A Teacher Professional Development Program on Using a Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment

CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 307

Learning Environments Research 2: 307–330, 2000. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

DORIT MAOR

A TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ONUSING A CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT

Received 24 April 1999; accepted (in revised form) 15 September 1999

ABSTRACT. This article describes a professional development program using aninteractive multimedia program to develop teachers’ understanding of a constructivistepistemology in science education. The aim of this study was to describe teachers’reflections on and perceptions of a series of professional development workshops andhow teachers changed their classroom practices after having participated in the workshops.The software, developed with the cooperation of teachers and students, is based on theBirds of Antarctica database (Maor & Phillips, 1996). This database was designed as aninteractive program which requires teachers to use a constructivist-oriented approach toteaching and learning in order to promote the development of inquiry skills, particularlyhigher-order thinking skills. A series of workshops for teachers was conducted to empowerthem to become comfortable with using computers in science classrooms and to enablethem to enhance their understanding of, and ability to use, personal and social constructivistapproaches. Teachers’ perceptions of the process of learning with the multimedia programand their reactions to their experiences were assessed using a new instrument, theConstructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES). The results of thestudy suggest that teachers who participated as learners in the professional developmentprogram became familiar with a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment;understood the context, problems, and issues faced by students in the classroom; andwere better able to facilitate students’ needs and understanding in this learningenvironment.

KEY WORDS: constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment, professional-development, teacher perceptions.

1. PURPOSES OF STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ reflections on, andperceptions of, a new multimedia learning environment as experienced ina series of constructivist-oriented multimedia professional developmentworkshops entitled An Interactive Multimedia Approach to TeachingScience and Mathematics. A constructivist-oriented approach concentrateson learners constructing their personal understandings during socialinteractions in the classroom. While it might not always be immediatelyevident, apparently individual learning (e.g. reflecting) also involves someaspect of social or group learning and, conversely, social learning (e.g.

DORIT MAOR308

negotiating) involves individual learning (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Bothpersonal and social approaches to learning were adopted during theseprofessional development workshops. Teachers needed to adjust toindividual learning and social learning as they evolved in their classrooms.The teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, the workshops are reportedhere. A secondary purpose of the study was to investigate the potential forusing professional development workshops as a means of engaging teachersin epistemological transformation and subsequently influencing their useof constructivism as a referent in their teaching practice. Teacherepistemology refers to teachers’ beliefs about pedagogy, the nature ofknowledge, and student learning.

This study focused on teachers’ difficulties in modifying theirepistemologies to a more constructivist approach. A constructivist approachto teaching and learning influences teachers’ classroom practices and,subsequently, helps students to develop higher-order learning skills (Maor& Taylor, 1995). The literature (e.g. Salomon, 1996) suggests that, toovercome these difficulties, teachers need to experience a novel learningenvironment as learners themselves. Schön (1983) supports the creation ofa learning environment for teachers which provides teachers withopportunities for reflection in action. Salomon (1996) has also suggested that,as teachers become more proficient in the use of the multimedia program,they can more effectively enhance students’ learning through supportingstudents’ constructions of their own understandings of the information beingpresented.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. The Problem of Changing Teachers’ Epistemology

There is evidence of teachers’ lack of success in changing their epis-temologies because of the resilient nature of the beliefs that shape teachers’classroom practices (Fullan, 1993; Tobin, 1990; Tobin & Tippins, 1993).Research on teachers’ classroom practices has shown that most teachershave transmission-type epistemologies which resist change in the classroom(Tobin, 1993). In recent years, social constructivist epistemology has beenshaping research and curriculum development in science and mathematicseducation (Cobern, 1998; O’Connor, 1998; Tobin, 1990). Teachers areobliged to ensure that students learn a current society-agreed body of viableknowledge for effective participation in that society (Tobin & Tippins,1993). To achieve this, teachers have attempted to restructure their role inthe classroom to that of a facilitator of students’ interpretations and re-conceptualisations of information and knowledge. Individual learning is


embedded in a social process as other individuals and groups are alwaysinvolved in the construction of such learning. Therefore, from aconstructivist point of view, teachers need to take account of what studentsalready know and to promote social interactions between students, thuscreating learning environments that provide experiences that will increaseclassroom discourse and personal construction of knowledge. Accordingto Lemke (1995), a discourse is perceived as an essential activity thatpromotes learning in the science classroom. Shifts in classroom discoursethrough the mediating role of the teacher can ensure that classroomcommunity discourse becomes increasingly scientific (Tobin, 1998).

