Volume 27, Number 2, Winter 1999
ISSN 071 O-4340
Fostering Pedagogicul Soundness of Multimedia Learning Mciier/a/s
Janice Ahola-Sidaway Margaret McKinnon
Theorizing Audioconferencing: An Eclectic Paradigm
Lyn Henderson Ian Putt
Conducting Research on Visuul Design and Learning: Pitfalls and
Promises
Heather Kanuka Michael Szabo
Burriers to Online Teuching in E/elementary, Secondary.
and leacher Education
Zane L. Berge Susan E. Mrozowski
Amtec Publpation
Amtec Board
of Directors
President
Genevieve Gallant
Memorial University of
Newfoundland
Past President
Katy Campbell
University of Alberta
President Elect
Len Proctor
University of
Saskatchewan
Secretary/Treasurer
Brian Kerr
Memorial University of
Newfoundland
Director (A wards)
Maureen Baron
Director (Membership)
Brian Smalridge
Champlain College
Editorial
Board
Farough Abed
Central Conneticut
State University
Terry Anderson
University of Alberta
Jon Baggaley
Athabasca University
Robert M. Branch
University of Georgia
Katy Campbell
University of Alberta
Bruce Clark
University of Calgary
Dan Coldeway
Athabasca University
Denis Daigneault
Daigneault Multimedia
Thomas M. Duffy
Indiana University
Rodney S. Earle
Brigham Young
University
George. L. Geis
OISE
Edward S. Halpern
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Michael Hannafin
University of Georgia
Denis Hlynka
University of Manitoba
W.J. Hunter
Robert Jones
Sheridan College of Applied
Arts and Technology
Richard Kenny
University of Ottawa
Lorne Koroluk
University of British
Columbia
Richard F. Lewis
University of Windsor
William Milhelm
Penn State Great Valley
Earl R. Misanchuk
University of Saskatchewan
Norma Nocente
University of Alberta
Ronald Owston
York University
Lauren Sandals
University of Calgary
Richard F. Schmid
Concordia University
Richard A. Schwier
University of Saskatchewan
Donna Sharon
Consultant, London, ON
Steven Shaw
Concordia University
Clayton R. Wright
Grant MacEwan
Community College
University of Calgary
Canadian Journal of Articles
Educational
Communication Fostering Pedagogical Soundness of
Multimedia Learning Materials
Janice Ahola-Sidaway
Volume 27, Number2 Margaret McKinnon 67
Winter 1999
Editors for this issue
Richard F. Lewis, Ph.D.
David A. Mappin
Book Review Editor
Diane P. Janes
Theorizing Audioconferencing: An
Eclectic Paradigm
Lyn Henderson
Ian Putt 87
Conducting Research on Visual Design
and Learning.. Pitfalls and Promises
Heather Kanuka
M i c h a e l S z a b o 105
Mediaware Review Editor
Len F. Proctor
Translation
Francois Trottier
Editorial Assistant & Typesetter
Darren Kwok
Barriers to Online Teaching in
Elementary. Secondary, and Teacher
Education
Zane L. Berge
Susan E. Mrozowski 125
All correspondence should be addressed
to:
Dr. Richard F. Lewis
Editor, CJEC
Communication Studies
University of Windsor
401 Sunset Ave.
Windsor, ON N9B 3P4
E-Mail: rlewis@uwindsor.ca
or
Box 33830
Detroit, MI 48232
CJEC is typeset in Microsoft Word 97.
Printed by: Preney Print & Litho Inc.
Windsor, Ontario
i2000-2001 Subscription/Membership Form
AMTEC
c/o BrianSmalridge
3-1750TheQue@$way,Suite1818
Etobicoke,Ontario,Canada M9C 5H5
Name: Title:
/ Address:
Prov: Postal Code:
j Phone(w): Phone (h):
i Fax: Email:
i 0 I am willing to have pertinent information from the a
Members Handbook.
ALL RENEWALS COME DUE ON EITHER JA
i If this is a renewal then please indicate your Membership Number
: 0 Student of Education Technology (includes GST) $53.50
: P Retiree (includes GST) .._._._...._._.__................................................,.. $53.50
0 Individual (includes GST) $101.65
0 Commercial (includes GST) .._......................................... $101.65
0 CIEC Subscription Only - Canada (includes GST).. ____ ______._ __ _____.$80.25
0 CJEC Subscription Only -U.S.A. .._._........................................ US $75.00
0 CJEC Subscription - Outside North America US $95.00
* Students must have this form signed by your Department Head
GST# 122939853
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication
1999, Vol. 27, No. 2, 67-86
Copyright 1999 by AMTEC
Fostering Pedagogical Soundness
of Multimedia Learning Materials (1)
Janice Ahola-Sidaway and Margaret McKinnon
University of Ottawa
The design and development of multimedia learning materials remains an
emerging field. In terms of fostering sound pedagogy, beliefs about how these
materials should be presented and what they can and should be able to do
continue to evolve. This paper presents a set of 10 principles that reflect current
beliefs about the processes and contexts of optimal learning in general and
within multimedia environmentsmore specifically.They are intended to serve as
guidelines for generalists who are responsible for overseeing the creation and
implementation of pedagogically sound multimedia products. The first two
principles focus on general challenges that developersface in creating these
materials; the next six, highlight specific qualities that characterize effective
products; the last two principles examine issues tha arise when a product makes
its way into a classroom setting.
L’élaboration de matériel didactique multimédia demeure un domaine
relativement nouveau. Dans la perspective d’une saine pédagogie, la réflexion se
poursuit quant à ce que de tels documents devraient comporter et quant à ce
qu’ils devraient pouvoir faire. Ce document expose un ensemble de 10 principes
reflétant les idées actuelles quant aux processus d’apprentissage optimal dans un
cadre général et dans le cadre plus précis des environnements multimédias. Ces
principes pourraient servir de cadre d’orientation aux généralistes responsables
de la création et de la réalisation de produits pédagogiques multimédias. Les
deux premiers principes portent sur les grands défis que doivent relever les
créateurs de tels documents. Les six principes suivants soulignent les qualités
propres aux produits efficaces. Enfin, les deux derniers principes portent sur les
questions qui se posent lorsque de tels produits arrivent en classe.
(1) Financial support for this study was provided by the Canadian Studies Program, Department of
mandate is to coordinate learning materias within the Department of Canadian Heritage.
(2) We use the terms "multimedia learning materials", "learning materials", or "product(s)" inter-changeably to refer to
interactive CD-ROMS, CD-ROMs with internet links, and fully online computer-mediated environments.
e”“lro”m”&.
Canadian Heritage. An earlier draft of this paper was presented to the Canadian Heritage Learning Materials Working Group, whose
68 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
Today’s technology provides exciting possibilities for creating rich
computer-mediated learning environments. At the same time, beliefs
about how multimedia learning materials should be designed and about
what they can and should be able to do in an educational context continue
to evolve as new knowledge in the form of research findings, learning
theory, technological innovations and applications, actual product
development, and user feedback combine in unforeseen ways to inform
those beliefs.
In this paper, we present 10 principles that reflect current beliefs about
the processes and contexts of optimal learning in general and optimal
learning within multimedia environments more specifically. These
principles are intended to serve as reflective guideposts for those
generalists who have been entrusted with overseeing, participating in, and
consulting on the creation of pedagogically-sound multimedia learning
materials*.
Before presenting the principles it is helpful to keep in mind a few
caveats. First, it became evident during our review of current educational
literature that much of what is known about best practices for creating
multimedia learning environments has been derived from professionals’
written reflections and special “pilot projects” or “laboratory-type” studies
using multimedia, rather than from research focusing on a broad range of
more typical learner contexts. Also, inconsistent findings, the complexity
of the issues, and the rapid technological changes within the field,
highlight the overall challenge facing developers. Finally, developers and
educators need to keep in mind that attentive development of multimedia
learning materials is only one of many factors that shape learning
experiences and outcomes. The learning impact of a given product can
only begin to be understood and appreciated in terms of the local context
in which it is used. Hardware and software accessibility; teacher and
learner attitudes, knowledge, and experience; classroom, school, and home
subcultures; and the specific ways that users “work with” the product are
just some of the many contextual factors that influence learning, but that
are beyond the reach of the multimedia development team.
The ten principles discussed in this paper were derived from a review
and synthesis of the current (primarily 1994-1998) scholarly and
professional educational literature relating to multimedia as a learning
tool. Multiple searches of the ERIC database, electronic journals, currenr
issues of selected journals, and our university’s online catalogue were
completed. A preliminary list of search terms evolved from several
broadly defined early searches in the area of educational technology.
These initial terms were regularly revised in subsequent searches as we
read and reviewed articles and books generated from the searches. At its
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 69
most comprehensive and inclusive phase, we used the following terms to
guide our searching: Computers, Computer Assisted Instruction,
Computer Oriented Programs, Computer Software, Computer Software
Reviews, Computer uses in Education, Curriculum Design, Education,
Educational Media, Educational Technology, Hypermedia, Instructional
Materials, Internet, Multimedia Instruction, Technology, and Technology
Education. (Computer Mediated Communication was later added to this
list following advice from an anonymous reviewer.) These descriptors
..
were combined with Instructional Effectiveness or Evaluation Criteria.
Searches were also done of key authors who were identified from our
preliminary analysis of initial search results. The web sites of the Council
of Ministers, all Canadian Ministries of Education, Canadian Teachers
Federation, Canadian Heritage and its agencies, as well as special web
sites (e.g., SchoolNet, TACT, MarcoPolo, MaMaMedia, Inspiration
software) were also examined.
Overall, approximately 150 major articles, manuscripts, and books
were consulted (a full bibliography is available from the authors). A
preliminary draft of the principles was vetted with a panel of 10 experts
that included classroom teachers, Canadian government and nongovernmental
representatives, and academic researchers. The current text
incorporates comments from the panel of experts.
Prior to presenting the principles, we provide a brief overview of the
philosophical context within which the principles rest. Our intent in
making this context explicit is to share with the reader our own
assumptions and central beliefs about the philosophical underpinnings of
the principles.
Philosophical Context for Understanding the Principles
At its most essential level, an eclectic combination of behaviourism,
systems theory, information-processing, constructivism, and critical
pedagogy provide the main philosophical backdrop for thinking about how
best to foster pedagogical soundness within multimedia learning materials,
Historically, since the 1960’s, behaviourism, or behavioural learning
theory, has provided the philosophical underpinnings of the vast majority
of educational software. Drill-and-practice products, as well as true-andfalse,
matching, and sentence completion assessment strategies are
typically associated with this orientation.
Like behaviourism, systems theory or the systems approach to
instructional design has also had a significant impact on educational
software. To the extent that multimedia designers rely on a systems
70 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
approach, they focus on taking all possible contingencies into account, and
planning for them. Software products that include effective interaction
between the user and the program, various feedback mechanisms, and
performance-based objectives are congruent with a systems design model
(Simonson & Thompson, 1994).
Although many learning materials still rely on behaviourism or
systems theory in whole or in part, more recent conceptualizations of how
learning occurs are introducing alternative ways to think about teaching
and learning, and about educational multimedia development in particular.
Information processing, with its roots in cognitive science, focuses on how
the mind processes information during learning. The relationship of shortterm
memory to long-term memory, metacognition (thinking about one’s
thinking processes, self-monitoring, self-evaluation), and problem solving
strategies are some examples of concepts related to this perspective
(Rieber, 1994). One concrete implementation of the information
processing perspective would be multimedia learning materials that
incorporate helpful ways for learners to organize isolated bits of presented
information and turn them into personally meaningful knowledge, for
example, through access to a computerized journal or concept-mapping
tool.
Constructivism adds another important dimension to our current
beliefs about how individuals learn. A constructivist orientation treats
learning as an interactive process whereby learners are actively involved
in constructing meaning (Jonassen, 1991). Constructivists approach
learning as a social, cultural and interpersonal process that is influenced as
much by social and situational factors as it is by cognitive ones (Shuell,
1996). Developers of learning materials who treat learners as active
participants who bring their own history, perspectives, and social context
to the learning experience, and who believe that individuals learn best
when they feel a sense of ownership, control, and authenticity when using
multimedia learning materials, are incorporating a constructivist
perspective, Today’s technologies make it much easier to operationalize
this learning philosophy. Although microworld environments are
particularly known for this orientation, many new applications incorporate
some aspects of constructivism within their design.
Critical pedagogy (Nichols & Allen-Brown, 1996) also plays a role in
the development of pedagogically-sound multimedia learning materials,
by highlighting several important issues. First, this perspective emphasizes
that information is never value neutral; and it encourages socially
responsible critical thinking by encouraging learners to reflect on the
processes and implications of knowledge production. Second, this
perspective reveals that the development and use of new technologies
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 71
carry with them consequences that may result in unintended and
undesirable outcomes. It asks us to consider possible negative implications
of the proliferation of multimedia learning materials --for example, the
persistent and high cost to schools and families that comes with
multimedia access as well as the widening gap between the technological
haves and have-trots. Third, the perspective reminds us of common pitfalls
such as cultural biases, marginalization of less powerful groups,
stereotypical portrayals of people, gender, places, activities, and so on, It
highlights the importance of fostering inclusive learning environments that
are accessible, equitable, and responsive to all learners.
The Principles
The following 10 principles fall into three main types. The first two
principles deal with more global issues; they consider the “general
challenges” facing developers today who hope to create pedagogically
sound multimedia materials. Principles 3 through 8 highlight specific
qualities that characterize effective products. The final two principles
focus specifically on important issues that arise when a product hopes to
make its way into the formal school setting.
I) Effective learning materials strive to incorporate technological
potential in pedagogically meaningful ways.
As noted earlier, today’s technology provides exciting possibilities for
creating rich learning environments. Audio, static graphics, text, video,
and animation, along with authoring tools, can be combined in imaginative
ways to yield innovative and inspiring products that provide meaningful
and interdisciplinary learning environments, For example, some products
allow learners to investigate ideas, theories, and concepts in the context of
real-life problems. What’s more, the nonlinear, nonsequential hypertext
environments provide the potential to link personal “findings” within and
across domains. Other products allow learners to manipulate real data;
examine copies of original manuscripts; listen to, create, and revise a
range of visual images and sound effects or recordings; or take on the
roles of imaginary or real characters who are involved in complex problem
solving.
At the same time many multimedia learning materials fall far short in
terms of pedagogical value. For example, in a review of 750 software
programs marketed for young children, Haugland and Wright (1997)
7 2 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
report that only about 20 percent met children’s developmental needs.
There are, of course, many reasons why any given product may prove to
be pedagogically weak. One major reason is the “technocentric” trap,
wherein the primary motivation for including a functionality in a product
is simply because the technology makes it possible to do so. Another
major reason is the misguided belief that these materials are simply repurposed
books, what critics of this approach have described as “coffee
table books 10,000 pages long” (Druin & Solomon, 1996, p. 81). That
said, there are some success stories--the edutainment CD-ROM of David
Macaulay’s The way things work is considered one such case (Druin &
Solomon, 1996).
Another important reason why multimedia learning materials may not
realize their full potential as learning tools is that the developer may not be
aware that current instructional practice relies much less on drill-andpractice,
rote memorization, and factual recall approaches than in the past.
These types of methodological approaches may be helpful as introductions
to simple, well-structured knowledge domains (for example, learning the
multiplication tables). At the same time, they are much less effective in
helping learners authentically apply that knowledge or in helping them
solve real-life problems that typically involve using more ill-structured
and complex knowledge domains (Jacobson & Spiro, 1994).
The overall challenge, then, is to build multimedia learning
environments that complement other valued and more entrenched learning
environments by discovering and drawing on their unique pedagogical
strengths. The remaining principles are intended to assist in that
challenge.
2) Effective learning materials strive to be intrinsically motivating to
learners.
An important distinctron to be made here is the difference between
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation during learning experiences. The former
provides “rewards” for good responses (e.g., a smiley face, ribbon, hand
clap, drum roll), whereas the latter taps into the excitement of learning; for
example, it builds on a learner’s willingness and desire to learn (Jacques,
Preece, & Carey, 1995). Extrinsic motivation, for example, could be a
game that is fun to play but the “learning” that takes place is seen as
something to be endured or tolerated. The incorporation of graphics and
sound are often seen as opportunities to enhance motivation; but when
their primary purpose is to amuse and entertain, they can quickly become
ineffective extrinsic motivators. Once the novelty of glossy and glittery
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 73
presentations fades, the experience can quickly become flat and tiresome,
and even disruptive, if little is offered in the way of purposeful and
meaningful learning encounters.
Most writers agree that fostering intrinsic motivation should be the aim
of multimedia developers. Current American Psychological Association
(APA) guidelines (1997) highlight the essential role of intrinsic motivation
for learning. It is enhanced in those situations that the learner perceives as
personally relevant, interesting, meaningful, and challenging. It is also
enhanced when learners have opportunities for choice and control in how
and what they learn, and when the reasons for learning are rooted in the
learning situation itself. It incorporates challenge, curiosity, and fantasy
(Rieber, 1994). It gains and keeps learner attention and interest. It blurs
fun and learning and helps develop a “research spirit” (Gregoire,
Bracewell, & Laferriere, 1996).
