Final Sythesis Paper

Running Head: MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 1

Development and Integration of Multimedia in Cognitive Constructivist Learning Environments

Richard Jones

Boise State University

MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 2

Abstract

A recent trend has emerged in field of education that emphasizes the use of constructivist

learning principles in educational settings. This has resulted in a call for student-centered

instruction that involves critical thinking, problems-solving, and the ability for students to

construct individual meaning and knowledge. This movement toward constructivist learning

also comes at a time when some schools are attempting to achieve a 1:1 ratio between students

and computers. The shift toward constructivist learning along with the movement to increase

computer availability for students will have a dramatic impact on the design and integration of

multimedia in the classroom. This paper is meant to provide background information on the

development of cognitive constructivism while discussing the guiding principles that should be

considered in the development and integration of multimedia in cognitive constructivist learning

environments. The paper will also discuss the potential impacts these efforts can have on student

learning outcomes and perceptions of multimedia use in constructivist environments.

Keywords: multimedia, behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, cognitive

constructivism


Introduction

As the implementation of Common Core State Standards approaches, there is a growing

movement toward designing educational environments based on cognitive constructivist learning

theory. This comes at a time when schools are increasingly attempting to implement a 1:1

computer-to-student ratio in an effort to provide students with more access to technology

(Dunleavy, Dextert, & Heinecket, 2007). This shift in instructional approach and growth in

computer accessibility will impact the nature of multimedia development and its integration in

the classroom. An examination of this shift is essential because multimedia holds the potential to

assist with the promotion of cognitive constructivist learning in the hope that it will improve

student learning outcomes and knowledge construction. This paper will trace the emergence of

cognitive constructivism, define multimedia, describe the elements that must be considered when

developing multimedia or integrating multimedia in cognitive constructionist learning

environments, and examine the impact of integrating multimedia in constructivist environments.

Emergence of Cognitive Constructivism

Over the past two centuries, psychologists, biologists, educational theorists, and other

social scientists have all attempted to describe the process of human learning. The results of

these efforts can be seen in the emergence of a number of learning theories that attempt to

explain how humans learn. The three major categories of learning theory include behaviorism,

cognitivism, and constructivism (Lin & Overbaugh, 2007). While these theories share a lineage,

they each possess distinct explanations for describing how learning occurs. This section of the

paper is dedicated to describing the emergence of constructivism as a learning theory and

detailing the characteristics of cognitive constructivism.


Behaviorism

Behaviorism and cognitivism were the first learning theories to rise to prominence from

these three major learning theories. Behaviorism and cognitivism focus on the transmission of

knowledge as the basis for learning (Herrington & Standen, 2000). Behaviorists believe learning

occurs as a result of positive and negative reinforcement to outside stimuli. Therefore, learning

can be observed through changes in behavior. Despite its early popularity, behaviorism lost a

great deal of support because it failed to explain why and how individuals make sense of and

process information (Yilmaz, 2011, p. 205). It was this failure that gave rise to cognitivism.

Cognitivism

Cognitivism is much more focused on the inner-workings of the human brain in

describing how and why learning occurs. Cognitivists view the brain as the center for

information processing and memory storage. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013),

[l]earning is equated with discrete changes between states of knowledge rather than with

changes in the probability of response (p. 51). In other words, the changes in behavior are a

result of human thinking rather than a simple response to outside stimulus. The goal of

education, then, was to communicate or transfer knowledge to the learners in the most efficient,

effective manner through simplification and standardization (Leung, 2003, p. 503). This would

likely require highly-structured, teacher-centered instruction. Nevertheless, the focus on

knowledge transfer left theorists looking for a more active and learner-centric model of learning,

thus paving the way for the emergence of constructivism.

Constructivism

Although constructivism is sometimes thought of as an emerging leaning theory due to its

relatively recent rise in popularity among educators, the roots of this learning theory actually


date back several decades. In the 1930s, John Dewey believed that knowledge emerges only

from situations in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences

(Wangpipatwong & Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This placed a greater emphasis on experiences

than was accounted for in cognitivism. In the 1960s, Jean Piaget added to this line of thought by

proposing the idea that learners are active and constructive in making sense of their

environment (Wangpipatwong & Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This contribution will be critical to

the definition of cognitive constructivism that is provided later in this paper. Finally, Lev

Vygotsky contributed to this history by suggesting that knowledge was constructed through

social collaboration (Powell & Kalina, 2009). These ideas, along with those from other

contributors, formed the basis of constructivism.