Using a constructivist epistemology, new communicative relationshipshave been established between teachers and students (O’Connor, 1998).This has raised a question about the experiences that teachers should havein order to modify their teaching and provide students with experiencesthat align with constructivist epistemology. From a constructivist point ofview, the “emphasis is on the teacher as a learner, a person who willexperience teaching and learning situations and give personal meaning tothose experiences through reflection” (Tobin & Tippins, 1993, p. 9).Teachers’ reflections on their experiences extend their understanding basedon social interaction with peers and teacher educators. Teachers who useconstructivism to underpin their teaching can plan and implement strategiesto support group work and whole-class discussion (Wheatley, 1991).

Several studies (e.g. Baird & Northfield, 1992; Hand et al., 1991; Maor& Taylor, 1995; Treagust et al., 1996; White, 1993) support the view thatthe process of changing teachers’ epistemology is a prerequisite todeveloping effective student learning in a constructivist-oriented learningenvironment. Like other learners, teachers construct their knowledgethrough social interaction with peers (Salomon, 1996), through applyingideas in practice, and through reflecting on and modifying those ideas. Theneed to provide teachers with opportunities to discuss and reflect criticallyon their pedagogies (Maor & Taylor, 1995; Taylor, 1996; Treagust et al.,1996) led to the design of a constructivist-oriented multimedia professionaldevelopment program to support change in teachers’ epistemologies.According to Perkins and Unger (1994), computer-based learningenvironments offer learners a ‘problem space’ in which they can workthrough their understandings of challenging concepts. For many teachers,however, the introduction of computers into schools has often been seenas ‘business-as-usual’. However, with a constructivist-oriented multimediaprogram, it is possible to create a new classroom learning environmentwhich effectively changes teachers’ classroom practices and redefinescurricula, while also providing new ways of assessing students’ learning

DORIT MAOR310

(Salomon & Perkins, 1998). A professional development program forteachers can provide opportunities for them as learners to reflect on theirclassroom pedagogy.

2.2. A Professional Development Program using a Constructivist-Oriented Interactive Multimedia Program

Through a series of professional development workshops, it is possible thatteachers can learn how to change their classroom practices to supportstudents’ learning better. It has become clear that, in a constructivist-orientedapproach to learning, teachers need to provide opportunities in which theycan encourage students to generate and seek answers to their own questions.A constructivist-oriented multimedia program can facilitate this processwhich involves both individual and social learning. Previously, the use ofcomputer software was perceived as assisting students’ learning in the rolesof ‘tutor’, ‘tool’ and ‘tutee’ (Taylor, 1980). By contrast, today, more emphasisis given to the role of the computer as a cognitive tool which “can facilitatecritical thinking and higher-order learning” (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996, p.694). The focus has shifted to learning demands rather than what technologiescan do. Two important observations have become widely recognised. Firstly,the computer by itself cannot do the learning and, secondly, the wholelearning environment which includes the learner, the teacher and thecomputer together determines the extent of learning. Computers can be usedfor cognitive activities which lead to the reorganisation and extension ofstudents’ cognitions (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996).