Because intrinsic motivation is believed to be essential for sustained
learning, choices around what content gets included and about how and
what prose, graphics, authoring tools, games, simulations, microworlds,
and the like are presented need to be carefully considered. It has often
been said, for example, that quality storytelling need not rely heavily on
fancy visuals for engaging learners. In another vein, when developers
forget that the main purpose of charts and graphs is to provide the learner
with helpful data, and add too much decoration (sometimes referred to as
“chartjunk”) (Rieber, 1994), confusion--and hence reduced motivation,
can follow. This in part is one main reason why developers are always
encouraged to carefully consider, and include, various media as the
product develops rather than to add them at later stages of development,
Engagement or effort is also considered to be an important dimension
of motivation to learn (e.g., APA, 1997; Gregoire et al., 1996; Jacques et
al., 1995). Acquiring complex knowledge requires considerable energy,
effort and persistence on the part of the learner. Products that are learnercentred,
that place high value on the quality of the ideas, that encourage
thoughtful and challenging interactions, that allow the learner to choose
the types of media they like for their learning activity, and that include
opportunities for regular evaluation would appear to offer the most
potential for promoting the active and sustained involvement of learners,
Active and sustained involvement is also likely fostered when a product
presents material in a functional way which allows for easy yet
sophisticated navigation; when a product incorporates aesthetic choices
and/or learner options which take into account currently valued age,
gender, class, race, and cultural preferences; and when its authoring tools
help learners transform information gleaned from the product into
personally meaningful knowledge.
7 4 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
3) Effective learning materials link to prior knowledge
Learning is believed to be enhanced when the learner is able to
meaningfully link new information to prior knowledge and experience
(APA, 1997; McFarland, 1995; Shuell, 1996). Shuell, for example,
highlights the central role of prior knowledge in determining what and
how much is learned.
There are various ways that multimedia learning materials can foster
links to prior knowledge. Well thought out linking capabilities such as
pop-up and jump links or notetaking, outlining, and concept-mapping
tools (Schroeder & Kenny, 1995), can facilitate personalized knowledgebuilding
by helping learners transform data and information through
rehearsing, extending, revising, and integrating their existing and
emerging understandings. One online example of this type of learner
support can be found in the MaMaMedia online environment, where
learners are invited to build “sandwiches” (hierarchical grouping of
information) and create “villages” (clustered grouping of information)
(Tapscott, 1998).
Often, too, learners use multimedia learning materials for carrying out
a quick, strategic search for information related to a particular issue or
sub-issue, rather than for browsing, exploring, or immersing themselves in
the content. Electronic reference materials such as electronic
encyclopedias are often used for this purpose, although many other
products containing a content-rich infobase can serve similar needs. It is
essential, however, that multimedia learning materials rely on “smart” and
user-friendly search engines that incorporate Boolean (and, or, not) and
proximity operators, if learner expectations are to be met. Search engines
that yield meaningful results and allow for adjustment of search strategies
as new knowledge arises can also help learners build on past and evolving
understandings. A review of the 1996 edition of Compton’s interactive
encyclopedia, for example, illustrates the frustration that arises when a
product relies on a poor search engine (Jacso, 1996).
Given that hypermedia allows for personal exploration along a range
of “paths”, learners can also build knowledge through more unanticipated,
incidental, learning (Rieber, 1994). Jump links that allow learners to
pursue an unanticipated line of interest as well as tidbits of knowledge
tucked behind “minor” icons are ways of fostering this discovery aspect of
knowledge-building. For example, the Canadian Heritage Terra Nova
product Making history: Louis Riel and the North-West Rebellion of 1885
provides a good example of effective use of the latter strategy. Also, a
well constructed multimedia environment allows learners to construct their
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 75
own personal linkages between and among different kinds of information
that they encounter (Wiburg, 1995).
4) Effective learning materials support developmentally appropriate
learning experiences.
Learning is also believed to be most effective when educators take into
account the cognitive, social, and emotional development of a learner
(APA, 1997). Shade (1996) uses the term “low entry, high ceiling” to
describe multimedia learning materials that allow for more or less
complexity and that can be used by learners at various developmental
levels. In a similar vein, current Manitoba guidelines (Manitoba Education
and Training, 1998) highlight the value of multimedia learning materials
that allow accessibility by a range of learners and provide “room to grow.”
Other writers also highlight the value of multimedia learning materials that
allow varied points of entry and option paths for learners with more or less
sophisticated levels of experience and knowledge (e.g., Gregoire, et al.,
1996).
Consideration of this principle might suggest a range of interfaces
(from simple to more complex), reduced or expanded menu items, less or
more complex parameters (coupled with optional progressive help),
opportunities to change a presentation sequence, editable instructions, and
program alterations that take effect based on learner response. At the
same time, the use of non-hierarchical terms to present these options helps
to avoid undermining learner self-esteem.
When striving to create a developmentally appropriate product, it is
also helpful to keep in mind that human intelligence is now conceived of
as a range of multiple intelligences, for example, spatial, verbal-linguistic,
logical-mathematical, bodily kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal intelligence (Gardner, 1993). Therefore, a learner’s
capabilities will often vary from one type of context to another. A product
that is responsive to these differences builds in customizing flexibility,
thereby encouraging learners to take fuller advantage of their specific
intellectual strengths and yet providing them with electronic coaching and
support when strengthening their weaknesses.
Performance assessment functions help learners create learning
experiences that are appropriate to their own developmental level.
Pedagogically sound practice or self-assessment exercises encourage
reflection on and reconsideration of errors, misconceptions, or stereotypic
reasoning through clear feedback that links to related content, optional
76 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
assistance, alternative problem representations, easier and similar follow
up problems, and/or personal record-keeping.
5) Effective learning materials support learner control and choice.
Supporting learner control and choice is believed to be important for a
range of reasons. For example, it allows individuals to work at their own
comfort level, it fosters ownership of the activities, it recognizes
individual needs and preferences, it encourages independent use of a
product, and it fosters self-monitoring and self-evaluation. Learner
control and choice within a product can take many different shapes.
Products that provide intuitive interfaces enhance learner control by
limiting the need for extensive outside help. Navigational flexibility
permits learners to easily follow different paths through the content, to
access different forms of knowledge, and to limit or expand the level of
environmental complexity they wish to experience. In a similar vein,
optional electronic coaching (for example, by activating a helpful help
button or pop-up links), optional bimodal discourse (for example, by
activating simultaneous written and oral discourse), optional cueing (for
example, by activating a process highlighter to clarify a particular aspect
of an explanatory animation), and an optional index with a user-friendly
and helpful search engine for easy and strategic access to the overall
infobase, help learners tailor their environment to suit their own needs and
preferences. Problem-solving simulations that include the necessary
content for developing solutions within or with the product enhance a
learner’s sense of control by acknowledging the “do-ability” of a task. At
the same time, products that permit learners to input their own personal or
local resources (e.g.. photographs, drawings, original local documents),
tap into the “real” lives of learners.
Products incorporating user-friendly tools that allow individuals to
easily plan, organize, create, keep track of, represent, erase, interrupt-andlater-resume,
copy, save, and print their “work’, support learner control by
assisting with specific sub-tasks that foster personal knowledge-building.
Tools that allow learners to refine and revise their work by means of userfriendly
editing features recognize the importance of allowing that
knowledge to be re-presented.
Finally, learner control and choice can be enhanced by providing an
easily-accessible learner guide. This guide could present and explain a
range of interesting on-computer and off-computer learning activities. In
addition to fostering independent and creative use of the product itself,
suggestions for off-computer activities can extend the value of the product
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 77
by encouraging other ways of interacting with the world (for example,
activities that rely on kinesthetics, on non-virtual experimentation, or on
face-to-face relationships with other members of the community),
6) Effective learning materials support inter-dependent learning.
Learning communities, where learners and teachers can interact and
collaborate with others within and beyond the classroom to generate,
revise, and evaluate knowledge, are also believed to be powerful vehicles
for fostering individual learning (e.g., APA, 1997; Shuell, 1996).
Multimedia learning materials can offer opportunities for learners to
form learning communities through various project-based initiatives. For
example, Scardamalia and Bereiter (1996) have developed a multimedia
collaborative learning environment that brings together diverse groups of
participants. A key feature of this learning environment is a community
database constructed by learners. As much as possible, this database is
open to all participants, although sections can be designated as private.
Learners can visit the database, comment on its contents, create links to
other media, develop visuals that synthesize their emerging conceptual
understandings, initiate special purpose discussions, as well as search
content or comments within or across databases. Through these activities,
learners are encouraged to develop working relationships; to critique each
others’ work; to create, use, and revise knowledge; and to consider ideas
from multiple perspectives.
Multimedia learning materials can also offer collaborative learning
opportunities by connecting participants to authentic activities outside the
classroom (Dyrli & Kinnaman, 1995) through links with official
educational partners and recognized web sites. These links to high quality
sources can provide learners with access to helpful archived or up-to-date
information, to “recognized experts” with specialized knowledge in
particular fields, and to other “emerging experts” (or co-learners) who are
examining similar issues. For example, a product might include links to
primary databases of a national agency or consortium for use in personal
projects and/or provide access to the working worlds of scientists,
historians, mathematicians, curators and the like. Canada’s SchoolNet
consortium is one example that supports this type of inter-dependent
learning.
Multimedia learning materials can also encourage collaborative
learning in learner dyads, small groups, or larger class groups. For
example, the CD-ROM Le Maitre des contes, produced by Club Pomme in
78 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
France, has been successfully used by teams of learners as well as by
individual learners (Cousineau, 1998).
7) Effective learning materials promote critical literacy skills.
One of the strengths of multimedia learning materials is the fact that
they allow learners access to a wide range of information. For example, a
concept, an issue, a process, an event, a biography, and so on, can be
presented in many different ways. Developers need to keep in mind,
however, that the choices that they make around content and presentation
are never value neutral. They need to recognize that all knowledge is
socially constructed, and that what counts as legitimate knowledge within
the learning environment will be shaped in part by their choices. Certain
information will inevitably be omitted or stressed; and examples may
emphasize or ignore different social, gender, or cultural perspectives.
The responsibility for fostering critical literacy is neither easy nor
straightforward. It is not simply a case of assuring that appropriate
numbers of different groups are represented, that groups are not
stereotyped, or that language is non-sexist, although these issues are of
course important. Products that adopt visible story lines, for example,
may openly value some “perspectives” over other equally legitimate ones,
Bigelow’s (1996) review of the popular CD-ROM historical simulation
Oregon Trail ZZ, illustrates this challenge. He points out that while
attention has been given to multicultural and gender-fair characteristics in
terms of who is included in the simulation, it is the experiences of white
male settlers that are highlighted. He urges teachers and learners to
develop critical computer literacy skills so that they can challenge these
kinds of implicit and explicit cultural biases.
A number of review frameworks have highlighted the importance of
considering how products represent different social, gender, and/or
cultural perspectives (e.g., Manitoba Education and Training, 1998;
McFarland, 1995; Swan & Meskill, 1997-98). This consideration might
take the form of encouraging the learner to explore, express, and/or
examine multiple interpretations of events. It could mean that there are a
range of meaningful responses to a problem (Druin & Solomon, 1996;
Honebein, Duffy, & Fishman, 1993). It might refer to the representation
of different perspectives in order to encourage the learner to see an issue
from the point of view of various stakeholders and to examine how
different social groups might frame a “problem” or “solution” (Morgan,
1995). In a similar vein, it might provide a range of discourses, allowing
learners to explore whose voice gets heard and whose gets ignored in the
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 79
material they create as well as in the information that they access and
examine. It can also mean the opportunity for the learner to co-create
interpretations with other learners, to place these interpretations in the
“public domain”, and to critically evaluate the kinds of information
presented and generated.
8) Effective learning materials support equitable learning
environments.
In terms of equitable learning environments, a number of software
evaluation frameworks have highlighted the importance of ensuring that
multimedia products reflect linguistic, social and cultural diversity. For
example, the Nova Scotia guidelines for evaluating software present an
extensive list of points to consider when assessing potential bias in
software (Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture, 1998).
According to these guidelines, visual and textual content needs to be
examined to determine to what extent gender, age, race, culture, ethnicity,
and class issues are taken into account. Shade (1996) and Haugland and
Wright (1997) support these recommendations for equity and also include
attention to diverse family structures and ability.
For Canadian learners, additional attention also needs to be placed on
representing and respecting Canada’s multicultural makeup as well as its
French- and English-speaking communities. This seems particularly
important given the proliferation of products developed in the U.S. For
example, humour, music, popular and cultural images and icons, as well as
language and historical perspectives, often vary across cultural groups, In
some cases, these differences may warrant the development of a separate
and distinct product rather than a more straightforward translation of a
product into the other official language. Also, products that hope to make
their way into English- and French-Second-Language classrooms, need to
take into account the special needs of these groups. For example, optional
support could take the form of word pronunciation, simplified definitions,
grammatical exercises, structured role-plays or simulations, and the like.
A number of writers (e.g., Comber, Colley, Hargreaves, & Dorn, 1997;
Crawford, 1998; Larsen, 1995; Prickett, Higgins, & Boone, 1994;
Tapscott, 1998) have highlighted the issue of accessibility to equitable
learning environments for diverse learners. Multimedia developers should
consider that many learners won’t have top-of-the-line hardware and that
options should be considered about how to make the experience accessible
and motivating to more disadvantaged groups. Also, in terms of gendersensitivity,
despite growing evidence that the differences between male
80 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
and female learners regarding accessibility to computers, use of
computers, and confidence levels may be narrowing, it is important that
products assure gender-fair environments that respect the special needs
and interests of both groups (Goodnow, 1998; Hodes, 1995-96; Tapscott,
1998; Yates, 1997). A similar point can be made with regard to fostering
multicultural and antiracist environments. Regarding learners with special
challenges, customizing options, clear and consistent interfaces, and
structured guidance are a few examples of how a product can support their
learning. The province of Newfoundland maintains a particularly good
web site regarding technology issues for special needs populations
(Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 1996).
Good learning environments permit learners to “see themselves” in
authentic ways. One simple example of how developers can take a
proactive stance regarding the issues that have been highlighted above is
the cautious use of clip-art images. Some writers (Binns & Branch, 1995;
Buck, 1995) have pointed out that while visual images represent powerful
aids to the learning process, many visuals--especially clip-art images--are
culturally biased. In a similar vein, products that allow learners to select
personal features (for example, by selecting the gender and ethnicity of a
given character) help learners see themselves within the experience.
Multimedia products that are sensitive to cultural, gender, and special
needs factors offer great potential for promoting equitable learning
opportunities for all learners. The challenge for developers is to strive to
turn that potential into actual product design.
9) Effective learning materials intended to support formal schooling
take into account regional and local needs and requirements.
Multimedia learning materials may link explicitly, implicitly, or not at
all to a provincial, territorial, or state school curriculum (Squires &
McDougall, 1994). If the goal of a product is to explicitly link to a
particular aspect of a curriculum, close collaboration with knowledgeable
curriculum experts is essential. For example, Saskatchewan’s SchoolNet
Grassroots Program has developed evaluation criteria which stress the
point that projects funded by them must “directly correlate to one or more
Saskatchewan Curriculum guides” (Saskatchewan Education, 1997).
Of course, developers who hope to see their products used within
classrooms and resource centres as supplementary learning materials
would also be wise to carefully take into account the curriculum and
teaching needs of those potential users. For example, edutainment
products that stress education more so than entertainment as well as
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 81
general education reference products, if appropriately developed, certainly
have the potential to complement and supplement school-based teaching
and learning. Surprisingly, however, it appears that many developers
neglect to develop their product with formal schooling needs in mind
(Druin & Solomon, 1996).
It is helpful to keep in mind, for example, that education scholars (e.g.,
Haugland & Wright, 1997; Shade, 1996; Squires & McDougall, 1994;
Swan & Meskill, 1997-98), along with ministries of education (e.g.,
Manitoba Education and Training, 1998; Nova Scotia Department of
Education and Culture, 1998) are currently developing, and regularly
revising, guidelines for evaluating the pedagogical quality of multimedia
learning materials in an effort to foster informed purchase choices.
Keeping abreast of current and emerging standards of quality seems
essential if a given product hopes to receive formal endorsement. In a
similar vein, it is also helpful to keep in mind how important it is to
develop (and market) a product that responds to the needs of today’s
teachers, who “now buy many of their own resources for their classes and
take them with them when they transfer to another school” (Thayer, 1998).
10) Effective learning materials provide comprehensive pedagogical
support to educators.
Despite some of the rhetoric suggesting that most schools and
classrooms are integrating multimedia learning materials into regular class
activities, many experienced teachers probably remain multimedia
novices. This seeming disadvantage presents special “professional
development” opportunities for savvy product developers, however. For
example, products could include explanatory videos and/or written
documents that help teachers learn how to navigate within an environment
and how to build their own knowledge through guided practice with a
product’s authoring tools. A more comprehensive approach could be to
develop, within the product, a set of pilot-tested, pre-packaged workshop
modules that “lead teachers” could use to assist colleagues in developing
confidence and competence with the product.
A well-developed and easily accessible (e.g., optional print versions)
educator’s guide could provide tangible help in integrating the materials
into the curriculum. Such a guide could include such ready-made
resources as electronic slides and overheads; pictures, posters, or maps
related to the topic; student handouts; lists of up-to-date resources (for
example, bibliographies and descriptions of commercially available
audiotapes or videotapes, URLs, atlases, biographies, children’s books);
82 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
and creative examples of ways to use the product across curricular areas
and for specific problem-solving and knowledge-building activities.