In reality, there are a number of different subcategories of constructivism, making it

somewhat difficult to provide a singular definition to describe this learning theory. At its most

basic element, constructivist learning theory is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed

by a learner and requires interpretation of the concept in the mind of the learner (Wild &

Quinn, 1998, p. 77). This means that knowledge is not simply mapped onto learners minds by

an instructor; rather, it is personalized by the individual. Another common characteristic is that

they all focus on activities and environments rather than on learning objects (Wangpipatwong &

Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This requires active participation on the part of the learner. While

these characteristics provide a general overview of constructivism, further examination is needed

before discussing its relationship to multimedia integration.

Cognitive constructivism is a branch of constructivist learning that stems from the belief

that knowledge is constructed by the individual learner. Its origins are usually credited to the

work of Jean Piaget. Piagets theory of cognitive development proposes that humans cannot be


given information, which they immediately understand and use; instead, humans must construct

their own knowledge (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 242). This involves the mixing of prior

knowledge and new information, using cognitive processing to create new mental

representations. Cognitive constructivism also requires learners to be given authentic problems

within authentic environments for learning: environments that correspond to the real world

(Leung, 2003, p. 503). This focus on active learning, authentic contexts, problem-solving, and

learner construction will be critical in discussing the integration of multimedia in cognitive

constructivism learning environments.

Multimedia Defined

This paper is not meant to provide a list of multimedia products that could be used in a

cognitive constructivist learning environment because the programs change continually. Instead,

teachers and instructional designers would be better served by understanding the definition and

characteristics of multimedia when attempting to identify or create programs. That said, there

are an endless number of definitions one could construct for multimedia depending on the

context in which the term will be used. Mayer, Moreno, Boire, and Vagge (1999) define

multimedia as communications that are presented in more than one form, such as when

information is presented in a verbal format and in a visual format (p. 638). This ambiguity

allows for a great deal of interpretation as to what constitutes verbal and visual formats.

Bornman and Solms (1993) offer a more explicit definition for multimedia stating that it

involves the combining of different media types such as sound, animation, text, graphics and

video for the presentation of information by making use of computers (as cited in Gngren,

2013, p. 14). While this definition is closely aligned to the one expressed by Mayer et al., it goes

slightly further by providing specific examples of visual and verbal formats as well as the


requirement that multimedia products be computer-based. A combination of these two

definitions will be utilized in the following discussion about multimedia products and their

integration in a cognitive constructivist environment.

Multimedia Integration in Cognitive Constructivist Environments

Before one can have a discussion about the development and integration of multimedia

programs for cognitive constructivist learning environments, he or she must first understand the

principles that should be considered in such efforts. This is somewhat difficult given the fact

that there is no universally-accepted list of principles within the educational technology

community. The principles that will be examined in this paper represent a combination of

suggestions from experts in this area of research. These principles include authentic context,

authentic activities, access to experts, student reflection, and collaboration. Before going into the

specifics of each of the individual principles, one must first understand how multimedia

communications foster cognitive constructivist learning in general.

How Multimedia Fosters Cognitive Constructivist Learning

According to Mayer et al. (1999), multimedia learning occurs because of a dual-channel

processing of visual and verbal information. This is commonly known as the cognitive theory of

multimedia learning. This theory also involves the belief that each of these channels has a

limited capacity and that learning occurs when individuals select relevant information and build

coherent connections (Mayer et al., 1999, p. 639). While the cognitive theory of multimedia

could be applied to other learning theories, the authors discuss its direct relationship to

constructivist environments. Mayer et al. (1999) argue that multimedia allows learners to build

referential connections between corresponding aspects of the visual and verbal representations

(p. 639). In other words, multimedia provides the visual and verbal clues that allow learners to


construct their own knowledge. This is an essential component of constructivism. Nevertheless,

this only addresses part of the equation that makes up the integration of multimedia and

cognitive constructivist environments. The other part involves the principles that should shape

multimedia development and the structure of the learning environment itself.