2.2.1. Professional Development WorkshopsIn this study, workshops were centred around an Interactive Multimedia(IMM) program, Birds of Antarctica (Maor & Phillips, 1996). The IMMprogram used by the teachers in the professional development workshopswas developed using a constructivist-oriented view of learning with anintention to create a rich environment for students (Garbinger, 1996). Theprogram is based on authentic research data collected on expeditions toAntarctica and contains meteorological and biological information forstudents to use during their own scientific investigations. To make learningmore meaningful, emphasis was placed on the learning process as learnersengaged with the content of the program. The program, designed to producea constructivist-oriented learning environment, simulated authenticlearning environments; provided multiple representations of data; engagedstudents in personal constructions of reality; enabled students to generatetheir own questions and investigations; and promoted social negotiations


between students by providing them with opportunities to reflect upon real-life issues. Thus, teachers using this constructivist-oriented program neededto build into their class programs time for reflection, debriefing sessionsand whole-class sharing of ideas and experiences to promote reflectionsthat supported the construction of students’ individual and collectiveunderstandings of knowledge and content (Galligan, 1995).

This program design is supported by views which suggest that the shiftfrom behaviourism as a basis for software design to cognitive andconstructivist-oriented approaches requires multimedia tasks that involvereal-world contexts in which users practise authentic tasks (e.g. Harper &Hedberg, 1997). According to Nelson (1994), learners need to be providedwith a variety of experiences and multiple perspectives in order to developtheir personal cognitive structures. Access to multiple representations ofdata challenges the learner to construct creative investigations requiringcomplex decision making.

The aim of the professional development workshops was to provideexperiences for participating teachers as learners using the IMM program.The emphasis during the workshops was on encouraging a socialperspective to learning in which participants were engaged in learningthrough discussion and negotiation with their peers. During the workshops,teachers, in pairs, engaged in scientific investigations while exploring theprogram. They were encouraged to ask each other questions, to discussand reflect on each others’ ideas, and to come to some commonunderstandings of scientific investigations based on the program.

To enhance teachers’ understandings of how to approach the programin a constructivist-oriented manner, two guided tours were provided. Thesetours, the Didactic Tour and the Constructivist Tour, represent two distinctteaching approaches:

1. The Didactic Tour adopted the traditional notion that knowledge existsexternal to the learner and can be transmitted through instruction. Thisguided tour contained questions for the users to follow as they usedthe program and then instructed them on how to progress and collectdata to answer the questions.

2. The constructivist approach suggests that knowledge is “personallyconstructed by learners who give meaning to the new experiences interms of their prior knowledge and past experiences” (Maor & Taylor,1995, p. 843). To achieve this, the Constructivist Tour required theusers to construct their own questions, give some explanations of thedifferent types of data that exist in the program and explore the dataon their own.

DORIT MAOR312

To assist teachers further in understanding how to implement a constructivist-oriented classroom learning environment, an action research approach wasused during the professional development workshops. The classroomlearning environment has been shown to be an important element in ensuringthe efficacy of learning in an inquiry-based constructivist-oriented classroomand has been the focus of a number of action research studies (Maor, 1993).

2.3. Field of Classroom Environment Research

In the past three decades, much attention has been given to the developmentand use of instruments to assess the qualities of the classroom learningenvironment from the perspectives of the students and the teachers (Fraser,1998, 1999). Students and teachers can describe their environment in theway in which they experienced it, rather than relying on an externalobserver who might judge the environment differently. The pioneeringwork of Walberg (Walberg & Anderson, 1968) who designed the LearningEnvironment Inventory (LEI) and Moos (1979) who designed theClassroom Environment Scale (CES) has been followed by extensive workin science education, including the development of specific instrumentsfor different environments. This research has led to a diversity ofinstruments which are aimed mainly at the secondary or higher educationlevel learning environments. Recently, the Constructivist LearningEnvironment Survey (CLES) was developed to assess the extent to which aparticular classroom environment is consistent with a constructivistepistemology (Taylor et al., 1997). One of the many promising applicationsof these instruments is in the description and evaluation of learningenvironments involving the use of computer-assisted learning (e.g. Maor &Fraser, 1996; Newby & Fisher, 1997; Teh & Fraser, 1994). For example, Maorand Fraser (1996) developed a five-scale classroom environment instrument,the Computer Classroom Environment Inventory (CCEI). Using instrumentssuch as these could help teachers to reflect on their epistemologicalassumptions and thus redefine their teaching roles and practices.

