educational Technology, 31 (5), 22-25.

Toh, S. C. (2002). Multimedia Learning: What works and what doesnt? Proceedings ofthe 15th Malaysian Educational Technology Convention at Hotel Putra Place, Kangar,

September, 2002

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). Radical constructivism. In P. Watzlawick (Ed.) The invented

reality, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 17-40.

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese,80, 121 140.

Wagner, E. D. and McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner centered psychological principles in

practice: designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35 (2), 32-35.

Authors Note

Associate Professor Dr. Toh Seong Chong is a lecturer at the Centre for Instructional and

Multimedia, USM. His research interests include Multimedia ,Web-based Design and

Development, On-line Testing Systems and Rapid Prototyping of Courseware. He

was one of the recipients of the Universiti Sains Malaysia Pioneer Excellent Educators

Award for career achievement in education technology. Dr. Toh has authored more

30 multimedia presentations and training courseware.

He can be reached at [email protected]. URL: http://www.ptpm.usm.my/DR_TOH.htm

the design and development of a constructivist multimedia learning

Documents