Providing field-tested time estimates for carrying out common tasks can
provide support by helping teachers plan for and cope with the tight time
constraints that are an inherent part of classroom life.
Educator guides can also help teachers envisage themselves less as
“content experts ,” “explainers” and “initiators” (the educator as “sage on
the stage”) and more as co-creators (Squires & McDougall, 1994) who
encourage learners through argumentation; debate; provocative, openended,
and critical questioning; collaborative use of concept-mapping
tools; demonstrations of effective search strategies; tolerance of effective,
yet partial solutions to complex problems, and the like (the educator as
life-long learner and “guide-on-the-side”). A product could also support a
web site to provide learner- and classroom-tested ideas and supportive
materials to educators. The web site for Inspiration (a concept-mapping
tool), for example, includes many examples of success stories and actual
project outcomes from learners and educators who have used the product.
In a similar vein, partnerships or strategic alliances, along the lines of
Canada’s long established SchoolNet initiative, the more recent TACT
initiative (TeleApprentissage Communautaire et Transformatif/
Technology for Advanced Collaborative Teaching), or the recently
launched American initiative MarcoPolo (Woodall, 1998) could provide
ongoing support to educators using a range of multimedia materials.
In terms of learner-learner dynamics, educator guides can also offer
suggestions about how the product might be used individually or
independently by learners, by learners working in dyads or small groups,
and as large-group teaching and learning tools. Even simple suggestions
adopted from popular co-operative learning approaches such as “one-twothree,
then ask me” (where students are asked to seek three other sources
of help before turning to the teacher) fosters independent and co-operative
problem solving and also recognizes the leadership potential of other
learners, many of whom may have greater experience within multimedia
environments than their teachers. In a similar vein, simply pointing out
the advantages of “managing by walking around” can help educators
monitor progress, encourage co-operative problem-solving, spot emergent
problems, and discourage indiscriminate “channel hopping” across
programs (Ragsdale, 1997).
Available technology also makes possible secure performance
assessment functions for use by teachers. For example, pre-tests and
special recorded exercises can help them customize a product according to
the special needs of an individual learner or group of learners and can help
identify specific areas where additional support is required. At the same
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 83
time, teachers need to be able to override these diagnostics if they so
choose. Also, record-keeping components such as journals, concept maps,
portfolios, or placement tests need to be easy to set up and operate, and
need to be able to accept any number of learners or groups of learners.
Finally, products that chart learner progress and then develop meaningful
reports for learners, the instructor, and parents can provide an ongoing and
long-term perspective on learner progress (Prokopanko, 1998).
Conclusion
The 10 principles presented above offer exciting challenges and
possibilities for those embarking on a multimedia initiative that aims to
incorporate pedagogical value. It is doubtful, however, that those
challenges and possibilities can be realized without the ongoing
participation of a range of experts and stakeholders. Increasingly, the use
of interdisciplinary design teams (Druin & Solomon, 1996) and formative
evaluation and responsive design processes are considered essential for
ensuring quality product development. When team membership includes
representation from content and discipline experts, teachers and other
educational practitioners, educational scholars, and learners themselves, as
well as from instructional and technical design experts, the possibility of
producing a multimedia product which ensures optimum learning is
enhanced. For example, content experts can help assure meaningful,
accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date content; educational scholars can
help assure pedagogically sound and socially responsible strategies for
working with the content; teachers and other practitioners can help assure
user receptivity as well as sensitivity to classroom constraints; learners can
help developers see strengths and weaknesses “through the eyes” of those
who interact most with the product; and instructional and technical design
experts can help teams make technologically realistic choices and also
assure that the product rests on sound design principles,
The principles that have been developed within this paper are intended
to serve as guidelines for generalists in their role as overseers of,
participants within, and consultants for multimedia product development
teams. Of course, it should be kept in mind that there is no such thing as a
“perfect” product; any given initiative will have pedagogical limitations.
Depending on a range of factors (for example, financial and human
resources, agreed-upon purpose and scope of the project), some initiatives
may build in pedagogical quality through more extensive attention to some
principles more so than to others. That said, our research leads us to
believe that all of the principles need to be considered during product
84 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
development, Even the most basic designs and simplest products can be
enriched in a pedagogical sense through thoughtful and judicious choices.
References
American Psychological Association. (1997, November). Learner-centered
psychological principles: A framework for school redesign and reform.
[Online]. Available HTTP: http://www.apa.orgl/ed/lcp.html.
Bigelow, B. (1996). On the road to cultural bias. Media corner. Social
Studies & the Young Learner, 8 (3), 26-29.
Binns, J. C., &Branch, R. C. (1995). Gender stereotyped computer clipart
images as an implicit influence in instructional message design.
Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association.
Tempe, Arizona.
Buck, M. (1995). The impact of electronic visualization: Concerns and
delimitations. Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy
Association. Tempe, Arizona.
Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D.J., & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects
of age, gender and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational
Research, 39 (2), 123-133.
Cousineau, D. (1998). Personal communication.
Crawford, T. (1998). Digital divide. The Toronto Star. March 28, Ll, L2.
Druin, A., & Solomon, C. (1996). Designing multimedia environments for
children: Computers, creativity, and kids. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Dyrli, O.E., & Kinnaman, D.E. (1995). Part 4: Moving ahead
educationally with multimedia. What every teacher needs to know
about technology series. Technology and Learning, 15 (7), 46-51.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences (2nd ed.). London: Fontana.
Goodnow, C. (1998). Are girls losing the battle of the bits? The Globe and
Mail, February 14, C10.
Gregoire, R., Bracewell, R., & Laferriere, T. (1996, August 1). The
contribution of new technologies to learning and teaching in
elementary and secondary schools. [Online]. Available HTTP:
http:Nwww.fse.ulaval.ca/fac/tact/fr/html/impactnt.html.
Haugland, S. W. &Wright, J. L. (1997). Young children and technology:
A world of discovery. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hodes, C. L. (1995-96). Gender representations in mathematics software.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 24 (1), 67-73.
FOSTERING PEDAGOGICAL SOUNDNESS 85
Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman, B.J. (1993). Constructivism and
the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities
for learning. In T.M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.),
Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 87-108).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Jacobson, M.J., & Spiro, R.J. (1994). A framework for the contextual
analysis of technology-based learning environments. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 5(2), 3-32.
Jacques, R., Preece, J., & Carey, T. (1995). Engagement as a design
concept for multimedia. Canadian Journal of Educational
Communication, 24(l), 49-59.
Jacso, P. (1996). State-of-the-art multimedia in 1996: The big four general
encyclopedias. Computers in Libraries, 16(4), 26-32.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: So we need a
new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research &
Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Larsen, S. (1995). What is “Quality” in the use of technology for children
with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 118.
130.
Manitoba Education and Training. (1998). Integrating curriculum and
multimedia. [Online]. Available HTTP:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/metks4/tech/currtech/cmi/integrate.html.
McFarland, R.D. (1995). Ten design points for the human interface to
instructional multimedia. T.H.E. Journal, 22(7), 67-69.
Morgan, W. (1995). Safe harbours or open seas: English classrooms in an
age of electronic text. English in Australia, April, 9-16.
Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (1996).
Programming for individual needs: Using technology to enhance
students’ differing abilities. [Online]. Available HTTP:
http://www.stemnet.nf.ca/distech/index.html.
Nichols, R. G. & Allen-Brown, V. (1996). Critical theory and educational
technology. In D. H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology: A Project of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. New
York: Simon & Shuster MacMillan,
Nova Scotia Department of Education and Culture. (1998). Personal
communication from G. Gorveatt.
Prickett, E.M., Higgins, K., & Boone, R. (1994). Technology for
learning...not learning about technology. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 26(4), 56-60.
Prokopanko, C. (1998). Personal communication.
8 6 AHOLA-SIDAWAY AND McKINNON
Ragsdale, R. G. (1997). Surprised by technology: Unanticipated outcomes
of technology implementation. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 405 860).
Rieber, L.P. (1994). Computers, graphics, and learning. Madison, WI:
Brown & Benchmar.
Saskatchewan Education. (1997). The Grassroots Program. [Online].
Available HTTP: http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/grassroots/
info.html#guidelines.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Engaging students in a knowledge
society. Educational Leadership, 54(3), 6-10.
Schroeder, E.E., & Kenny, R.F. (1995). Learning strategies for interactive
multimedia instruction: Applying linear and spatial notetaking.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24 (l), 27-47.
Shade, D.D. (1996). Software evaluation. Young Children, 51(6), 17-21.
Shuell, T. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D.
C. Berliner & R. Calfee (eds.) Handbook of educational psychology
(pp. 726-764). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Simonson, M. R. &Thompson, A. (1994). Educational computing
foundations. NY: MacMillan College Publishing Company.
Squires, D., &McDougall, A. (1994). Choosing and using educational
software: A teachers’ guide. London: Falmer.
Swan, K., & Meskill, C. (1997-98). Using hypermedia to enhance
response-based literature teaching and learning. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 26(2), 15 1-167.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thayer, E. (1998). Personal communication.
Wiburg, K. (1995). Becoming critical users of multimedia. The Computing
Teacher, 22(7), 59-61.
Woodall, M. (1998). MCI, others do a Web site for teachers. The
Philadelphia Inquirer, March 5, Fl, F2.
Yates, S.J. (1997). Gender, identity and CMC. Journal of ComputerAssisted
Learning, 13, 28 l-290.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Wade
Gilbert, Ph.D., Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication
1999, Vol. 27, No. 2, 87-103
Copyright 1999 by AMTEC
Theorizing Audioconferencing:
An Eclectic Paradigm
Lyn Henderson and Ian Putt
James Cook University
An eclectic paradigm of audioconferencing that incorporates the notion of
transactional distance in flexible learning and that caters for cultural
contextualization of learner, lecturer, and academic setting is developed in this
paper. This paradigm includes aspects of objectivist, constructivist, and critical
theory models of learning and teaching within a multiple cultural mode1 which
seeks to address the logic of the academic, the mainstream, and the minority
cultures. A case study based on this paradigm and involving Indigenous
Australian students and their lecturers is reported. Results indicated that the
students perceived audioconferences as a highly useful part of their learning,
that lecturers were generally able to incorporate the cultural context factors into
their subjects, and that students valued the experience of the academic culture
albeit at a distance. It seems highly likely that this paradigm is appropriate for
audioconferencing involving Indigenous students undertaking tertiary studies.
Cet article présente un paradigme éclectique de conférence audio qui
incorpore le concept de distance transactionnelle en apprentissage flexible et qui
satisfait à la contextualisation culturelle de l’apprenant, de l’enseignant et de
l’environnement académique. Ce paradigme includes aspacts des modèles
objectivistes, constructivistes et théorie critique de l’apprentissage ainsi que de
l’enseignement avec des modèles culturels multiples qui veulent addresser la
logique des cultures académiques, générales et minoritaires. Une étude de cas
fondée sur ce paradigme, impliquant des étudiants Indigènes Australiens ainsi
que leurs cours est décrite. Les résultats indiquent que les étudiants perçoivent
les conférences audio comme étant hautement utiles dans le processus de leurs
apprentissage, que les enseignants sont habituellement capables d’incorporer les
facteurs de contexte culturel dans leurs sujets d’étude et que les étudiants
apprécient l’expérience de la culture académique en dépit de la distance. Il
semble fort probable que ce paradigme soit approprié pour la conférence audio
implicant des étudiants Indigènes qui entreprènent des études poste secondaires.
In the early 1990s there was a small flurry of interest in
audioconferencing as an educational communications medium in the
distance education literature. Some papers presented case studies, for
instance, Burge and Howard (1990), Hiebert and Balshaw (1993), Lalande
87
88 HENDERSON AND PUTT
(1995), and one relevant to this paper by Schmidt, Sullivan and Hardy
(1994) because its context concerns academic and minority cultures.
Garrison (1990) presented a critical paper arguing that communication
between teacher and student as well as student and student are vital, and
that audioconferencing can “begin to approach the ideal educational
transaction” (p. 17). He coherently argues, that without interactive
cognitive transactions, the traditional distance education approach to
private isolated print-based learning is unlikely to ensure adequately that
the learner: (a) Challenges pre-existing values and ideas, (b) avoids
indoctrination through critical discussion of lecturer-presented
information, and (c) assimilates and validates knowledge gained.
Anderson and Garrison (1995) reported a study of how two
instructional design models of incorporating audioconferencing into a
distance education program impacted transactional issues in distance
education. The Community of Learners model held frequent
audioconferences, developed a virtual classroom milieu, and emphasized
developing, extracting and refining understandings while the Independent
Learning Support model held infrequent audioconferences that still
allowed students to have valued synchronous contact with the lecturer and
other students but for the purpose of troubleshooting and clarifying mostly
assignment issues. Not surprisingly, their study found that the learners in
the Community of Learners model perceived theirs to be a more critical
community of learners than did the Independent Learning Support model.
Drawing on earlier work in the area (Kirby & Boak, 1989; Stallings &
Kaskowitz, 1974), Cookson and Chang (1995) offered a new model, the
Multidimensional Audioconferencing Classification System (MACS),
intended to serve as a principled research approach to the identification,
analysis, and recording of audioconferencing instructional interactions.
None of the authors attempted to develop a theory of audioconferencing.
Since 1995, even a cursory look at the literature reveals that, as a
discrete topic, audioconferencing has been increasingly sidelined while the
newer learning-teaching, computer transactional communication
technologies, particularly the World Wide Web and E-mail, strut their
stuff. Yet, the undervalued low-tech audioconference remains a focal
element in world wide distance education, open learning, or flexible
learning, as it is often now designated.
This paper attempts a theory of audioconferencing in open learning.
Drawing on earlier work by Henderson (1996), we propose a flexible
eclectic paradigm that incorporates: (a) A theory of transactional distance
in open learning, (b) aspects of behaviorist, constructivist, and critical
theory approaches to teaching and learning, and sets both within (c) a
theory of multiple cultural, not multicultural, contextualization of
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 89
educational interactive communication. The paradigm draws on
Vygotsky’s socio-historical-cultural theory of learning, with emphasis on
his notion of the Zone of Proximal Development. The paper discusses a
case study of the theory in practice: audioconferencing in a cross cultural
program that delivers the same on-campus Bachelor of Education degree
in an off-campus mode to Australian Indigenous students in their home
communities.
An Eclectic Paradigm of Audioconferencing
Transactional Distance in Open Learning
In developing the eclectic theory of audioconferencing, key concepts
concerning educational transactional communication were drawn from
Moore’s (1980; 1983; 1989) seminal theory of distance education. Moore
(1980) defined his concept of “transactional distance” as a function of
“structure” and “dialogue”. Structure was seen as a measure of how
responsive an educational program was to learners’ individual needs while
dialogue was delineated as the extent to which the educator and learner
were able to respond to each other. Transactional distance, then, was
defined as a function of the variance in structure and dialogue as they
related to each other. From this perspective, “distance” in education is
determined by the level of structure and dialogue, not by geographic
proximity (Moore, 1983). Saba (1988) proposed a model to represent the
relationship between dialogue and structure and tested it (Saba & Shearer,
1994) to reveal that by varying the rate of these two variables, the educator
or learner could control the level of transactional distance in a purposeful
instructional setting, for instance, audioconferencing. Increasing the
lecturer’s control of the dialogue decreases learner interaction thus
encouraging learner passivity, increasing the rigidity of structure through
curtailing chances for student-raised concerns and, hence, widening the
level of transactional distance. By increasing learner control in
communication conferencing, dialogue increased and structure decreased,
as did the level of transactional distance. It could-be argued that decreased
transactional distance has close links with a constructivist pedagogy while
increased transactional distance has more affinity with objectivist
pedagogy. We contend that both increased and decreased transactional
distance in the structure and dialogue levels of audioconferences have a
role in an eclectic paradigm that caters for cultural contextualization of
learner, lecturer, and academic setting.
90 HENDERSON AND PUTT
Objectivist-Constructivist-Critical Theory Dimensions
This paper argues that open learning and the instructional design of
audioconference sessions are situated in what Reeves (1997) identifies as
the “eclectic-mixed methods-pragmatic paradigm.” He asserts that ” . . . it
is the one approach most capable of handling the complexity that is the
hallmark of contemporary society and technology” (Reeves, 1997). The
eclectic paradigm openly caters for a combination of certain components
found in objectivist and constructivist learning and teaching models and,
additionally, those from a critical theory paradigm.
Jonassen, Wilson, Wang, and Grabinger (1993, p.87) succinctly
describe the assumptions of objectivism: “Objectivist beliefs assume that
the world . . . is structured, and that its structure can be modeled for, and
acquired by, the learner . . . [M]eaning reflects reality which is external to
the understander.” The goal of educators is to interpret the real world, so
that learners can replicate these interpretations in their thinking. In
audioconferences, the learner is therefore situated in a rather passive role
as the recipient of the information transmitted through a linear sequence of
procedures (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996).