Authentic Context

According to Herrington and Standen (2000), authentic context refers to the ability of a

multimedia program to encompass a physical environment which reflected the way the

knowledge would ultimately be used (p. 199). Multimedia allows educators to create a virtual

setting that goes beyond the classroom itself. In their study, Herrington and Standen (2000)

created a program that simulated employment in a research company. In this case, the

multimedia program contained an authentic setting within the product itself. The other option

would have been for an instructor to structure a course based on a simulation where learners

were seen as employees in a similar fictitious setting. In this case, a multimedia product used in

the course would not have to include a physical setting within the product itself because the

context is provided in a different fashion. Thus, whether through a simulated context within a

multimedia program or through the use of a multimedia product within a classroom structured

around an authentic simulation, context has been provided where students can construct their

knowledge. This is only one issue of authenticity that must be considered when attempting this

integration.

Authentic Activities

The use of authentic activities is essential if one is to integrate multimedia in cognitive

constructivist environments. Herrington and Standen (2000) define authentic activities as

activities that have real-world relevance, and which present a single complex task to be


completed over a sustained period of time (p. 199). An example might be a task that requires

economics students to calculate their income taxes based on real wages, taxes, and deductions.

In this case, a computer-based multimedia program could be created that allows learners to

complete these calculations as part of a virtual setting. If a program could not be developed, an

educator could build an instructional multimedia video that discusses this same process, but

students would be asked to complete the calculations using another medium. In either case,

students would partake in authentic, real-world tasks that involve the use of a multimedia

product. The multimedia product would allow learners to access and process information, giving

them a medium from which they can begin to construct their individual knowledge.

Access to Experts

In cognitive constructivist environments, it is important for students to have access to

experts as they construct their own knowledge. According to Herrington and Standen (2000),

experts are able to model their thinking and describe the mental processes they use in solving

authentic problems. This is important for learners who lack a complete understanding as to how

one might go about addressing the problems that have been proposed by the instructor.

Multimedia provides an excellent method for instructors to develop a direct connection between

experts and students. This could be in the form of a video or through an interactive multimedia

program that had expert commentary built directly in the program. It is true that access to

experts is possible without multimedia, but multimedia allows for additional resources when

establishing such connections. This connection to others will also be necessary in cognitive

constructivist environments when it comes to student collaboration.


Student Collaboration

Student collaboration is essential when promoting cognitive constructivist learning. Wild

and Quinn (1998) address this point in the context of displaying student work samples for other

students to see. Wild and Quinn (1998) argue that interactive multimedia provides a medium

through which learners can display their visual models and interact with other students, thus

allowing them to reconsider their own interpretations of the same information. In other words,

students are able to assess their own knowledge construction by comparing it to the works of

others who participated in the same activity. One could even argue that this ventures into the

realm of social constructivism. Nevertheless, this individual construction of knowledge is one of

the key components of cognitive constructivism and can be achieved through the use of various

multimedia programs that promote collaboration.

Reflection

Reflection is another important component of cognitive constructivist learning. Students

must be given an opportunity to reflect on the progress they have made and the knowledge they

have constructed. Wangpipatwong and Papasratorn (2007) argue that reflection improves the

knowledge creating potential of all students (p. 24). Herrington and Standen (2000) offer

additional insight for those using interactive multimedia products suggesting the programs need

to allow for non-linear navigation to enable [the learner] to return to any element of the

program (p. 199). Multimedia allows for a variety of methods for reflection including blogs,

vlogs, e-journals, or other products that involve visual and verbal communications. Educators

must work to ensure that regular opportunities exist for student to reflect on their learning.


Impact of Multimedia Integration in Cognitive Constructivist Environments

This section will examine the impact on student learning outcomes and changes to

student perceptions when multimedia is integrated in cognitive constructivist environments. This

examination of student outcomes is important because it addresses the validity of integrating

multimedia as discussed in this paper. While the evidence presented in this paper is limited, the

results clearly support attempts to integrate multimedia with this type of learning environment.

Student Learning Outcomes

The integration of multimedia in cognitive constructivist environments has the potential

to improve student learning outcomes. Ali (2013) completed a study that compared the

difference in achievement results between students who used either an objectivist multimedia

program or one based on constructivist principles. This study was conducted on 66 high school

students in Malaysia of which 32 used the objectivist courseware and 34 used the one based on

constructivist principles. The achievement results were based on the difference between pre-test

and post-test scores for each group. This study concluded that students who used constructivist-

based multimedia courseware demonstrated a significant difference in their achievement score

compared to the students who [used] the Objectivist Learning Environment courseware (Ali,

2013, p. 43). Ali (2013) found that learners who used the constructivist multimedia program also

demonstrated significantly more on-task computer use compared to those who used the

objectivist courseware. This is not the only study that found the potential benefits of designing

multimedia programs for use in constructivist environments.

