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: tohsc@usm.my 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

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 the human 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:

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 a purpose 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.

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 were developed 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

A. Modeling

4. Cognitive tools 3. Information Tools

2. Related Cases

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)

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 learning of 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. The same 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.

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

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 its principles. 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 metasearch 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 of visuals to represents complex microchip assembly processes entitled AMD C4 technology. See Figure 4.

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

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 working together 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

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 Webbased 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.

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

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 uses Strategic Guides in analyzing and approaching learning tasks or problem; provided initially as macrostrategy or ongoing as needs or requests arise

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

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

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 how multimedia 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 national education 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 three counts: (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.

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 of knowing and learning and adapt their methodology as they see fit. The possibility of different conditions for different outcomes is completely consistent with the longstanding 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.

Runes, D. D. (1962). Dictionary of philosophy, 15th 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 of the 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 tohs@usm.my. URL: http://www.ptpm.usm.my/DR_TOH.htm