At the heart of constructivism is the notion that knowledge is
constructed and exists in the mind of the knower. Knowledge is
personally constructed within, as is maintained in Vygotskian theory, a
social context within a social community that accepts the assumptions
underlying that perspective (Cunningham, 1991). Thus, although reality
exists independent of the knower, what is known is individually and
collectively constructed from “our experiences, mental structures, and
beliefs . . . There is no single reality or any objective entity” (Jonassen,
1991, p.29). Instructional design of audioconference communication,
based on constructivist theory, aims to place learners in “mindful” learning
situations with built-in scaffolding support so that they can construct their
own interpretations of reality.
Described by Reeves (1997) as the “critical theory-neomarxistpostmodern-praxis
paradigm,” the critical theory paradigm is concerned
with issues of control, power, and epistemology as social constructions
and how these function to exclude various interests, including those of
students, particularly minority students. The neutrality of instructional
design and the lecturer is questioned, and, by so doing, seeks to expose the
hidden curriculum underlying the cultural, gender, and class assumptions
inherent in the design process of, and the designed artifact, the
audioconference (Henderson, 1 9 9 6 ) .
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 91
Multiple Cultural Paradigm
Any instructional design paradigm, including that of academic
audioconferences, is grounded in a cultural context. Far from having to
bring it into the matrix, cultural contextuality is always a variable. The
many dimensions of audioconferences are social constructs and have
meaning because of the selective academic traditions in which they are
situated. This is further refined when different ethnic/racial subjectivities,
ideologies, and pedagogies are considered. Multicultural education is the
most accepted model to incorporate society’s multiple realities. However,
it has generally been implemented within a narrow framework because it
adopts a reductionist approach that diminishes the issues to one of
inclusion of various elements of the minorities’ cultures, particularly
aspects that do not structurally impinge on those of the dominant group,
and sees this as rectifying educational injustices (Henderson, 1996). On
the other hand, a multiple cultural model strives for a coherent partnership
among three cultural logics: those of the academic, mainstream, and
student (or minority) cultures.
First, a multiple cultural model needs overtly to incorporate the
specific requirements of mainstream academic culture. These are
expressed through the content to be taught, types of assessment, written
and oral genres, research methodologies, and culturally-specific ways of
promoting cognitive development within an academic environment.
Second, as academic culture is embedded in an institutional culture that is
rooted in society’s dominant culture, aspects and values of these
differently scaled macro cultures, including systemic issues to do with
power, control, and disadvantage, need to be included in the instructional
design and delivery of audioconferences. Third, it is also necessary that
instructional design and delivery incorporate the students’ (or minority’s)
culture, knowledge, and preferred ways of thinking and doing in a manner
that goes beyond tokenism. In this way, the multiple cultural model does
not merely encourage, but stipulates, the integration of shared value
systems.
What we immediately think of when the word “culture” is mentioned
is ethnicity. So, a multiple cultural model relevant for the Inuit would
include tertiary academic culture, the culture of the institution embedded
in society’s wider economic and political culture, and the culture of the
Inuit. However, a multiple cultural model has validity for students of
various (sub)cultural backgrounds. For instance, a business multiple
cultural model would involve the corporate culture of the company, the
wider economic-political culture that includes global influences, and the
shop-floor culture of the factory worker; or a school multiple cultural
92 HENDERSON AND PUTT
model would incorporate the academic school culture, the school’s
institutional culture set within the culture of an educational system
anchored in society’s mainstream culture, and the popular youth culture of
the students.
Multiple (academic, mainstream, and minority) cultural contextuality
affects the dialogue-structure parameters of transactional distance as well
as the objectivist-constructivist-critical theory components in an eclectic
theory of audioconferencing
Vygotsky ‘s Theory of Learning
In Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development, knowledge acquisition
is essentially and inescapably a socio-political-cultural process. The
accumulated achievements (language, ways of thinking and doing, etc.) of
particular cultural groups mold the intellectual development of the
individual. For instance, for Australia’s two Indigenous student groups,
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, social activity within their
Indigenous cultures ensures cognitive development in culturally
appropriate ways. As university students, their thinking is simultaneously
mediated by the different accumulated achievements of Anglo-Australian
academic culture. Thus, thinking has its basis in social activity that
becomes internalized. It follows then that guided social interactions serve
a cognitive function which occurs in the Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD) which, simplistically, is the difference between what a learner can
do independently and what can be accomplished cognitively with guided
support from more knowledgeable others (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990).
According to Cole (1985, p. 155), the ZPD should be conceptualized as
“the structure of joint activity in any context where there are participants
who exercise differential responsibility by virtue of differential expertise.”
This, of course, is one of the ingredients of academic audioconferencing as
is directing the process of moving the learner from assisted performance to
greater self-assisted and self-regulatory competence. Audioconferencing
as a scaffolding tool within the ZPD and the lecturer or other students as
the more knowledgeable mediator fit comfortably within Vygotskian
theory.
Drawing on multiple theories, the eclectic paradigm allows
triangulation of complex phenomena in order to design and implement
more effective educational interactive communication in open learning.
Variability and flexibility are obvious instructional design features of
audioconferencing based on transactional distance in an eclectic paradigm
that aims to provide students with interactive learning experiences that
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 93
incorporate various ways of learning and teaching, reflect society’s
multiple cultural realities and, hence, promote equity of learning
outcomes. Transactional education communication is thereby centered
such that the instructional design and delivery of audioconferences
positions student groups and individuals in their ZPD, not as objects but as
subjects, that is, as active participants who are given and take
responsibility as receivers, agents, transmitters, and actors in the cultural
contextualized learning paradigm.
A Case Study of an Eclectic Theory of Audioconferencing
The Context
The paper highlights relevant aspects of transactional
audioconferencing in a specific open learning Bachelor of Education
program, the Remote Area Teacher Education Program (RATEP). The
program is offered by James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland,
Australia (Figure l), to non-urban Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders,
Australia’s two Indigenous groups, all of whom have English-as-a-secondor-third
language.
Students through RATEP are awarded one year’s credit towards the
four year Bachelor of Education degree or a two year Diploma in
Teaching from the Far Northern Institute of Technical and Further
Education, Cairns, Australia. Currently, there are 43 university students
enrolled through RATEP across the three years of the degree program.
The RATEP program offers the same on-campus degree to fifteen to
thirty Indigenous students in any year’s intake, but utilizes interactive
multimedia computer courseware, audioconferencing, facsimile, electronic
mail, print materials, and an on-site tutor at each site. The location of each
RATEP center is usually at the local school in small remote Indigenous
communities with populations ranging from 300 to 1500 people, few of
whom are transitory non-Indigenous people (see Figure 1). A typical
center consists of one classroom which houses the audioconference phone
and conference table, a power-Macintosh computer per four students, a
modem, a printer, a facsimile machine, a photocopier, video equipment, as
well as the students’ and tutor’s study desks. The tutors are trained
teachers who are employed at each site to assist the students in all aspects
of their studies. RATEP lecturers are those who teach the same courses
with the same types of assessment in the on-campus Bachelor of
Education.
94 HENDERSON AND PUTT
Most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university level affirmative
action education programs in the past have been typified by high
withdrawal and failure rates. RATEP has consistently achieved an
unprecedented graduation rate averaging 85% in its eight years of
operation, arguably better than any other similar national or international
program (York, 1997). RATEP mode students graduate as fully qualified
teachers, with the same degree as on-campus students, certified to teach
anywhere throughout Australia. Since 1992, RATEP has graduated 57
qualified Indigenous teachers, one with honors; four have become
elementary school Principals. This number comprises over twenty-five
percent of Queensland’s Indigenous teachers.
Figure 1. RATEP sites.
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 95
The case study draws on relevant research (Lang, 1993; Macindoe &
Henderson, 1991; Henderson & Putt, 1993; Putt & Henderson, 1997;
York, 1997) involving 93 students who enrolled in undergraduate teacher
education through RATEP at James Cook University between 1990 and
1997; there was no intake in 1991. (The figure, 93, includes two intakes
of students who have not graduated and are, therefore, not part of the 83%
graduation rate calculation,)
Audioconferencing in RATEP
RATEP adopts an eclectic paradigm (Henderson, 1996) but those
involved continue to refine audioconferencing as an educational tool (Putt
& Henderson, 1997). RATEP’s intensive audioconference schedule is an
integral part of coursework in all but three courses, with audioconferences
occurring usually weekly, sometimes fortnightly, for 30 to 60 minutes
duration with approximately 10 students from different sites per
teleconference.
In terms of transactional distance, nearly all the audioconferences in
the Bachelor of Education courses through RATEP nurture Anderson’s
and Garrison’s (1995) Community of Learners model, with high
interactive communication and “low structure”, the latter being defined in
Moore’s (1980) terms as the high ability of the lecturers’ to meet the needs
of the students. Thus, audioconferences are mainly used as either tutorials
to previous e-mailed agendas, student-led seminars, problem-solving
discussions, or other group activities commonly undertaken in face-to-face
sessions on campus. They also allow for guest speaker input. One course
may combine a number of these strategies over the 15-week semester.
This would imply that the design and conduct of such audioconferences
would comfortably fulfil1 relevant requirements within Vygotsky’s
learning theory and the students’ ZPDs, the multiple cultural model, and
the overall eclectic paradigm. That is so, but it would be incorrect to
assume only a constructivist pedagogy. Rather, there is a deliberate
inclusion of instructivist (behaviorist) and constructivist strategies; in
doing so, we argue that this ensures that the audioconference has a
decidedly low structure as it definitely meets the needs of the students.
Students are adamant that they need to be engaged in the
audioconference (Putt & Henderson, 1997). For them, “engagement” is
not, initially at least, mainly a matter of interactive discussion. Rather,
engagement consistently means involvement in preparation for the
audioconference by taking responsibility for designated participatory
roles. This has many elements of teacher-directed instructivist pedagogy.
96 HENDERSON AND PUTT
It parallels certain Indigenous current-traditional ways of doing. (The
term, “current-traditional,” has been coined to emphasize the fact that
cultural ways of learning are not static.) Small groups and individuals are
given responsibility for tasks, such as orchestrating the dancing or
corroboree, preparing the vegetables, digging the pit for the cup-murri,
and so on for special cultural events. The students appreciate this
approach to their academic learning, which is seen as having parallel
seriousness. Hence, in a study by Putt and Henderson (1997), students
awarded the lowest rank to audioconferences without prior agendas. For
students, “there’s nothing more tedious/boring [sic] than ad lib
audioconferences. A well prepared audioconference is the only way.”
The highest ranking was given to present problems and questions,
particularly those that designated the students at each RATEP center to be
especially responsible for clarifying and promoting discussion about their
specified problems and questions (a) collectively and (b) increasingly
individually as students became more comfortable in the audioconference
academic milieu. Student-led seminars were also seen as empowering by
the students. As each took turns at being joint seminar leader, they were
perceived as the “experts” on the topic, and were given and took
ownership of the learning activity as they allocated tasks to their peers at
other sites.
The granting of ownership responsibility also connected with their
current-traditional ways of perceiving credibility. This meant that
unstructured discussion with other students was ranked fairly low by
students as a preferred way of conducting audioconferences (Henderson &
Putt, 1997). Students explained that they feel that working with peers is
initially “distracting . . . [We] don’t have the patience to listen to someone
who doesn’t know” (Henderson & Putt, 1993, p. 229). In currenttraditional
learning, the learner approaches the person who possesses the
relevant knowledge and who will give precise information devoid of
extraneous or doubtful content. This explains why structured
audioconferences with lecturers and student-led seminars were given high
ranking in students’ perceptions of the contribution to their understanding.
Researchers -- Burge and Howard (1990) who conducted a Canadian
national survey of tertiary distance education students and Schmidt,
Sullivan, and Hardy (1994) who taught algebra to migrant students via
audioconferencing -- found that the students perceived they were not
adversely affected by the absence of visual cues in audioconferencing.
Our research (Henderson & Putt, 1993; Putt & Henderson, 1997; also see
Lang, 1993; York, 1997) supports this. Indeed, although it is often argued
in the literature that Indigenous people’s preference is for face-to-face
teaching or its equivalent, videoconferencing, we maintain that
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 97
audioconferencing is cognizant of Indigenous preferred ways of learning
as well as those promoted in academic contexts. For example, the
audioconference seminar combines Indigenous oral teaching and learning
strengths with the language, analysis, and questioning requirements of
academic education genre. Students comment that audioconferencing
allows them to manipulate the cultural context too. For instance, the
lecturer’s and other community site students’ nonverbals that would be
perceived as negative, particularly the latter’s teasing nonverbals, cannot
be seen and therefore cannot damage the speaker’s self esteem. In order to
help prevent shaming themselves in public, students also turn off the
microphone to allow private discussion between those at one site before
giving an answer. This quickly diminishes, as the students become
familiar with the lecturer.
Instructional designers need to be aware of possible mismatches
between the academic and minority cultures and implement strategies that
do not blame and disadvantage the student. For instance, questioning and
justifying the validity of statements and analysis are endemic to academic
discourse but are generally unacceptable in Australian Indigenous currenttraditional
ways of learning and teaching. Other Western teaching
strategies are also at loggerheads with certain current-traditional
Indigenous pedagogy: any child or adult has the right not to demonstrate
their mastery when asked but has the responsibility to do so at a selfselected
time when they feel that they have mastered the task. Thus in one
scenario, evaluation of Indigenous students who are having difficulty with
justification questions or do not answer questions when called upon, can
categorize the learners as deficient and remedial and, consequently, the
lecturer could design audioconferences that are consistently lecturerdominated
and totally objectivist. In another scenario based within a
multiple cultural academic context, it is understood that Indigenous
acceptance of the rationale for questioning and interrogating the knower
(the White lecturer and other students) and providing evidence based on
objective research (rather than tradition and the authority of the elders)
will need a cognitive apprenticeship approach (Henderson, Patching, &
Putt, 1994a, 1994b).
Hence, constructivist scaffolding support within the students’ ZPDs
has been embedded in the audioconference. For instance, to assist
students to articulate their thinking in academic genres, most lecturers
include metacognitive activities as well as taking on the challenge to
model this type of reasoning. Lecturers coach and model questioning
techniques by, for instance, asking one student a question, redirecting their
answer for another student to amplify, and redirecting once more for
another to critique the answers. Research (Henderson, Patching, & Putt,
98 HENDERSON AND PUTT
1994a, 1994b; Putt & Henderson, 1997) has shown that students studying
through RATEP have developed an enthusiasm for replication of cognitive
activities appropriate to a particular socio-cultural learning environment.
One factor that helps promote this acceptance is that students perceive
” . . . lecturers learn from the students about traditional matters and cultural
protocol” (Van Tiggelen, 1996). Students thereby share the multiple
cultural process of teaching and learning. Audioconferences become a
two-way exchange empowering the student and the lecturer.
The RATEP experience allows lecturers to rethink their pedagogy to
cater for academic requirements, the students, and the new, at least to
them, delivery techniques: “This RATEP alternative technology has gotten
me to think much more explicitly about my own pedagogical processes to
translate the knowledge in my course” (cited in Lang, 1993, p. 86). Such
experiences continue to have a flow through effect. Many lecturers admit
to refining their skills as face-to-face teachers. By having to redesign their
subjects to take account of audioconferencing and the other delivery
modes, lecturers have improved the structure of on-campus versions of
their RATEP subjects and other subjects they teach.
Of course, not all academics are committed to the eclectic paradigm.
Three out of the 26 lecturers maintain an objectivist Independent Learners
Support model (Anderson & Garrison, 1995) for the duration of their
course, holding infrequent lecturer-dominated audioconferences that have
a high transactional distance structure with little dialogue (Saba &
Shearer, 1994). Their purpose is mainly to give explanations of the
assessment and answer consequent student queries. The lecturers hold a
model of the distance learner as isolated from, and independent of, the
lecturer, and take little account of the students’ cultural ways of learning
and doing or, for that matter, academic learning and teaching styles that
tap constructivist pedagogies within the student’s ZPD. Students
acknowledge the value of the information presented in such
audioconferences but constantly query a pedagogy and commitment that
they perceive as “short-changing” them (Henderson & Putt, 1997).
The critical theory parameter of the eclectic paradigm is presented
most easily through the content of the courses, for example, in
“Contemporary Australian Society” and “Curriculum: Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Issues”. Students are also quick to critique the
conduct of audioconferences, initially, as condoned in current-traditional
practices, with the tutors as a go-between to broker for them. As they
continue their studies, they adopt greater direct negotiation with the
lecturers. As well, students engage in lobbying when the institutional
economic rationalists decide on cost-cutting measures that threaten the
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 99
continuance of the Community of Learners model of audioconferencing in
RATEP.
Another critical theory strategy is deconstructing the audioconference.
Unfortunately, few too lecturers pose the following sorts of questions:
What effect on meaning has the structure of the content and conduct of the
audioconference? What aspects of institutional and societal political and
economic reality and whose knowledge has the audioconference
amplified, simplified, reduced, or ignored? Are multiple perspectives
presented? Is each perspective as valid as the other is? What values are
embedded in the audioconference? In what ways have you, the students,
appropriated the audioconference to suit your learning style? From many
of the examples given in this paper, it is clear that the students have been
cognizant of how they - and some of the lecturers - have considered and
reflected on at least some of these questions. By asking students such
questions, lecturers are providing students with analytic tools to
deconstruct the audioconference “text” and its conduct, and self-question
the way in which they, as students, use audioconferencing as a learning
and reflective tool.