In higher education, Computer-Facilitated Learning (CFL) environ-ments have been incorporated into university courses (Bain et al., 1998).The dimensions that emerged from Bain et al.’s (1998) research includethe learning framework, the origin of the knowledge, learning directions,knowledge focus, and the learning process. Based on these emergingdimensions, Bain and colleagues concluded that no single continuum (e.g.Reeves, 1992) or process descriptions (e.g. Laurillard, 1993) is likely tocharacterise adequately differences between learning environments.

Despite the existence of all of these instruments, none were capable ofadequately describing teachers’ and students’ perceptions of their learning


experiences in a constructivist-oriented learning environment using IMMprograms. This situation led to the development of a new instrument forthis specific purpose as part of the present study.

2.3.1. Development of Constructivist Multimedia LearningEnvironment Survey (CMLES)

A classroom environment questionnaire, the Constructivist MultimediaLearning Environment Survey (CMLES), was designed specifically for thisstudy. The purpose of this instrument was to assess the degree to whichstudents and teachers thought that their classroom learning environmentwas inquiry-based and constructivist-oriented. The first part of the CMLESmeasures teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the process of learning withthe multimedia program and contains three scales, namely, StudentNegotiation, Inquiry Learning and Reflective Thinking.

The Student Negotiation scale (Taylor et al., 1994) is based on theConstructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) and measures theextent to which opportunities exist for students to explain and justify theirdeveloping ideas to other students; to listen attentively and reflect on theviability of other students’ ideas; and to communicate their own ideas toother students (Taylor et al., 1997). The Inquiry Learning and ReflectiveThinking scales (Maor & Fraser, 1996) were based on the ComputerClassroom Environment Inventory (CCEI). The Inquiry Learning scale(Maor & Fraser, 1996) was selected to measure the extent to which studentshave opportunities to engage in scientific investigations. The ReflectiveThinking scale was used to measure the extent to which critical self-reflective thinking was occurring. These scales were developed for thecurrent study and are based on a social-constructivist perspective oflearning. However, none of these scales adequately assesses theconstructivist nature of the IMM program. Thus, two new scales weredeveloped for this purpose and included in the second part of the CMLES.

The second part of the CMLES measures students’ reflections on andperceptions of an IMM program and contains the two new scales ofAuthenticity and Complexity. The Authenticity scale measures the extentto which students perceive the multimedia program as simulating anauthentic learning environment. The Complexity scale measures the extentto which students perceive that the multimedia program provides multiplerepresentations of the data. Each of these scales was designed in accordancewith the goals of the IMM program to be constructivist in nature and torepresent real-life situations. Their development was based on the literature(e.g. Garbinger, 1996; Maor & Phillips, 1996) which supported the designof a multimedia program that simulated an authentic environment (see

DORIT MAOR314

Authenticity scale) and displayed data in a variety of forms (see Complexityscale). The CMLES can be used to assess the extent to which these uniquefeatures of the IMM constructivist-oriented program were evident toparticipants in the learning environment.

Responses to items in the CMLES are made on a five-point scale, rangingfrom almost never (scored as 1) to almost always (scored as 5). The CMLESexists in an ‘actual’ version (see Appendix) in which respondents are askedto rate their current learning environment, and a ‘preferred’ version in whichrespondents rate their preferred learning environment. Items in each versionof the questionnaire refer to similar aspects of the learning environment. But,whereas an example in the actual form is “In this class, I get the chance totalk to other students”, the corresponding item in the preferred form is “Inthis class, I would get the chance to talk to other students”. There are 25 itemsin the CMLES, with five items in each scale. A description of these scales,together with a sample item from each, is presented in Table I.

The CMLES was developed to provide a new, widely-applicableinstrument for use in future studies of constructivist multimedia learningenvironments. In this study, the CMLES was used to focus on the use ofthe computer in the science classroom. After the initial construction of theCMLES, two researchers and two teachers commented on it for facevalidity, clarity of language and suitability for the age levels concerned.As a result of this, modifications were made to the language of some ofthe items. Initially, the CMLES was administered to two classes of 38 Grade10 students. Data from administration of the questionnaire were thenanalysed for internal consistency (alpha reliability coefficient) and

TABLE I

Descriptive information for each scale of the CMLES.