Mayer et al. (1990) found similar benefits to using multimedia in constructivist

environments; however, their finding was predicated on the ability for the program to limit the

amount of cognitive demand being placed on the learner. This study tested two groups of 60


undergraduate students at the University of California, Santa Barbara. There was an attempt to

measure the students levels of retention and knowledge transfer based upon the amount of

information provided within a multimedia program. The groups were not tested against each

other; rather, they were established to run the test twice using two different subject matters.

Mayer et al. (1990) concluded that multimedia use is maximized when learners are able to build

referential connections between corresponding visual and verbal representations when both are

held in working memory simultaneously (p. 643). This building of referential connections

along with the ability to process them with prior knowledge is important in the individual

construction of knowledge.

Student Perceptions

The use of multimedia in cognitive constructivist environments can also impact students

perceptions of such learning environments. A study was conducted in 1999 by Neo and Neo that

measured student perceptions of a project that integrated multimedia use in a constructivist

environment. It was conducted on 53 college students who were enrolled in a multimedia design

course. The purpose of their study was to determine the perceptions of this approach by students

who were initially unfamiliar with constructivist approaches to learning. The study found that

students had very positive attitudes towards the project and their use of multimedia technology

in this learning environment (Neo & Neo, 1999, p. 260). Moreover, Neo and Neo (1999)

concluded that the approach enhanced their confidence levels in their newly acquired skills,

knowing that they [could] use the same skills in their future undertakings (p. 264). Thus, not

only can the integration of multimedia in constructivist learning environments increase student

learning outcomes, but it can improve their perceptions of this approach to learning and their

confidence levels for future applications of this knowledge.


Conclusion

As momentum continues to build in favor of constructivist learning, educators and

instructional designers will need to examine the role of multimedia in such environments. This

shift toward student-centered instruction comes at a time when many states are attempting to

implement the Common Core State Standards. Like constructivist learning, these standards

emphasize critical thinking, problem-solving and knowledge construction on the part of the

student as opposed to an approach that relies on direct instruction and other teacher-centered

activities. Multimedia holds the potential to assist with this transformation so long as products

are developed based on principles of cognitive constructivism, and multimedia is integrated in

learning environments based on the same criteria. The research reviewed here suggests that

developers and educators should design environments based on authentic contexts, authentic

activities, access to experts, and student reflection and collaboration to maximize the benefits for

learners. As additional research is completed on this front, it is likely that instructional

philosophies and practices will continue to change. Nevertheless, these efforts are essential if we

are to better understand the nature of learning and the instructional practices that can reach all

learners.


References

Ali, M. Z. S. (2013). From objectivism to constructivism: The effect of a multimedia

constructivist learning environment on form four students achievement in science & its

impact on computer usage in learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in

Education, 2(4), 32-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/7388-0243251

Bornman, H., & Solms, S. H. (1993). Hypermedia, multimedia and hypertext: Definitions and

overview. Electronic Library, 11(4/5), 259 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb045243

Dunleavy, M., Dextert, F., & Heinecket, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to

laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 23, 440-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 2(2), 43-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143

Gngren, . C. (2013). Authentic learning in multimedia. The Online Journal of Distance

Education and e-Learning, 1(3), 14-19. Retrieved from

www.tojdel.net/pdf/v01i03/v01i03-02.pdf

Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia

learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 195-205.

Leung, A. C. K. (2003). Contextual issues in the construction of computer-based learning

programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 501-516.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00053.x


Lin, S. Y., & Overbaugh R. C. (2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format

on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 39, 399-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782489

Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning

from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 91, 638-643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.638

Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist

learning - Students perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2),

254-266. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_2/18.pdf

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for

an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Wangpipatwong, T., & Papasratorn, B. (2007). The influence of constructivist e-learning system

on student learning outcomes. International Journal of Information and Communication

Technology Education, 3(4), 21-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2007100103

Wild, M., & Quinn, C. (1998). Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional

multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 73-82.

Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and

implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational

Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84, 204-212.

Final Sythesis Paper

Documents

Transcript of Final Sythesis Paper