Audioconferences are given firm approval by RATEP students who
consistently list them among the two most satisfying aspects of their
program; the interactive multimedia computer courseware is given top
billing by most students (Macindoe & Henderson, 1991; Lang, 1993; Putt
& Henderson, 1997; York, 1997). Audioconferencing will not disappear.
It provides regular experiences that cannot be obtained, currently, as
effectively via e-mail, the WWW, or desktop camera systems: for
instance, synchronous verbal contact with lecturers and other students;
hearing the lecturer, a native English speaker’s intonation and pausing
pattern, particularly when using academic genres; and becoming
comfortable and versatile with the Western tradition of posing and
answering questions, particularly “why” questions and those calling for
justification in a verbal synchronous situation as will be required of them
as professional teachers; and taking and giving public critique of their
interpretations and understandings as well as those of other students and
their lecturers.
Conclusion
It is apparent from this case study that the eclectic paradigm of
audioconferencing has been successful in the design and delivery of
meaningful learning experiences to Indigenous Australian students
studying through the off-campus RATEP mode. The paradigm has
100 HENDERSON AND PUTT
allowed seemingly disparate cultural and pedagogical elements to be
brought together coherently and cogently through audioconferencing.
While the lecturers did not always find it easy to move outside their
traditional pedagogical parameters in developing their subjects for optimal
learning, an understanding of, and commitment to, the multiple cultural
model was evident. Taking account of the students’ culture in the design
and delivery of audioconferencing flags to the students that their
knowledge and ways of thinking and doing are legitimate and relevant in
contemporary tertiary education. Students appreciate that their currenttraditional
pedagogies are being incorporated in the conduct of their
audioconferences, and have demonstrated that these can then be used as
places from which to branch into mastering academic genres and valuing
and implementing other pedagogic and philosophical approaches to
learning and teaching.
Both lecturers and students were empowered as they shared the cross
cultural process of teaching and learning. Students now have high
expectations of lecturers and are vocal critics of unsatisfactory
audioconferences. The challenge for lecturers in RATEP is to continue to
develop their skills at designing and implementing different types of
audioconferences for different learning purposes and not to see
deconstruction of the audioconference as controversial. The goal is to
implement, during audioconferencing in any one subject and over the
duration of the semester, examples of objectivist, constructivist, and
critical theory pedagogical approaches as well as those that affirm
Indigenous, and promote Western academic, ways of learning and
teaching.
References
Anderson, T. and Garrison, D. (1995). Transactional issues in distance
education: The impact of design in audioteleconferencing. American
Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 27-45.
Burge, E., & Howard, J. (1990). Audioconferencing in graduate education:
a national survey. American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2),
3-13.
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and
cognition create each other. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture,
communication, and cognition: Vygotskianperspectives (pp. 146-161).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 101
Cookson, P., & Chang, Y. (1995). The multidimensional
audioconferencing classification system (MACS). American Journal
of Distance Education, 9(3), 18-36.
Cunningham, D. (1991). In defense of extremism. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 26-27.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching,
schooling, and literate discourse. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and
education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175-205). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Garrison, D. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing
to facilitate education at a distance. American Journal of Distance
Education, 4(3), 13-24.
Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A
cultural critique. ETR&D, 44(4), 85-104.
Henderson, L., Patching, W., & Putt, I. (1994a). Concept mapping,
interactive multimedia, and cultural context. In T. Ottman & I. Tomek
(Eds.), Interactive multimedia and-hypermedia, 1994 (pp. 269-274).
Charlottesville: Association of the Advancement of Computers in
Education.
Henderson, L., Patching, W., & Putt, I. (1994b). The impact of
metacognitive interactive strategies and prompts embedded in
interactive multimedia in a cross-cultural context: An exploratory
investigation, In Queensland Open Learning Network (Eds.) Open
Learning ‘94: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Open Learning (pp. 181-186). Brisbane: Queensland Open Learning
Network and The University of Queensland.
Henderson, L., & Putt, I. (1993). The Remote Area Teacher Education
Program (RATEP): Cultural contextualization of distance education
through interactive multimedia. Distance Education, 14 (2), 213-231.
Hiebert, B., & Balshaw, B. (1993). Teleconferencing: A viable stress
management delivery mode. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 27(2):
93-103.
Jonassen, D. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational
Technology, 31(9), 28-33.
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using
computers as cognitive tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (Chapter 24).
New York: Scholastic Press in collaboration with the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology.
102 HENDERSON AND PUTT
Jonassen, D., Wilson, B., Wang, S., & Grabinger, R. (1993).
Constructivist uses of expert systems to support learning. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 20(3), 86-94.
Kirby, D., & Boak, C. (1987). Developing a system for audioteleconferencing
analysis (SATA). Journal of Distance Education, 2,
3l-42.
Lalande, V. (1995). Student support via audio teleconferencing: Psychoeducational
workshops for post-bachelor nursing students. American
Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 62-73.
Lang, M. (1993). "... a different way, the RATEP way, the local way...":
The Impact of a Remote Area Teacher Education Program Upon Its
Students, Tutors and Lecturers. Townsville: James Cook University of
North Queensland.
Macindoe, M., and Henderson, L. (1991) Feedback to remote areas:
Technology, the influencing factor. Education Australia, 15, 12-16.
Moore, M. (1980). Independent study. In R. Boyd. and J. Apps. (Eds.),
Redefining the discipline of adult education (pp. 16-3 1). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M. (1983). The individual adult learner. In M. Tight (Ed.), Adult
learning and education (pp. 153-168). London: Croom Helm.
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. In M. Moore & G. Clark
(Eds.), Readings in principles of distance education (pp. 100-105).
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Putt, I & Henderson, L. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of
audioconferencing in the delivery of off-campus teacher education to
students in cross-cultural contexts. ICDE (Ed.), The new learning
environment: A global perspective 18th International Conference in
Distance Education [CD ROM], Penn State University, State College:
ICDE.
Reeves, T. C. (1997). Established and emerging evaluation paradigms for
instructional design. In C. Dills & A. Romiszowski, (Eds.),
Instructional development paradigms (pp. 163-178). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Saba, F. (1988). Integrated telecommunication systems and instructional
transaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(3), 17-24.
Saba, F., & Shearer, R. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a
dynamic model of distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 8(l), 36-59.
Schmidt, K., Sullivan, M., & Hardy, D. (1994). Teaching migrant students
algebra by audioconference. American Journal of Distance Education,
8(3), 5 l-63.
THEORIZING AUDIOCONFERENCING 103
Stallings, J., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom
observation education, 1972-3. (SRI Project 7370). Stanford, CA:
Stanford Research Institute.
Van Tiggelen, J. (1996, December 11). Students graduate against the
odds. Townsville Bulletin (p. 1).
York, F. (1997). Bachelor of Education Review: RATEP survey.
Townsville: James Cook University.
Authors
Lyn Henderson is Senior Lecturer with the School of Education, James
Cook University, Australia.
Ian Putt is Senior Lecturer with the School of Education, James Cook
University, Australia.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication
1999, Vol. 27, No. 2, 105-123
Copyright 1999 by AMTEC
Conducting Research on Visual Design and
Learning: Pitfalls and Promises
Heather Kanuka and Michael Szabo
University of Alberta
The study identifies gaps in research using instructional technology with
respect to the screen aspect of visual design. Theories of how learning takes
place in a visual space are briefly reviewed. Several similarities and differences
between views of designers of instruction and artists are identified. For
illustrative purposes, an empirical study is summarized which suggests subjects
who used a lesson created with good design principles require less study time,
have a higher completion rate and achieve the same as those use a lesson created
using poor design principles. Finally, a series of challenges to conducting
research on visual and screen design are presented.
Cette étude identifie les écarts en recherche sur la technologie éducative, en
fonction de l’écran que constituent les esquisses. On recense brièvement les
théories sur l’apprentissage spatio-visuel. On décrit plusieurs analogies et
plusieurs différences entre les opinions des créateurs de programmes de
formation et les opinions des artistes. Pour fins d’illustration, on résume une
étude empirique selon laquelle les sujets utilisant une leçon créée à l’aide bons
principes de présentation ont besoin de moins de temps d’étude et ont un taux de
réussite supérieur à ce qu’on observe chez les sujets utilisant un matériel dont
qui ne respecte pas les principes d’une bonne présentation. Enfin, l’article
expose divers défis que présente toute recherche sur des éléments visuels.
Introduction
The purposes of this paper are to (1) discuss the literature on visual
design, visual cognition, and the principles of visual design (2)
summarize the results of an experimental research study that was designed
to determine if screens that use the principles of visual design influence
the learning process, and (3) identify challenges encountered in
conducting research on screen design with respect to achievement
outcomes.
A review of the literature reveals that expert writers and designers of
computer-based instruction recognize that effective programs are those
that use both words and visuals to communicate and support the
105
106 KANUKA AND SZABO
organization of material (Benson, 1985). The design of effective
computer screens using both words and visuals, according to Heines
(1984), requires knowledge of “the special characteristics of computerdriven
screens, an artistic sense of layout and balance, creativity and
sensitivity to the characteristics of the people who will be viewing the
screens” (p. ix). Note that at one time, Heine’s license plate read “CBI IS
ART” (Heines, 1991). Faiola and DeBloois (1988) cite research that
shows that good screen design is a critical interface factor and conclude
that “thoughtful utilization of text and graphics has proven to be: (1)
Significant in aiding insight and understanding the relationship between
concepts, and (2) valuable in illustrating processes” (pp. 12-13). They
further claim that proper screen design can result in improved performance
through maintaining the interest of the learner, reduction of confusion, eye
strain, and fatigue that is often caused by poor screen design. Adams and
Hamm (1989) state that “studies confirm that the power and permanency
of what we learn is greater when visually based mental models are used in
conjunction with the printed word. Inferences drawn from visual models
can lead to more profound thinking” (p. 7). Yang and Moore (1996)
suggest that “to discover the meaning of abstract concepts, learners should
have basic and concrete knowledge first . . . Graphics provide more cues,
such as spatial and transitional relationships, to help learners decode and
remember the knowledge content” (p. 9). Considine and Haley (1992)
corroborate these statements; their studies show that “visualization often
facilitates comprehension of verbal or printed language” (p. 28). Research
by Teng-Mei Chao, Cennamo and Bruanlich (1996) show that graphics,
when combined with text, “exert a positive effect, encourage deep
processing, and improve fact retention. These findings are particularly
true for poor readers. Recall is generally enhanced when graphics depict
information central to the text, when they represent new important content,
or when they represent structural relationships mentioned in the text” (p.
41). Alesandrini (1987) found that the use of visuals in the learning
process increases the amount learned by adults; Pressley (1977) found this
to also be true in children. Soulier (1988) states that learners are more
likely to read text that is associated with a visual image and that the use of
visuals is one of the most important ways to attract and hold a learner’s
attention. Reiber and Kini (1991) confirm that computer graphics, when
designed appropriately, enhance learning in computer based instruction
They also cite research that claims that graphics can aid in the
visualization of spatial relationships between concepts and rules in shortterm
memory. In addition, according to Paivio and Caspo (1973) and
Pressley (1977), graphics can act as powerful mnemonics for remembering
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 107
verbal information and concrete concepts. Clearly, according to much of
the literature, effective screen design uses both words and visuals.
Problems with the Research Literature
As is indicated in the introduction, there are substantial amounts of
information in the literature on the topic of effective screen design which
make claims that learning is enhanced with the use of text and visuals (see
also Aspillaga, 1991; Baek and Layne, 1988; Duin, 1988; Gullingham,
1988; Livingston, 1991; Rubens and Krull, 1985; Steinberg, 1991).
However, a closer look at the literature on screen design reveals that many
authors cite and review previous authors’ works-rather than providing a
contribution to the literature with original research. Confounding this
problem is another problem: much of the original research cited has been
conducted on paper platform (not used on computer screens) and/or the
computer equipment used in the research is outdated. Research conducted
with computer screens prior to the 1990s may only marginally related and
should be generalized with much caution. The reason, according to
Misanchuk and Schwier (1995), is that technologies available today are
considerably better at displaying visuals than in the 1980s when most
computer monitors were either CGA or MGA with low pixel densities.
On this topic Misanchuk and Schwier suggest that currency does not
invalidate generalizations (or transferability), however, we need to
question whether investigations conducted on hardware made prior to the
90s should be used in today’s rapidly shifting technological world without
proper validation. Specifically, according to Misanchuk and Schwier, “the
rapid emergence and widespread dissemination of high resolution, manybits-deep
colour monitors throws into question generalizations derived
from studies conducted on relatively coarse-grained monitors capable of
displaying only six or eight colours” (p. 14). In addition, many of the
research articles do not even state the type of hardware used for their
research or the research cited.
Another problem area with determining the effectiveness of visuals in
the learning process, based on current literature, relates to the instructional
situation. Specifically, it is difficult to discuss research on screen designs
out of the context that it serves (Misanchuck and Schwier, 1995).
Specifically, what is effective screen design on a title page may be
ineffective for content dissemination, databases, or testing screens.
Moreover, much of the literature on this topic cites other research articles
that are not sufficiently similar in tasks. There is a general consensus that
“a high degree of similarity between a research task and real life is
108 KANUKA AND SZABO
essential. That fact seems to have been glossed over in some of the recent
research in screen design” (Misanchuk & Schwier, p. 17).
There is also some evidence in the research literature to indicate that
the mere presence of visuals does not automatically guarantee better
instruction (Steinberg, 1991): “Appropriately designed displays enhance
learning. Designed without an understanding of how people gain meaning
from them, displays can have no effect or can even interfere with
learning” (p. 144). A study by Ruthkosky, O’Neil and Dwyer (1996)
investigated the combination of an illustration with a verbal organizer; the
results of this study provide support for Steinberg’s claim. That is, the
results of their study indicated that adding a visual to a verbal organizer
“does not significantly increase the students’ achievement of different
educational objectives” (p. 38). Other studies indicate that not all visuals
are equally effective in all instructional environments. For example,
studies by Dwyer (1978) indicate that the effectiveness of visuals is
primarily dependent upon: (a) The amount of realistic detail contained in
the visualization used; (b) the method by which the visualized instruction
is presented to students (externally paced vs. self-paced); (c) student
characteristics, i.e., intelligence, prior knowledge in the content area,
reading and/or oral comprehension level, etc.; (d) the type or level of
educational objective to be achieved by the students; (e) the technique
used to focus student attention on the essential learning characteristics in
the visualized materials, e.g., cues such as questions, arrows, motion,
verbal/visual feedback, overt/covert responses, etc.; and (f) the type of test
format employed to assess student information acquisition, e.g., for certain
types of educational objectives visual tests have been found to provide
more valid assessments of the amount of information students acquire by
means of visualized instruction (pp. xiiv-xiv).
Kirrane (1992) provides a summary of the research in visual learning
that further supports some of these findings by Dwyer (1978). Studies
cited by Crane (1992) have found that some pictures and graphics may
be counterproductive for learning when they are excessively elaborate or
too realistic.
However, these studies are in direct conflict with what graphic
designer Tuft (1990) maintains are essential attributes resulting in
effective visuals for envisioning information. For example, it is Tuft’s
opinion that when designers need to clarify a visual design, they should
add detail. Specifically, Tuft states (in direct contradiction with Dwyer’s
research studies and the research cited by Kirrane):
What about confusing clutter? Information overload? Doesn’t data have to be
“boiled down” and “simplified”? These common questions miss the point, for
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 109
the quality of detail is an issue completely separate from difficulty of reading.
Clutter and confusion are failures of design, not attributes of design. Often the
less complex and less subtle the line, the more ambiguous and less interesting
the reading . . . . Confusion and clutter are failures of design, not attributes of
information. And so the point is to find design strategies that reveal detail and
complexity-rather than to fault the data for an excess of complication. Or,
worse, to fault viewers for a lack of understanding. (p. 50-53)
Although these claims by Tuft (1990) are not based on empirical
research, they are supported by many critics and philosophers of art and
design such as Lauer, (1979), Greenberg and Jordan, (199 1) and the
seminal writings of Ducasse, (1955) and Graves, (1941). When these art
and design critics evaluate visual images they do not look for and criticize
designs with too much detail. These experts in the field of art and design
look for the following principles of design: unity (harmony), focal point
(dominance, emphasis), balance, and colour. These principles of design
are achieved through the use of the following design elements (or tools)
that a designer uses to express creative ideas: line, shape (form), texture,
space, scale (proportion), and rhythm.
Could it be, then, that failure to use design principles are what make
some visuals less effective than others in the learning process? And not,
as Dwyer (1978) and others (Kirrane, 1992) claim: too much detail?
According to Tuft (1990), “Showing complexity is hard work. Detail
micro/macro designs are difficult to produce” (p. 50). Are the visual
designs created by the researchers in these studies done without design
strategies that resulted in a design failure-or what Tuft (1990) refers to as
confusion and clutter? Was there harmony between the text and line that
requires “sensitive appraisals of prolific interaction effects”? (Tuft, p. 62).
In addition, even a design with too much white space can result in visual
clutter: “It is not how much empty space there is, but how it is used. It is
not how much information there is, but how effectively it is arranged”
(Tuft, p. 50). Perhaps research on the use of visuals in the learning
process needs to move toward focusing on how compositions are
arranged, rather than the examination of the amount of detail, learner
characteristics, and instructional environments. One empirical research
study was found that investigated the placement between text and visuals.