Scale name Description Sample item

Student Negotiation Extent to which students have opportunities In this class, I get the chanceto discuss their questions and their solutions to talk to other students.to questions.

Inquiry Learning Extent to which students are encouraged In this class, I find out answersto engage in inquiry learning to question by investigation.

Reflective Thinking Extent to which students have opportunities In this class, I think about howto reflect on their own learning and thinking. I learn.

Authenticity Extent to which the information in the Working with this IMMprogram is authentic and representative program, I find that I amof real life situations. presented with realistic tasks.

Complexity Extent to which the program is complex Working with this IMMand represents data in a variety of ways. program, I find it easy

to navigate.


discriminant validity (using the mean correlation of a scale with the otherfour scales as a convenient index). The reliability data in Table II suggeststhat each of the CMLES scales has high internal consistency, especiallyfor scales containing a relatively small number of items. One item wasomitted during the data analysis because it contributed to a low alphareliability for the Complexity scale. It became evident during discussionswith students that this was caused by students’ misinterpretation of the word‘challenging’ in the item. Discriminant validity data suggest that the CMLESmeasures distinct, though somewhat overlapping, aspects of classroomenvironment. However, the discriminant validity should be checked with alarger sample of students in the future. Although the CMLES was validatedwith students, the teachers in this study responded to the CMLES in the roleof learners in the professional development workshop.

3. METHOD

3.1. Aim

The aim of this study was to describe teachers’ reflections on andperceptions of a series of professional development workshops and howthey changed their classroom practices after having participated in theworkshops. Specifically, I sought to describe teachers’ reflections on, andperceptions of, a new multimedia learning environment as experienced ina series of constructivist-oriented multimedia workshops. Additionally, Iassessed the impact of the workshops on teachers’ classroom practices.

3.2. SampleAn advertisement offering a workshop for science and mathematics teacherswas sent to Heads of Science and Mathematics Departments in schools inWestern Australia. Expressions of interest in attending the workshop wereencouraging. Ten teachers from private and public schools participated in

TABLE II

Number of items, alpha reliability and discriminant validity for the ConstructivistMultimedia Learning Environment (CMLES).

Scale No. of items Alpha reliability Mean correlation with other scales

Student Negotiation 5 0.93 0.50Inquiry Learning 5 0.82 0.56Reflective Thinking 5 0.77 0.59Authenticity 5 0.81 0.50Complexity *4 0.83 0.49

*One item was omitted.

DORIT MAOR316

the first series of workshops, the results of which are discussed in this article.Most of the teachers in the group were experienced teachers who wanted tointroduce technology into their science and mathematics classes. There wereeight males and two females in the group. To describe teachers’ perceptionsof their experiences as learners using the IMM, an assessment of theclassroom learning environment, using both quantitative data (survey) andqualitative data (workshops), was included in the study.

3.3. Data Sources

Five major data sources were used:

• teachers’ responses to actual and preferred learning environmentquestionnaires during the workshop;

• audio recording of workshop discussions;

• an analysis of a video recording made during the ‘hands on’ sessionswith the interactive multimedia;

• interviews with four focus teachers who provided their reflections onthe workshops;

• classroom-based research in two classrooms by participating teachers.

Qualitative data obtained from workshop discussions, in the form ofextracts from the teachers’ journals and interviews, provided insights intothe teachers’ reflections on and perceptions of the workshops. Classroom-based research provided data for a qualitative analysis of the learningenvironment in order to monitor the extent to which they adopted andsupported constructivist-oriented and inquiry-based approaches in thescience classroom when using the interactive multimedia program.

3.4. The Teachers’ WorkshopA series of three separate three-hour workshops was conducted over aperiod of three weeks, with one session per week. Teachers came to auniversity computer laboratory after completing their normal school day.The workshops were designed to guide teachers in the use of the IMMprogram and to promote a constructivist-oriented approach to teaching andlearning when using the program. The workshops included:

• training sessions on how to use the IMM program;

• an introduction to constructivist epistemologies to support the higher-order learning of students;


• the use of the program in a constructivist way to enhance thedevelopment of higher-order thinking skills;

• guidance for teachers on how to generate questions and investigationsbased on the IMM program.

