Investigation of Theoretical Approaches to Multimedia Design and Use
 

        "The emphasis is shifted from activities that teachers do to those that students should perform" (Bailey, 1996, p. 161). New technologies involve learning that should be student-centered, self-directed, personally relevant, and intrinsically motivated. Harper, Squires, and McDougall (2000) state that the constructivist paradigm leads to learning that is authentic in that learners can experiment with ideas, try out different solutions, and look at multiple perceptions. Herrington and Standen (2000) conclude that the positive outcome of constructivist methodologies is due to a number of critical criteria: use of authentic context and activities, provision of multiple perspectives, time for reflective thought, collaboration, problem-solving activities, scaffolding assistance, and reliable assessment. Pedersen and Williams (2004) argue that traditional assessment and grading practises may be inappropriate in constructivist environments. The move away from teacher-directed instruction has resulted in student ownership of activities and increased intrinsic motivation. Involvement of students in their own evaluation develops a metacognitive awareness toward learning goals. This fit of theory with multimedia design and use is a key concept in the process of modern technological learning.

        Maor (2001) describes how using a constructivist approach in interacting with a multimedia program promotes higher-level thinking and inquiry skills, enabling students to better explore, experiment, and hypothesize. The cooperative learning tasks, team investigations, and social interactions provide a "rich" environment for learning in an authentic context which acknowledges multiple representations of reality. "In the constructivist framework, the emphasis is not on teaching but rather on contexts of learning environments" (Gros, 2002, p. 338). Constructivists opt for a flexible concept of learning, with multimedia tools facilitating student-centered work in a non-linear presentation. Hung (2002) explains that multimedia facilitates scaffolding of ideas, a notion based in social constructivism.

        Neo and Neo (2002) indicate that using a constructivist learning environment in multimedia design results in positive student attitudes toward problem-solving and creative, critical thinking. Individual reflection and group collaboration help promote higher goals. Learning how to learn is more important than how much is learned. Speaker (2004) indicates that student expectations regarding use of interactive multimedia experiences have increased but that lack of teacher training can slow the implementation of these educational technologies. Neo (2007) asserts that constructivist learning places emphasis on the learners, encouraging them to find their own solutions, build upon their prior knowledge, set their own goals, and monitor their own progress. Using multimedia, students become active learners, interacting with their peers and teachers and developing their own paths. Educators need to be aware, though, that some direction is required since "unrestricted control and lack of learning goals can dampen the power of learning in such an environment" (Lawless, 1997, p. 127).

        Lawless (1997) cautions that multimedia technology must fit the instructional system, with decisions based on learning theories and research data. Rodriques (2000) states that more consideration should be given to constructivist learning theories when designing multimedia software since present technology still "favours ‘hands-on’ rather than ‘mind-on’ elements" (p. 13). Traditional behaviourist-influenced multimedia designs lean toward concept segmentation, extrinsic rewards, and assessments which can be quantified. On the other hand, a constructivist approach requires relevant tasks to develop learning as a whole, an intrinsic notion of success, and a qualitative change in personal understanding, often which are not measurable. Rodrigues suggests that multimedia design needs to evolve from the behaviourist model in which learning is a process of accumulation to a constructivist model in which autonomy, self-regulation, and activity scaffolding are incorporated. Sherry (1998) indicates that multimedia design demands creativity, particularly when learners are at diverse levels of ability. Ewing (1999) relates that the conflict between the clear outcomes of the traditional, structured approach and the constructivist encouragement of interdependence in teaching hypermedia applications can be resolved by matching these new concepts with the learner’s goals and increasing metacognitive control.

        Gijbels, van de Watering, and Dochy (2006) consider that students in new learning environments such as multimedia demonstrate a perception that their learning should be more constructivist and have more potential to improve educational outcomes as compared to students in conventional, lecture-based situations. A difficulty lies in the conflicting perceptions of students and software designers. Gijbels et al. (2006) state that the latter believe that they have created constructivist learning environments but students don’t perceive that factors such as sharing ideas, discussing, debating, and reflecting are strongly represented. Oliver, Omari, and Herrington (1998) suggest that there is a tendency for developers of computer-based environments to create materials which are designed for students to work separately. Multimedia environments, though, require socio-constructivist design principles, supporting an atmosphere which encourages collaboration, reflection, and articulation among the participants.