A study by Aspillaga (1991) investigated whether displaying text
information overlapping onto relevant parts of a graphic enhances
learning. The results showed that “learning was enhanced by the
availability of the whole picture, plus the label, which was not blocking
relevant aspects of the graphic” (Aspillaga, p. 91).
110 KANUKA AND SZABO
Visual Cognition
When trying to understand why visuals might enhance the learning
process, a review of the literature on perception and memory provides
insightful information. It has been claimed by Guilford (a research
psychologist in the late 1940s) that there is a three-dimensional cube of
intellectual abilities that can be assessed and trained (Guilford in Peterson,
1996). Guilford’s factorial approach to intellectual abilities has the
following components: semantic, symbolic, and figural. The semantic
aspect includes word abilities, the symbolic dimension deals with the
ability to construct relationships, and the main component of this schema
is the figural dimension that primarily includes the visual abilities.
According to Peterson, while the semantic and symbolic languages are
used in learning, it is most often the figural that stimulate discovery and
facilitates communication of the information in the learning process.
Widely quoted statistics by Treichler (1967) that we generally remember
10% of what we read, 20% of what we hear, and 30% of what we see
supports Peterson’s claim.
Based on this information, we can assume that visual cognition is an
important element that facilitates the learning process and helps to explain
why we remember things better when visuals accompany words. Visual
cognition is the process of how we perceive and remember visual
information (Pinker in Rieber & Kini, 1991). As indicated, research has
confirmed that we seem to be exceptionally good visual learners
(Kobayashi, 1986) and that visuals may enhance the learning process
(Adams and Hamm, 1989; Alesandrini, 1987; Benson, 1985; Considine
and Haley, 1992; Dwyer, 1978; Duin, 1988; Soulier, 1988). There are
currently two major conflicting theories about how information is stored in
our memory: 1) propositions forms theory (Pylyshyn in Rieber and Kini,
1991) and 2) dual coding theory (Paivio, 1991). One of these theories
provides an explanation of why we remember information better when it is
presented with a visual image.
The propositions forms theory contends that information is stored in
our memory based on its meaning in complete and logical statements.
Specifically, Pylyshyn (in Rieber & Kini, 1991; see also Steinberg, 1991)
claims that visual images are stored in memory in terms of their meanings,
not as images. Specifically, according to this theory, when we process the
meaning of pictures, we are converting the visual images to a series of
statements in a manner somewhat analogous to how a computer converts
analog data to digital format. This theory has not been widely adopted as
it does not provide an explanation of why visual images enhance the
learning process.
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 111
The dual coding theory, on the other hand, argues that we perceive
and store words and visual images in two systems. One system is verbal
and the other is perceptual (Paivio, 1967). According to Bagui, (1998),
this theory contends that we process information from our environment
by the use of our senses (eyes, ears, taste, smell, hearing and touch). This
information is stored in our short-term memory and from here the
information is processed in working memory and finally stored in long
term memory. The information in our long-term memory becomes our
knowledge base. When we are able to retrieve information from this
knowledge base, we can assume that the information has been learned.
This theory argues that visual perceptions are not the same as verbal
perception, processing, storage, and retrieval. That is, the process of
selectively attending to and scanning a stimulus, interpreting important
details, and perceiving meaning is perception (Levie, 1987; and
Steinberg, 1991). The perceived stimulus is processed through one of
two channels. One channel processes verbal information and the other
processes images. According to the dual coding theory, learning is
enhanced when information is processed through both channels rather
than just one. This dual processing produces an additive effect because
there are more cognitive paths to retrieve the information (Paivio, 1967;
199 1). The information retrieval, then, is greater due to the availability of
two mental representations, rather than one. Specifically, when one
memory representation is absent, the other representation remains
accessible (Paivio and Caspo, 1973). Moreover, according to research
cited by Reiber and Kini (199l), when the information is intensely
imaginable, there is a greater likelihood of dual coding to occur.
Thus the dual coding theory provides us with an explanation of why
the use of visuals enhances the learning process: “when learning from
texts and pictures occurs, pictures can always be retrieved from both
memory systems” (Molitor, Ballstaedt and Mandl in Mandl and Levin,
1989, p. 7). Dual coding enhances memory in terms of allowing us to
absorb information from the environment using both the verbal and visual
processes and helps in reducing the cognitive load in our working memory
(Bagui, 1998). To test a prediction that information retrieval would be
enhanced if both processing channels are tapped simultaneously, Szabo,
DeMelo and Dwyer (1981) found that achievement scores were
significantly higher when testing included the same visuals that were used
during instruction. Research by Shih and Alessi (1996) also revealed that
pictures facilitated learning on both recall and retention.
However, research in artificial intelligence shows that knowledge is
stored in a unique memory system in a propositional format, irrespective
of whether it was decoded as linguistic or visual information (Molitor,
112 KANUKA AND SZABO
Ballstaedt and Mandl in Mandl and Levin, 1989). Specifically, according
to studies by Baggett and Ehrenfeucht (cited in Mandl and Levin, 1989),
that both verbal and visual cueing can be equally effective in recall
learning, indicating that cueing is not medium dependent, as the dual
coding theory proposes. This research is incongruent with the dual coding
theory which means that, although the dual coding theory provides us with
an explanation of why visuals enhance the learning process, it lacks strong
support from empirical research.
Design Principles
Noticeably absent in the contribution to the instructional technology
literature on screen design are the views and opinions by artists and art
critics. Generally, most artists and art critics would accede that design
principles (e.g., unity, focal point, balance and colour) and the elements of
design-which are the tools a designer uses to express creative ideas (line,
shape, form, texture, space, scale, proportion, and rhythm)-are necessary
to create a good visual design (Graves, 1941). According to the seminal
writings of Graves (194 1) design principles are the basics of any visual
design. Readers who wish more information on basic design principles
should consult Bates, 1960; Greenberg and Jordan, 199 1; Lauer, 1979;
Poore, 1967; Riddell, 1984; Szabo & Kanuka, 1999; and Taylor, 1981.
Upon closer examination of the goals of the graphic designer and those
of the instructional technologist, it becomes evident that both have much
in common. In addition to creating visually pleasing layouts, goals of the
graphic designers include (1) attracting and holding the viewer’s attention,
and, (2) communicating easily understood information that aims to have
the viewer remember the information. To achieve these goals, most
graphic designers use the principles of design. Is it possible for
instructional technologists to apply these design principles to achieve
similar goals? Do variations in visual design have an impact on learning
as measured by objective performance outcomes?
An Illustrative Research Study
In stark contract with the vast amounts of writing on visual design,
there is a paucity of research that directly addresses the effects of visual
design on the quantity or quality of learning or other measures of
performance in the classroom. To address this gap in the research, an
experimental study was conducted (Szabo & Kanuka, 1999) to test the
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 113
hypotheses that visual (screen) design affects learning, study time and
completion rate. Two versions of a computer-based, self-paced lesson on
how to write a term paper were developed. The only difference between
the versions was that one was designed according to accepted principles of
unity, focal point, and balance. In the second version, these principles
were deliberately violated. Each lesson could be completed in a single
setting. Figure 1, provides comparative illustrations of the principle of
balance across the two versions (good and bad design). The problems
with the above composition are easily fixed by simply rearranging the
objects. Control of unwanted error variance was attempted by (1) creating
the lessons in computer-based instruction format to enable self-paced
rather than group-paced learning, and (2) avoiding use of color (gray scale
was used). It was hypothesized that studying from a lesson with good
screen design would affect the recall of learning of the lesson content, rate
of completion and time to complete the lesson, when compared with a
lesson using poor screen design. The findings of the study, using 87
adults revealed equivalent recall achievement test scores across the two
treatments while the good design group’s completion rate was higher
(74% vs. 45%) and their time to complete the lesson was 21% lower than
the bad design group’s lesson.
Discussion
On the surface, the results of this study seem to reveal that following
good screen design principles appears not to influence recall learning one
way or the other. In addition, this study showed that poor use of design
principles increases instructional time and reduced completion rate, or
persistence. Screen design is a complex issue. Some questions that need
to be discussed to attempt to understand these complex issues include:
why would design principles not influence achievement? how do design
principles influence time on task and completions rates? why does a
pleasing design result in shorter time on task? how does poor visual design
lower completion rates? what role does motivation play? There are a
number of possible explanations that could be provided to explain these
results.
The most probable explanation is that the participants, who were
enrolled in a certificate program at a university, were already
knowledgeable on the subject of the lesson (how to do a term paper). This
prior knowledge likely nullified the differences in achievement scores.
Upon a review of the post test scores, there is further evidence to support
this explanation. The average for the good design lesson was 31 (out of a
114 KANUKA AND SZABO
This composition lacks balance because the pencil, circle and rectangle are
placed on the left part of the screen, leaving only the triangle shape on the
right. This composition also suffers from a lack of unity and an inappropriate
focal point where the dark tip of the pencil leads the viewer’s eye to the
narrow rectangle and out of the composition.
Figure 1. Example of poor versus good screen design.
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 115
possible 36) and the average for the poor design lesson was 29 (out of a
possible 36). Conducting a pretest may have revealed that the sample had
considerable prior knowledge on the topic; unfortunately, the absence of
pre-treatment data makes it impossible to account for any initial group
differences that may have been present. As a result, the researchers cannot
conclude whether the differential mortality that occurred in the study on
any of the dependent variables was due to a sampling error or to the
treatment. As mentioned, a pretest was not conducted to avoid pretest
sensitization. However, further research might shed light on this issue if a
study was conducted using pre-treatment data such as general grade point
averages or the results of previous writing assignments, This would give
the researchers the ability to assess and account for group differences and
prior knowledge without introducing pretest sensitization. In addition,
further research should analyze the actual performance of writing a term
paper of the participants, rather than a posttest, to determine the influence
of design principles on achievement. Specifically, submission of a term
paper and a description of the process followed to achieve it might be a
more appropriate measure of achievement than recall learning.
Several questions also arise when reviewing the data that showed poor
screen design results in increased instructional time and reduced
persistence. An important question to ask here is: why would a pleasing
design not result in longer time on task? Would learners not enjoy
lingering in the aesthetically pleasing environment? Or does a pleasing
design result in a shorter time on task because learners can move swiftly
through the instruction when they are not obstructed by poor design?
There are several plausible answers to these questions, Screen designs
may vary in terms of complexity, which is in part of function of the
learner’s prior knowledge. Hegarty, Carpenter and Just (1991) concluded
that learners execute more visual inspections when reading from
illustrated text when the diagrams become more complex. Furthermore,
coherent visuals increase the speed of detection of an object within a
visual (Biederman, Glass and Stacy, 1973). If poor screen design
increases the perception of complexity or incoherence, increased
inspection time might be lead to longer overall study time without a
concomitant gain in achievement.
Does quality affect task persistence, which is often used as an indicator
of motivation to learn? Instructors are familiar with negative student
reactions to spelling and typographical errors in the written materials.
This may raise the question, if the writers can’t get the spelling right, can
the content be accurate; can the materials be of sufficient quality that they
bear attention? A parallel in the airline industry is that if passengers see
dirty coffee trays, they may question if the mechanics are also sloppy
116 KANUKA AND SZABO
about maintenance and safety. If it is perceived that content or quality is
suspect, the motivation to continue with the high level of effort may be
diminished.
Students of science have learned to read science texts and attend to the
visuals slowly and in depth. They experience a shift when reading texts
from the humanities (and vice versa). One might say switching from
science to humanities texts (or vice versa) interrupts a pattern which has
become somewhat automatic, a topic studied by Shiffrin & Schneider
(1977). This is but one example of automating our learning control
processes for minimizing cognitive disruption, An example from the
psychomotor world is the all too often realization that while driving a car,
one suddenly realizes they have no recollection of the scenery just passed!
Suppose that students are used to well-designed instructional material
in which the basic design principles have been carefully followed.
Suddenly they encounter material that violates the design principles.
Their automatic processing is now interrupted, not unlike the result of the
driver on ‘automatic pilot’ who encounters traffic, a siren, or a stoplight.
Could it be that good design principles promote automaticity in learning
while poor design principles result in less automatic, less efficient
learning?
We can also ask if an interruption to automated processing might have
a measurable effect upon learning a topic that is new or unfamiliar to the
learner. Presumably more than one person in the Szabo & Kanuka (1999)
study has had experience in writing term papers, experience that overrode
any other differences in achievement scores.
The Szabo & Kanuka study was delimited to the use of a subset of
design principles; the instructional graphics served a representative
function. To gain greater confidence in the findings from this study, it is
necessary to replicate this study, with changes to correct for design and
execution concerns. General suggestions for further research to extend
our understanding include the following:
? Extending the study beyond recall achievement to include higher
levels of achievement. For example, this study could be extended beyond
recall achievement to include the ability to do a term paper (the quality of
performance) and/or to include the time required to do a term paper.
Effects on performance in writing a term paper might yield different
results.
? Using an achievement instrument that reflects the design criteria used
in the lessons.
? Extending the study to other learners who have limited term paper
writing experience.
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 117
? Conducting the study in a controlled environment, rather than having
participants complete the lessons on their own time.
? Replicating this study with a balanced number of genders in each
group to determine if gender is an influencing factor.
? Conducting interviews with the participants on how they interacted
with the material and how they saw the designs contributing to or
inhibiting their learning experience.
One area in particular that needs to be examined further is the
completion rates between participants using screen layouts with design
principles and those that do not. In the Szabo & Kanuka study, 74% of the
students completed the lesson using good design whereas only 45%
completed the lesson using the poor design. As dropout rate in self-paced
or distance education is a persistent problem, this is an area that should be
explored further.
Issues Surrounding Screen Design Research
In addition to the general issues and difficulties noted above, which
commonly arise in the course of research on learning, there are several
unique challenges to be considered in the area of screen design. We
present a sample of these for future research considerations.
Construct
Are screen design elements simply hypothetical constructs or is there
in fact some basis to suggest they may have an observable effect on
learning? Identification, classification and measurement in a reliable and
valid way raise numerous issues. A good parallel is the hypothetical
construct of intelligence and the numerous problems and issues
surrounding its assessment and interpretation. Studies using different
design principles and graphics with different functionality should be
conducted to shed more light on this area of instruction. Attempts should
be made to isolate and determine which, if any, of these design principles
have a greater influence on time and completion rates.
Numbers of Screen Design Principles
Do the three principles of screen design identified in the literature and
used in this study (unity, focal point and balance) comprise the complete
118 KANUKA AND SZABO
and definitive set of principles? If there are, and without apriori
theoretical guidance, the researcher may resort to simply evaluating them
all, individually and in combination, The logistics become more complex
if one allows the possibility of interactive effects; e.g., unity and balance
may have no effects individually but in combination may influence the
criteria chosen.
Theoretical Rationale
It is not clear what the various learning theories predict about how people
learn with visuals; the depth and detail of our understanding are not
sufficient to be prescriptive. There are myriad points of view or
references which may be consulted in approaching this, such as
behaviorism, information processing, constructivism, memory, perception,
motivation, (visual) learning styles and length and quality of exposure, to
name a few.
In the absence of a strong theoretical rationale, practical issues are
often substituted. For example, as with research on color in learning, it is
generally assumed that screen design has an effect, usually positive, on
learning. Further research has shown these common assumptions to be
questionable in the case of color and now for screen design.
Criteria
What outcomes can we expect to be sensitive to variations in screen
design, and why? We have a bewildering array of cognitive and
performance areas from which to choose. Furthermore, there is the issue
of accurate (reliable and valid) assessment of those outcomes.
Individual Differences
Are there individual differences among learners that interact
significantly with screen design elements to enhance or inhibit attainment
of the criteria? For example, are visual learners or those with extensive
training in graphic design more or less likely to be affected by variations
in the treatment? What is the basis for predicting or hypothesizing such
aptitude by treatment interactions as an exercise in designing research?
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 119
Sensitive Assessment Techniques
It can be argued that treatment effects may be lost when they are
ignored in the assessment techniques. For example, Szabo et al (1981)
showed that the same visuals, when incorporated into both the instruction
and the assessment process resulted in greater learning than when
assessment did not use the visuals. Similarly, one could argue that
assessment used in research should include the variables of interest, e.g.,
good or poor screen design for optimal sensitivity.
Function of Screen Design
Levin, (Anglin, Towers & Levie, 1996) identified five different
purposes or functionalities of instructional graphics in text learning;
decoration, representation, organization, interpretation and transformation.
Are the five functions of visuals identified by Levin real constructs which
can be operationalized and examined for effects upon various cognitive or
performance criteria of learning? Is there an interaction between these
functions and screen design principles with respect to learning outcomes?
Conclusions
that
The research study discussed in this paper is a first attempt to show
good screen design influences learning when delivered with computer
based instruction. It is the opinion of the researchers that understanding
the principles of design and visual cognition are important theoretical
foundations upon which the identification of appropriate design
considerations would be practiced for computer based instruction. This is
an important issue as more and more instructional materials are being
delivered in highly visual, self-paced, individually directed study
environments using computer-mediated communication and the World
Wide Web. This places screen design in a paramount role to maintain
interest and perseverance for the learners.