3.5. CMLES

The newly-designed Constructivist Multimedia Learning EnvironmentSurvey (CMLES) was used for the first time in this study to providequantitative data on teachers’ perceptions of the learning environmentduring the professional development workshops.

3.6. Classroom-Based ResearchTwo of the participating teachers, Mark and Julie, provided additional datafor this project by conducting research in their classrooms. This providedan opportunity to assess the impact of the workshops on their classroompractices.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Teachers’ Reflections on and Perceptions of theConstructivist-Oriented Multimedia Learning Environment

To identify teachers’ perceptions of the constructivist multimedia learningenvironment during the workshops, actual and preferred versions of theCMLES were administered to the ten teachers who participated in theworkshops. Although teachers worked in pairs during workshops, theycompleted the CMLES individually. Teachers were asked to respond toquestions as learners in a new situation, namely, in a constructivist-orientedmultimedia learning environment. Following the administration of theCMLES during the workshop, individual teacher scores were collated anddisplayed on an overhead projector for analysis and discussion by theteachers. Maximum, minimum and mean scores, calculated for each scaleof both the actual and preferred versions of the CMLES, are presented inTable III.

To facilitate comparison between teachers’ actual and preferredperceptions, the mean scores for each scale of both actual and preferredversions of the CMLES are presented graphically in Figure 1.

The data presented in Figure 1 indicate that, in comparison with theactual environment, teachers preferred an environment with higher levelsof negotiation, inquiry learning, reflective thinking, authenticity and

DORIT MAOR318

complexity. This suggests that, as learners, teachers would like to changethe nature of their learning environments. The greatest discrepancy betweenteachers’ actual and preferred perceptions was for the Reflective Thinkingscale, a measure of the extent to which the teachers, as learners, perceivedopportunities to reflect on their own learning and thinking. Discussionswith the teachers following administration of the CMLES indicated that theability to reflect during the workshops was given different interpretationsby individual teachers. For example, it was interesting to note that, althoughteachers worked in pairs, there were some cases of obvious differences ofopinion within those pairs. Some teachers argued that, although they hadthe opportunity, they were not engaged in reflective thinking as they weretrying to learn how to use the program. Others suggested that they engagedin reflective thinking even at the level of learning how to use the program.

It was clear that teachers preferred more opportunities for themselvesas learners to discuss their questions during their interactions with themultimedia program and to engage in inquiry-based learning during thistime. Comments made during workshop discussions revealed teachers’differing perceptions about the context within which some of the items inthe CMLES were answered. For example, the concept of ReflectiveThinking required more clarification:

I think that the differences in reflective thinking are because teachers have differentperceptions of what it really means. It’s something that we have always done as teachersand probably students too, but it’s hard to pinpoint . . . (Julie, Interview)

Similarly, for the Student Negotiation scale, the teachers’ interpretationsvaried according to the specific task they were asked to complete. As Julie’sworking partner, Gina, explained:

TABLE III

Maximum, minimum and mean scores for actual and preferred versions of the CMLES.

Scale Version Maximum score Minimum score Mean score

Student Negotiation Actual 2 2 1 1 1 6 . 8Preferred 2 2 1 6 1 8 . 5

Inquiry Learning Actual 1 9 1 1 1 6 . 2Preferred 2 1 1 6 1 8 . 6

Reflective Thinking Actual 2 1 1 0 1 5 . 5Preferred 2 3 1 7 1 9 . 9

Authenticity Actual 2 3 1 7 1 9 . 7Preferred 2 5 1 8 2 1 . 4

Complexity Actual 2 3 1 8 1 9 . 8Preferred 2 5 1 7 2 0 . 6

n = 10


In the first block of questions, Student Negotiation, I think . . . depends a little on whatwe’re given to work with and what we’ve been asked to do both weeks. I have been sittingin front of the microphone and had to talk and be fair to somebody else, whereas . . . somepeople were on their own computers and I wonder if they actually talked to anybody else.But I talked a lot. (Gina, Interview)

A comment from Mark, referring to his work with his partner, Dan, alsohelps us to understand the diversity of responses to the Student Negotiationscale: “We worked together and I gave you [a score of] 22 and he gaveyou [a score of] 12. The opportunity [for negotiation] was there any timeI wanted.”