        Deubel (2003) suggests that designers of multimedia systems will inevitably end up blending the behaviourist and constructivist approaches in order to offer flexibility. Objectivist models appeal to those wishing to focus on human performance improvement. Constructivisit models appeal to those who feel that motivation and engagement best handle the diversity of learners. With the modern emphasis on explicit educational objectives, as well as collaborative learning, a blending of the two approaches may be the most efficient way of dealing with the goal setting and extrinsic rewards of the behaviourist and the scaffolding and reflexivity of the constructivist. Nilsen and Purao (2005) assert that there is a pedagogical dilemma in teaching emerging technologies. An objectivist approach may be necessary to introduce the tools but once a basic knowledge has been achieved, a constructivist approach becomes central so that students can engage in building new ideas, experiences, and abstract concepts. A socio-cultural approach allows for interaction among participants, resulting in peripheral learning. In order to integrate these multiple learning theories, the main challenge for the teacher is balancing the roles of all-knowing instructor with democratic facilitator.

        Hudson, Owen, and van Veen(2006) use action research and an emancipatory tradition to outline pedagogical practises which promote scaffolding, interdependence, and an open and flexible learning environment for students involved in multimedia. They conclude that opportunities are best afforded by communication, collaboration, autonomous learning, and relevant intrinsic assessment. As well, their research suggests that students should critically challenge empirical educational practises and underlying assumptions.
 

References

Bailey, D., 1996. Constructivism and multimedia: theory and application; innovation and transformation. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(2), 161-5.

Deubel, P., 2003. An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 63-90.

Ewing, J. Dowling, J., & Coutts, M., 1999. Learning using the world wide web: a collaborative learning event. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 3-22.

Gijbels, D., van de Watering, G., & Dochy, F., 2006. New learning environments and constructivism: the students' perspective. Instructional Science, 34(3), 213-26.

Gros, B., 2002. Knowledge construction and technology. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(4), 323-43.

Harper, B., Squires, D., & McDougall, A., 2000. Constructivist simulations: a new design paradigm. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(2), 115-30.

Herrington, J. & Standen, P., 2000. Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195-205.

Hudson, B., Owen, D. & van Veen, K., 2006. Working on educational research methods with masters students in an international online learning community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 577-603.

Hung, D., 2002. Metaphorical ideas as mediating artifacts for the social construction of knowledge: implications from the writings of Dewey and Vygotsky. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(2), 197-214.

Lawless, K. & Brown, S., 1997. Multimedia learning environments: issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(25), 117-31.

Maor, D., 2001. Development and formative evaluation of a multimedia program using interpretive research methodology. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 75-97.

Neo, M., 2007. Learning with multimedia: engaging students in constructivist learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34(2), 149-58.

Neo, M. & Neo, K., 2002. Building a constructivist learning environment using a multimedia project--a Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 141-53.

Nilsen, H. & Sandeep, P., 2005. Balancing objectivist and constructivist pedagogies for teaching emerging technologies: evidence from a scandinavian case study. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(3), 281-92.

Oliver, R., Omari, A., & Herrington, J., 1998. Exploring student interactions in collaborative world wide web computer-based learning environments. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(2), 263-87.

Pedersen, S. & Williams, D., 2004. A comparison of assessment practices and their effects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(3), 283-306.

Rodrigues, S. The interpretive zone between software designers and a science educator: grounding instructional multimedia design in learning theory. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1), 1-15.

Sherry, A., 1998. Evaluation of multimedia authoring instruction based in a behaviorist-cognitive-constructivist continuum. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 201-16.

Speaker, K., 2004. Student perspectives: expectations of multimedia technology in a college literature class. Reading Improvement, 41(4), 241-54.
  

 
Note: All references were retrieved using Wilson’s Web through Memorial University’s Library services between March 12, 2008 and March 29, 2008.