120 KANUKA AND SZABO
References
Adams, D. & Hamm, M. (1989). Media and 1iteracy: Learning in an
electronic age. Issues, ideas and teaching strategies. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Alesandrini, K. (1987). Computer graphics in learning and instruction. In
H. Houghton & D. Willows (Eds.), The Psychology of Illustration.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Anglin, G. J., Towers, R. L., & Levie, W. H. 1996. Visual message design
and learning: The role of static and dynamic illustrations. In D. H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology, New York: Simon and Schuster
McMillan.
Aspillaga, M. (1991). Screen design: Location of information and its
effects on learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 89-
92.
Baek, Y. K. & Layne, B. H. (1988). Colour, graphics, and animation in a
computer-assisted learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based
Instruction, 15(4), 131-135.
Bagui, S. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia.
Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7(3), 3-18.
Bates, K. F. (1960). Basic design: Principles andpractice. New York,
NY: The world Publishing Co.
Benson, P. J. (1985). Writing visually: Design considerations in technical
publications. Technical Communications, 32(4), 35-39.
Biederman, I., Glass, A. L. & Stacy, E. W. (1973). Searching for objects
in real world scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97, 22-27.
Borg, W. R. &Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction
Fifth Edition. New York, NY: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Considine, D. & Haley, G. (1992). Visual messages: Integrating imagery
into instruction. Englewood, IL: Teacher Ideas Press a Division of
Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Ducasse, C. J. (1955). Art, the critics, and you. New York, NY: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Duin, A. (1988). Computer-assisted instructional displays: Effects on
students’ computing behaviours, prewriting, and attitudes. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 48-56.
Dwyer, F. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. University
Park, PA: Learning Services.
Faiola, T. & DeBloois, M. L. (1988). Designing a visual factors-based
screen display interface: The new role of the graphic technologist.
Educational Technology, 28(11), 12-21
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 121
Graves, M. (1941). The art of color and design. New York, NY: McGrawHill
Book Company, Inc.
Greenberg, J. & Jordan, S. (1991). The painter’s eye: Learning to look at
contemporary American art. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
Gullingham, M. G. (1988). Text in computer-based instruction: What the
research says. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(l), 1-6.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., &Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the
comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal
& Pd D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research. (Vol. II, pp.
641-668). New York, NY: Longman.
Heines, J. (1984). Screen design strategies for computer-assisted
instruction. Bedford, MA: Digital Press,
Heines, J. (1991 November). Personal correspondence,
Kirrane, D. (1992). Visual learning. Training and Development.
September, 58-63.
Kobayashi, S. (1986). Theoretical issues concerning superiority of pictures
over words and sentences in memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63,
783-792.
Lauer, D. (1979). Design basics. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Levie, W. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In H.
Houghton & D. Willows (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. 2
instructional issues. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. R. (1987). On empirically
validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A.
Houghton (Eds.), The Psychology of Illustration: Vol. I. Basic
Research. (pp. 51-85). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Livingston, L. A. (1991). The effect of color on performance in an
instructional gaming environment. Journal of Research of Computing
in Education. 24(2), 246-253.
Mandl, H. & Levin, J. (1989). Knowledge acquisition from text and
pictures. New York: NY: Elsevier Science Publishing Company, Inc
Misanchuk, E. R. & Schwier, R. A. (1995). The mythology of colour in
multimedia screen design: Art, science and connoisseurship. Canadian
Journal of Educational Communication, 24(l), 3-26.
Paivio, A. (1967). Paired-associate learning and free recall of nouns as a
function of concreteness, specificity, imagery, and meaningfulness.
Psychological Reports, 20, 239-245.
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory. Retrospect and current status.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
Paivio, A. & Caspo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery
or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176-206.
122 KANUKA AND SZABO
Peterson, A. J. (1996). Multimedia science education, visual literacy and
the structure of intellect. http://www.inft.com/sfef/mm_vi.html.
Poore, H. R. (1967). Composition in art. London: The Oak Tree Press,
Ltd.
Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning: Putting the picture
in developmental perspective. Review of Educational Research, 47(4),
585-622.
Reiber, L. & Kini, A. (1991). Theoretical foundations of instructional
applications of computer-generated animated visuals. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 18(3), 83-88.
Riddell, B. (1984). Art in the making. Auckland, NZ: The Jacaranda Press
Rubens, P. & Krull, R. (1985). Application of research on document
design to online displays. Technical Communication, 32(4), 29-34.
Ruthkosky, K., O’Neil & Dwyer, F. N. (1996). The effect of adding
visualization and rehearsal strategies to advance organizers in
facilitating long term retention. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 1(23), 3l-42.
Scott, R. G. (195 1) Design fundamentals. Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc.
Shiffrin, R. M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attention
and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
Shih, Y. F., & Alessi, S. M. (1996). Effects of text versus voice on
learning in multimedia courseware. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, S(2), 203-218.
Soulier, J. (1988). The design and development of computer based
instruction. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Steinberg, E.R. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of
theory, practice, and technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Szabo, M., DeMelo, H. T. & Dwyer, F. M. (1981). Visual testing-visual
literacy’s second dimension. Educational Communication and
Technology: Journal of Theory, Research, and Development, 29(3),
177-187.
Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1999). Effects of violating screen design
principles of balance, unity and focus on recall learning, study time
and completion rates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 8 (1). 23-42.
Taylor, J.C. (1981). Learning to look: A handbook for the visual arts.
London, ON: The University of Chicago Press,
CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON VISUAL DESIGN AND LEARNING 123
Teng-Mei Chao, Cennamo, K. S. & Brauannlich, E. A. (1996). The effects
of graphics in computer-assisted instruction for teaching rules.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(l), 41-50.
Treichler, D. G. (1967). Are you missing the boat in training aid? Film
and A-V Communication, I, 14-16.
Tuft, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press
Yang, C-S. & Moore, D. M. (1996). Designing hypermedia systems for
instructors. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 1(23), 3-30.
Canadian Journal of Educational Communication
1999, Vol. 27, No. 2, 125-138
Copyright 1999 by AMTEC
Barriers to Online Teaching in Elementary,
Secondary, and Teacher Education
Zane L. Berge Susan E. Mrozowski
UMBC Johns Hopkins University
A review of the literature regarding the barriers to the use of educational
technology in primary and secondary education was done. An emphasis was
placed on the diffusion of computers in the schools, since the focus of this study
is to determine what should be expected as computer-mediated communication
(CMC) is used in schools to teach in online environments. A categorical
framework, similar to one used by the first author for analysis of barriers to the
use of CMC in higher education, was used (Berge, 1998). The nine categories
of barriers are: academic, fiscal, geographic, governance, labor-management,
legal, student support, technical, and cultural. The literature review of barriers
to the use of educational technology in K- 12 using this framework suggested the
primary areas of concern are academic, cultural, and technical. Secondary areas
of concern are labor-management and fiscal issues, with little or no mention of
geographic, governance, student support, or legal aspects of diffusion of
technology. TO test whether the use of CMC as one important area of
educational technology entering K- 12 teaching and learning, a recently
published four volume series of books titled, “Wired Together: ComputerMediated
Communication in K-12” was analyzed. Taken together, the seventytwo
(72) chapters in these four books, mostly case studies, represent a
considerable body of experience in online teaching and learning in K-12, preand
in-service teacher training. The content analysis was done 1) to determine
how many different barriers to online teaching were mentioned across all the
contributors, i.e., to indicate the range of the obstacles, and, 2) to determine how
often each particular category of barriers was mentioned, i.e., to indicate the
perceived severity of these issues. The results are quite consistent when
compared to the more general review of literature regarding educational
technology.
Une étude de la documentation sur les obstacles à l’utilisation des
technologies éducatives aux niveaux élémentaire et secondaire a été effectuée.
On a mis l’accent sur la diffusion des ordinateurs dans les écoles, puisque le but
de cette étude est de déterminer à quoi il faut s’attendre suite à l’usage de la
communication par ordinateur dans les environnements d’enseignement en
direct. On a utilisé un cadre catégorique analogue à celui qui a été utilisé par le
premier auteur pour l’analyse des obstacles à la communication par ordinateur
en éducation supérieur (Berge, 1998). Les neuf catégories d’obstacles sont les
suivantes : académique, fiscal, géographique, administratif, patronal-syndical,
juridique, aide aux étudiants, technique, culturel. Cette étude de la
125
126 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
documentation sur les obstacles à l’utilisation de la technologie éducative dans
l’enseignement primaire et secondaire indique que les principaux problèmes
sont d’ordre académique, culturel et technique. En deuxième lieu viennent les
problèmes patronaux-syndicaux et fiscaux. Il y a peu ou pas de problèmes
d’ordre géographique, administratif, aide aux étudiants, juridique quant à la
diffusion de la technologie. Pour vérifier si l’utilisation de la communication par
ordinateur constitue un volet important de la technologie éducative dans
l’enseignement et l’apprentissage aux niveaux élémentaires et secondaires, une
série de quatre livres publiés récemment sous le titre « Wired Together :
Computer-Mediated Communication in K - 12 » a été analysée. Globalement,
les 72 chapitres de ces quatre livres (ces études de cas, en majorité) constituent
une somme d’expériences en matière de télé-enseignement et de formation des
maîtres avant et pendant leur carrière. Une analyse de contenu a été effectuée
pour 1) déterminer combien d’obstacles au télé-enseignement ont été
mentionnés par les personnes (pour préciser l’étendue des obstacles), et 2) pour
déterminer à quelle fréquence apparaissait chaque catégorie d’obstacles (pour
préciser la gravité subjective de ces problèmes. Les résultats se comparent à
ceux que donne une étude plus vaste de la documentation relative à la
technologie éducative.
TO prepare for success in the workplace, children need to become
independent, critical thinkers while also learning to work
collaboratively in teams (CCSSO, 1992). They must learn to find
information, manipulate it, and effectively express their own ideas and
the ideas of other people (Haddad, n.d.). The use of educational
technology, particularly for online teaching and learning, has been
recognized as helping people, young and old, in these areas of their
learning.
Despite increasing acceptance of online teaching and learning there are
still significant barriers to be overcome.. The pur-pose of this article is
review selected literature regarding inhibitors to the use of educational
technology in K-12. Further, we will identify barriers to online teaching
in elementary, secondary, and teacher education environments and
compare these results with what we would expect from the more general
literature review.
Computer-mediated Communication in the K12 Classroom
The Argument for Using Educational Technology
Over the past two decades, computer technology has been credited
with higher achievement by students, motivating students to learn, aiding
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 127
instruction for special needs students, improving student attitudes toward
learning, and motivating teachers while freeing them from some routine
instructional tasks (Software Publishers Association, 1996). Additionally,
an increase in the effective utilization of computers, networking, and other
technologies has been a common element in many of the proposals made
in support of a broad program of systemic and curricular reform in K-12
education (PET, 1997). Far reaching policy decisions, such as the passing
into law of the Goals 2000: Educate American Act in 1994, means a
significant increase in a number of provisions designed to promote the
application of technology within K-12 schools.
The Argument for Using Computer-Mediated Communication
The use of computers, standing alone and connected to the Internet is
growing in K-12 education. At least one study provided evidence that
students with online access perform better in certain intellectual skills. In
1996, CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology) conducted a study
that isolated the impact of online use and measured its effect on student
learning in the classroom.
“The Role of Online Communications in Schools: A National Study,”
compared the work of 500 students in fourth-grade and sixth-grade classes
in 7 urban school districts (Chicago, Dayton, Detroit, Memphis, Miami,
Oakland, and Washington DC)--half of the students had online access and
half did not. The results showed significantly higher scores on
measurements of information management, communication, and
presentation of ideas for experimental groups with online access than for
control groups with no online access. Therefore, under the conditions
found in this study, online learning was determined to “help students
become independent, critical thinkers, able to find information, organize
and evaluate it, and then effectively express their new knowledge and
ideas in compelling ways” (CAST, 1996, n.p.).
Inhibitors of the Use of Educational Technology
in Primary and Secondary Schools
A review of literature indicates one historical approach is to present
the large picture of technology from its earliest days to the present use of
personal computers in the classroom. (Merrill et al., 1992; Poole, 1997).
This basic chronological approach places the beginning of computing with
the use of the abacus in 4000 BCE, called the beginning of “mechanical
128 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
computing.” An even earlier period is described as “pre-mechanical
computing” during which people counted on their fingers and made marks
on cave walls and animal bones to keep count. After the abacus, the
mechanical computing period featured such highlights as the creation of
the slide rule in 1621 and the invention of Boolean Logic in 1854.
Developments in counting problem-solving machines in the first half of
the twentieth century led to the creation of the first computers. Although
the first computers were developed in the late 1940s, they were too large
and expensive for use in the schools. The revolution for school computing
occurred in 1976 with the creation of the personal computer system.
Technology continues to change and affect children. Throughout
history, there have been significant barriers perceived by persons who
believe the infusion of technology in the classroom can help teaching and
learning. The following examples of barriers mentioned in the educational
technology literature serve as a starting point in developing a
comprehensive list of such obstacles. Leggett and Persichitte (1998)
examined the history of barriers and determined that the same basic four
barriers are consistently sited by teachers: time, access, resources, and
expertise. They provided a detailed description of each barrier and added
a fifth one: support.
A review of the literature supports Leggett and Persichitte’s contention
that those five factors are very important. Viewed historically, the barriers
occur repeatedly. Loughary (1966) mentions limited resources and lack of
support as potential barriers to the implementation of computers in the
classroom. O’Shea and Self (1983) examine the factors that affect the
teachers as they try to grapple with new technology. These factors
included poorly designed materials and lack of technical support, teachers’
anxiety and resentment concerning the new technology, and the lack of
administrative support.
Schofield (1995) provided a detailed look into the barriers of
technology use. One important factor was the belief by teachers that
computer use would add little of value to current practice. Another belief
that she reported was that existing educational software was not useful in
the classroom. Computer anxiety based on the teachers’ unfamiliarity
with computers was a major barrier since this fear affected the teachers’
sense of competence and authority in the classroom. The lack of
incentives and the presence of disincentives played a role, as did the
infrastructure problems, such as repairs, trouble-shooting, and
maintenance. Finally, a lack of adequate training was an important
barrier, especially the lack of coordination and timing between training
and hardware purchase, the inability to match training to the teachers’
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 129
level of knowledge and instructional concerns, and the lack of
concentrated experiential training.
Merrill et al. (1992) breaks the barriers into three basic categories:
ethical issues, legal issues, and cultural issues, This approach is a
departure from the earlier focus on the nuts and bolts issues of poorly
designed equipment, lack of support and confusion. In the 1990s, the
literature reflects a deeper analysis of the types of barriers that exist for
teachers, schools, and students. Collis et al. (1996) also focuses on the
possible negative side effects across cultures that are caused by computer
use. The equity issue of the disparity of use between boys and girls in the
classroom is mentioned. Collis notes that there is a lack of knowledge
about the future negative impacts of technology on students.
Starr (1996) provides a similar assessment of barriers in the classroom.
The barriers include inequality for minorities and low-income students,
lack of high-end uses of technology for primary and secondary education,
as compared to higher education, and the need for inexpensive
connectivity and low-cost access to content that are provided on many
websites for a fee.
Fisher, Dwyer, and Yocam (1996) focus on the equity issue as a
barrier to technology infusion. In addition to the barriers of lack of
technical support, limited funds and resources, lack of time for
preparation, implementation, and review, the authors also highlight the
issue of lack of access to computers by all students, as well as access to
the Internet. Montgomery (1996) also addresses the issue of access and
inequality for minorities and low-income students. The author also note
that concern regarding the quality of the new media culture and the effect
of a media that is highly commercialized and unregulated.
Sandholtz, Ringstaff, and Dwyer (1997) report somewhat similar
results. The main barriers include limited access, lack of equity, potential
for jealousy or greed among teachers, and a large number of technical
problems. Poole (1997) noted that the barriers of inequities, such as rich
versus poor, girls versus boys, whites versus minorities, and lack of equal
access to information based on disparities in funding and management of
different school systems were of great concern to educators.
Turkle (1997) provided a different approach to the barrier issue. Her
analysis of the problem focused less on the logistics and obvious causes of
difficulties. Rather, she discussed the actual role of the computer in the
classroom and its impact on learning. This interesting perspective
provided three inherent concerns. The first is the “seduction of
simulation” and the possibility that the computer activities might lessen
the students’ desire to question and think through problems carefully.
Also, she wonders if the attraction for using simulations is based on the
130 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
fact that it may be easier to buy a software package that allows students to
conduct virtual experiments than hire and fund an additional science
teacher. The second problem is the resentment felt by teachers for
computer applications that serve as “overblown video games.” The third
potential barrier is that the computer may be creating students that are
“fluent users” of technology rather than “fluent thinkers” of technology.
Turkle observed a student who could use a particular software package
correctly, and boasted to Turkle of her prowess. However, the student
could not explain why a particular situation occurred, what the
repercussions might be, or criticize or judge what she is learning. Turkle
describes her as a “someone who can pronounce a word in a book but does
not understand what they mean.”
The slow pace of successful implementation of computer technology
in the classroom is discussed by Sulla (1998). Sulla argues that it takes
from three to seven years to successfully infuse technology by teachers.
The stages are defined as “dynamic disequilibrium, contrived equilibrium,
and reflective practitioner.” The difficulty and length of time involved in
the implementation of technology appears to have remained consistent
over the past few decades. As computers become more and more popular
in the classroom, the need for a long-term perspective is critical.
Using a framework I developed elsewhere (Berge, 1998) (see Table l),
the literature reviewed above along with others (e.g., Abdal-Haqq, 1995;
Evans-Andris, 1996; Oppenheimer, 1997; Rice, 1995), suggests barriers to
the use of technology in the primary and secondary classroom as falling
generally into these categories: academic, cultural, and technical.
Secondary areas of concern indicated in the literature involve labormanagement
and fiscal. Very little or no mention is made in the literature
discussing barriers to the use of technology in K-12 regarding student
services, legal, governance, or geographic areas.
Barriers to Online Education
Although technologically-mediated learning holds many advantages
and promises for educators and learners, it is not well suited, nor available
for all learners or in all learning situations. Social, economic, physical, or
learning barriers exist and schools lack the resources to make
computer/telecommunication systems available, thus denying them the
advantages that technology may offer.
While the technological infrastructure is improving and access to the
internet is increasing in elementary and secondary schools, there are still
significant hurdles to such teaching and learning. Lack of computer
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 131
access, increased time demands, differences in individual preferences,
student and teacher resistance to new methods, and lack of student and
faculty support services, and the lack of adequate training and technical
support are all common problems faced by both students and teachers
(e.g., DoIT, 1996; Furst-Bowe, 1996; Galusha, 1997; Morrison & Lauzon,
1992).
The Study
Recently a four volume series was published entitled “Wired
Together: Computer-Mediated Communication in K-12” (Berge &
Collins, 1998a,b, c, d). Taken together, the seventy-two (72) chapters in
these four books represent a considerable body of experience in online
teaching and learning in K-12, pre- and in-service teacher training. Online
teaching and learning is one major type f technologically-mediated
learning. The content of these books was analyzed: 1) to determine how
many different barriers to online teaching were mentioned in these books,
i.e., to indicate the range of the obstacles, and, 2) to determine how often a
particular barrier was mentioned, i.e., to indicate the perceived severity of
each barrier.
Methodology
Best and Kahn (1989) stated that document analysis serves to describe
prevalent conditions and to discover the relative importance of, or interest
in, certain issues (p. 91). The Wired Together books were first read to find
keywords that indicated barriers to online teaching. The following list of
keywords were found and later used to electronically search the text of all
four books: barrier, limitation, difficult, inhibitor; impede; hamper;
obstruct; roadblock; thwart; delay; encumber; foil; restrain; retard;
arrest; obstacle; hurdle; hinder; reticence; and lack of. Upon each
occurrence of these words, the context (sentence or several sentences
around the word), was read to determine if it indeed was used to indicate a
barrier to online teaching and learning. This was done independently by
the two authors and any discrepancies were discussed and agree upon.
“Barriers,” as indicated by the list of keywords above, is used here to
mean “any perceived problem standing in the way of an online teachers
work.”
132 BERCE AND MROZOWSKI
Limitations and Research Issues
When selecting from a list of items or recalling items that have
previously been heard or read, it has been shown that individuals often
select the items at the beginning or end of the list. In this literature this is
called primacy and recency effects (Weiner, 1985). A different
phenomenon that is often an issue in studies similar to this is attribution.
Attribution theory suggests that people tend to explain the causes of their
own behavior in a manner that is self-promoting (Bar-Tal, 1978; Nisbett
and Ross, 1980). For instance, an individual may want to avoid attributing
a performance problem in the workplace to their own behavior, and
instead falsely tell themselves or others that the cause is an environmental
issue out of their control (Dean, 1996; Weiner, 1980). Reports on
behavior may also be significantly different simply depending upon
whether the individual is self-reporting his/her behavior leading to the
performance, or is an observer reporting upon others behaviors. Jones and
Nisbett, (1971) suggest that actors attribute the cause of their poor
performance on the environment, whereas observers focus on the people
they are observing and their behaviors. Since subjects in this study were
not given a list of barriers from which to react, the potential problem of
primacy and recency effects are not an issue. This issue was mentioned
here main with regard to issues that may threaten validity to further
research. With regard to attribution effects, the reader is cautioned that
this effect may account for some of the weightings found in this study.
Some of the contributors to the Wired Together books were online
teachers themselves while others were more or less observers (i.e.,
researchers; teacher educators).
While the findings herein may be interesting and useful as a start for
further research, the reader is cautioned about some additional threats to
both validity and reliability. An exhaustive literature review was
conducted regarding barriers to distance education in primary and
secondary teaching and learning in preparation for this study. Still, the
current study itself reports on contributions in only the four books in the
Wired Together series. With the scope being limited, these findings
should be considered exploratory and generalizability is not possible.
Secondly, the categories that were derived were done so by the
researcher and are based on work done in policy for higher education and
the review of literature. Additionally, the study is based on the
perceptions of the contributors to both the literature reviewed and those
writing for Wired Together. No independent observers or other means
were used to attempt to verify what was reported by these authors.
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 133
Finally, each of the barriers mentioned by the subjects were forced into
one category by the researchers. While we may agree on the category, it is
certainly recognized by us that many barriers could be listed in multiple
categories. As one example only, it is hard to conceive that the barrier
listed as “intellectual property rights/ownership” and placed here in the
“Labor-Management” category, could not be placed as in the “Legal”
category with as much justification by someone else. Our purposes here
are not to split hairs in categorizing, but rather to explore and identify as
comprehensively as possible all barriers to online teaching as one
significant form of distance education.
Findings and Discussion
Of the 72 chapters examined, 52 (72.2%) mentioned barriers using the
search terms listed above. This is significant in itself. While the
instructions from the editors to the authors did not specifically ask authors
to include barriers, there were suggestions that they discuss “lessons
learned” and provide “tips to online teachers” based on their experiences.
Most chapters that mentioned limitations to online teaching contained only
a couple of the keywords. In fact, 49 of the 72 chapters (68.1%) indicated
no more than four barriers. The chapters containing the highest number of
“barrier” terms appear to be overview chapters written by the editors, or
chapters written by teacher educators; it does not seem that online teachers
ordinarily write about widespread barriers to online teaching.
Table 1 lists the barriers and their frequencies as identified in the
Wired Together book series. The teachers and teacher educators authoring
52 chapters used at least one barrier term, with a total of 261 throughout
the 4 books. The barriers seemed to cluster in in mainly the following
areas: academic (n = 30, 11.5%), labor-management (n = 29, 11. l%),
technical (n = 67, 25.7%), and cultural (n = 89, 34.1%). As expected from
the review of literature, little mention of barriers were found in these
books in the areas of legal, student support, and geographical.
The barriers mentioned most often by the authors of the chapters in
Wired Together were:
? Concerns about the cultural change process necessary for the
successful implementation of distance education.
? Concerns about the pedagogical changes necessary for the effective
implementation of distance education.
? Lack of support for teachers/faculty members (including technical
training), or mention of the lack of experience teachers/faculty have in
distance education methodologies.
134 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
Table 1. Barriers to Using CMC in the Online K- 12 Classroom.
Policy Area Key Issues #
Academic calendar; inadequate course integrity/design;
transferability; transcripts; evaluation process; curriculum
approval process; accreditation; inequality (e.g.,
Academic disabilities; gender; race); questioning the value added by 30
technology/software; ethical issues; lack of student time;
large class size; lack of teacher support for student learning
to use technology
Fiscal
Geographic
Tuition rate; technology fee; FTE’s; consortia contracts;
state fiscal regulations; business model; marketing; lack of
hardware/software/people; sustainability and reliance on 1.5
business and community support; revenue sharing with
departments; competition with other business entities
Service area limitations; different time zones; local versus
out-of-state tuition; consortia agreements; cross-cultural 9
issues
Governance
Single versus multiple board oversight; staffing; existing
structure versus emerging structure (e.g., forming
subsidiaries for distance education); administrative
support/issues; strategic planning; school scheduling;
admission standards
14
Compensation and workload; promotion and tenure;
Labor- development incentives; intellectual property 29
Management rights/ownership; faculty training; congruence with
existing union contracts; lack of teacher/faculty time
Fair use; copyright; faculty, student and institutional
Legal liability; computer crime, hackers, software piracy, 4
computer viruses
Student Support Advisement; counseling; library access; materials services 4
delivery; student training; test proctoring
Lack of systems reliability; lack of connectivity/access;
Technical inadequate amount/type hardware/software; setup 67
problems; inadequate infrastructure; inadequate technical
support; inadequate maintenance of hardware/software
Faculty or student resistance to innovation/new methods;
resistance to change; difficulty recruiting faculty or
Cultural ’ students; lack understanding of distance education and 89
what works at a distance; lack of shared vision/mission;
cross-cultural issues; slow pace of change; lack of teachers
who can model effective use; information overload
’ The cultural barriers are included in this table for the convenience of the reader. However, change to
organizational culture is not an area that policy can be directly applied. Rather organizational culture is
changed by changing such things as the structure, practices, communication systems and reward systems within
the organization.
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 135
? Lack of access (connectivity) for students or teachers/faculty
members.
? High cost to the district or institution, or lack of the necessary
infrastructure for delivering or receiving education at a distance.
For Further Research
One purpose of this study was to determine indicators to future
research areas. Some of those discovered by this research are:
? Overall, the barriers listed by K12 online teachers and teacher
educators are very similar to those described by online teachers in higher
education (Berge, 1998). The weighting may be different, however. For
instance, it seems that K-12 educators mention fiscal issues somewhat
more than higher education.
? The barriers mentioned may change depending upon the level of the
experience of the individual teacher has with teaching online.
? While different perceptions based on the experience level of an
individual may not be surprising, it can also be hypothesized that barriers
are perceived differently depending upon the level of experience with
online teaching found within the institution or school. An instructor
working in a district in which online teaching has never occurred may
often perceive different barriers than that teacher she he/she be in a district
that has a long history of delivering or receiving online courses (such as
infrastructure issues).
? The subject area being taught may also affect the barriers experienced.
? This study involved online teachers and teacher educators using
technology. Other types of participants, (i.e., important stakeholders such
as school administrators; parents; students), exist and may have
significantly different perceptions about the barriers to online teaching and
learning within their institution.
References
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing technology into preservice teacher
education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, Washington
DC. ED389699.
Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Attribution analysis of achievement-related behavior.
Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 259-271.
136 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
Berge, Z.L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary
institutions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. l(2).
Summer. [Online.] http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (Eds.) (1998a). Wired Together: ComputerMediated
Communication in K-12, Volume 1 Perspectives and
Instructional Design. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (Eds.) (1998b). Wired Together: ComputerMediated
Communication in K-12, Volume 2 Case Studies. Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (Eds.) (1998c). Wired Together: ComputerMediated
Communication in K-12, Volume 3 Teacher Education and
Professional Development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (Eds.) (1998d). Wired Together: ComputerMediated
Communication in K-12, Volume 4 Writing, Reading and
Language Acquisition. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Best, J.W. & Kahn, J.V. (1989). Research in education (6th Ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
CAST (Center for Applied Special Technology). (1996). The Role of
Online Communications in Schools: A National Study. [Online.]
http://www.cast.org/stsstudy.html
CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) (1992). Student Success
Through Collaboration: A Policy Statement of the Council of Chief
State School Officers. [Online.]
http://develop.ccsso.cybercentral.com/colabpol.htm
Collis, B.A., Knezek, G.A., Lai, K. W., Miyashita, K.T., Pelgrum, W .J.,
Plomp, T., & Sakamoto, T. (1996). Children and computers in school.
Mahwah: NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Dean, P.J., Dean, M.R., and Rebalsky, R.M. ( 1996). Employee
perceptions of workplace factors that will most improve their
performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(2), 75-89.
DoIT. (1996). Common problems & possible solutions for teaching with
computer conferencing. [Online.] http://www.wisc.edu/learntech/
grp/tips.html
Evans-Andris, M. (1996). An apple for the teacher: Computers and work
in elementary schools. Thousand Oaks: CA. Corwin Press, Inc.
Fisher, C., Dwyer, D.C., Yocam, K., eds. (1996). Education and
technology: Reflections on computing in classrooms. San Francisco:
CA. Apple Computer, Inc., Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Furst-Bowe, J.A. (1996). An analysis of the competencies needed by
trainers to use computer-based technologies and distance learning
systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(4): 57-78.
BARRIERS TO ONLINE TEACHING 137
Galusha, J.M. (1997). Barriers to Learning in Distance Education.
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for
the 2Ist Century. 5(3/4): 6-14.
Haddad, W. (n.d.) Technology and the Environment for Learning.
[Online.] http://www.education.unesco.org/unesco/uducprog/lwf/doc/
portfolio/opinion5.htm
Jones, E. E. and R. E. Nisbett. (197 1). “The actor and the observer:
Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior.” in Attribution:
Perceiving the causes of behavior. edited by E. E. Jones, D. E.
Kanouse, H. H. Kelly et al.
Legget, W.P. & K.A. Persichitte. 1998. Blood, sweat, and TEARS: 50
years of technology implementation obstacles. Techtrends, 43(3), pp.
33-36.
Loughary, J.W. (1966). Man-machine systems in education. New York:
NY. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Merrill, P.F., Hammons, IS., Tolman, M.N., Christensen, L., Vincent,
B.R., Reynolds, P.L. (1992). Computers in Education, 2nd ed.
Needham Heights: MA, Allyn and Bacon.
Montgomery, K.C. (1996). Children in the digital age. The American
Prospect. No. 27. (July-August 1996), pp. 69-74. [Online.]
http://epn.org/prospect/27/27mont.html
Morrison, D. & Lauzon, A.C. (1992). Reflection on some technical issues
of “connecting” learners in online education. Research in Distance
Education. 4(3): 6-9.
Nisbett, R. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings ofsocialjudgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
O’Shea, T. & Self, J. (1983). Learning and teaching with computers:
Artificial intelligence in education. Englewood Cliffs: NJ. PrenticeHall,
Inc.
Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly,
July 1997, 280(l), pp. 45-62.
PCAST (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology).
(1997). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen
K-12 education in the United States. Washington DC.
Poole, B.J. (1997). Education for an information age: Teaching in the
Computerized classroom. 2nd ed. Boston: MA. The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Rice, M. (1995). Issues surrounding the integration of technology into the
K-12 classroom: Notes from the field. Interpersonal Computer and
Technology. Jan. 1995, 3 (l), pp. 67-81. [Online.]
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~ipct-j/l995/nl/rice.txt
138 BERGE AND MROZOWSKI
Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D.C. (1997). Teaching with
technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: NY.
Teachers College Press.
Schofield, J.W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. “Chap. 4:
Computers in the closet: Attitudinal and organizational barriers to
computer use in classrooms.” Cambridge: NY. Cambridge University
Press.
Software Publishers Association. (1996). Report on the effectiveness of
technology in schools, 95-96: Executive Summary. [Online.}
http://www.spa.org/project/edu_pub/summary.htm
Starr, P. (1996). Computing our way to educational reform. The
American Prospect. No. 27. (July-August 1996), pp. 50-60. [Online.]
http://epn.org/prospect/27/27star.html
Sulla, N. 1998. Winning teachers over: How you can battle resistance to
technology-and win. Electronic School, Mar. [Online.]
http://www.electronic-school.com/0398f2.html
Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing through computers: Education in a culture of
simulation. The American Prospect. No. 3 1 (March-April 1997), pp.
76-82. [Online.] http://epn.org/prospect/31/31turkfs.html
Weiner, B. (1980). Human motivation. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Information for Authors
The Canadian Journal of Communication welcomes your article that contributes
to improving instruction or media practice through the use of technology. All
members of AMTEC must strive to improve the state of our craft by sharing their
ideas and knowledge. Articles of any length from all levels of membership are
considered for publication. All articles are peer-reviewed. Professionals like
yourself determine whether the article is suitable for publication in the Journal. If
the article is not suitable, the editor provides feedback on improvement. You can
write a case study, a report of research, a review of literature, a position paper or
an instructional paper. For more information or to discuss a possible article,
contact the editor.
Manuscript Preparation
Manuscripts should be printed on 81/2 x 11 inch ordinary white paper. All
materials must be double-spaced, including quotations and references. Include a
title page with the title of the manuscript, the full name of the author(s) along
with position and institutional affiliation, mailing address, e-mail address, and
telephone number of the contact author. Include an abstract of 75-150 on a
separate sheet following the title page. While the title should appear at the top of
the first manuscript page, no reference to the author(s) should appear there or any
other place in the manuscript. Elements of style, including headings, tables,
figures and references should be prepared according to the Publication Manual of
the American Psychological Association. Figures must be camera ready if not in
electronic form.
Submission of Manuscripts
Send four copies of the manuscript to the Editor along with a letter stating that
the manuscript is original material that has not been published and is not
currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Include a disk in Microsoft
Word for Windows or Macintosh. If the manuscript contains copyright materials,
the author should note this in the cover letter and indicate when letters of
permission will be forwarded to the Editor. Manuscripts and editorial
correspondence should be sent to:
Richard F. Lewis, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Communication Studies
Editor, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4
Phone: (519) 253-3000, Ext. 2912; Fax: (519) 971-3642
E-Mail: rlewis@uwindsor.ca