Moreover, some teachers perceived opportunities to engage in the socialaspects of the learning environment during the workshops but chose notto pursue them:

I did get the chance to talk to other students. I answered it but I know that, if I wanted toor needed to, I could . . . I knew the opportunity was there . . . I think it’s a different issuebecause I think there are other factors that cause you to talk and not to talk rather thanjust the program. There’s another factor not being measured, such as being familiar orunfamiliar. Some people like to talk more than others and some persons don’t like to lookto others. They like the opportunity to think. (Julie, Interview)

It is interesting to note from Figure 1 that the complexity of the multimediaprogram is at the level that teachers would like it to be, and that authenticityis almost at the level that they would like it to be. This reflects the designof the program which attempted to emphasise a constructivist-orientedapproach to learning in which complexity and authenticity of the programwere seen as central to the promotion of student negotiation, reflectivethinking and inquiry learning.

Figure 1. Scale means for actual and preferred versions of the CMLES.

DORIT MAOR320

4.2. The Multimedia ProgramOne of the first issues that arose during the study related to the complexityof the multimedia program. In the first meeting of the workshops, the teachersused the Constructivist Guided Tour which employed an open-endedapproach and invited the users to construct their own questions, and thenuse the data in the multimedia program to answer those questions. This tourprovided little assistance to the user regarding navigation through the programand resulted in some criticism from teachers, as described in Mark’s journal:

My initial use of this program was under the direction of an open-ended guided tour. I foundthis very frustrating and quite frankly a waste of time . . . The lack of clear explanations asto where and what everything was made progress very slow and laborious – it simply couldnot be done in this way with a classroom of average students . . . A similar approach in aclassroom would result in rejection of the program by students. Only highly motivated andacademically talented students could hope to cope with this approach. (Mark, Journal)

This notion of frustration and uncertainty was also expressed by Julie: “I’dlike a little bit of guidance to start off with, just to show what’s available,and not necessarily what to do with it, and what’s in there.”

A user-friendly program was a necessity according to the teachers.However, as suggested by Julie, the program should still be complex tosome extent and not too easy for the students (Julie, Interview).

The frustration of some of the teachers resulted in changes in the guidedtour to make it more didactic in nature (i.e. the questions were presentedwith instructions for navigation in order to solve the questions). It wasimportant for the learners quickly to become familiar with the programand to be able to navigate successfully before being able to engage inhigher-order tasks. Although I wanted to introduce the curriculum materialin a constructivist-oriented way, I realised that I had to compromise so thatthe users could become familiar with the multimedia program and not bediscouraged by their first experiences. The teachers emphasised that, evenwhen they were doing a simple task, they were thinking on a ‘deep level’.Therefore, direct and explicit instruction on how to use the program wasnecessary. For example, Mark said:

We had lots of other ideas as we were doing it [simple task]. So, it enabled us to do that becausewe thought of temperature of water and temperature of air, and then that soon resulted in aselection of data. So, even in that simple question, there’s a lot of complexity. (Mark, Journal)

Dan, in his analysis, suggested that the use of the two guided tours, thedidactic and the constructivist, helped him to compare the merits of thetwo teaching approaches.


4.3. The Learning ProcessDan analysed a video recording segment of himself and Mark while theywere interacting with the multimedia program during one of the workshops.His analysis of the video and his self-reflection provided excellent insightinto the hands-on section of the workshop. In particular, he emphasisedthe benefit of the program to his own professional development. I choseto include this case study as another source of data because there was anopportunity for the teacher himself to reflect on and analyse his ownlearning as demonstrated on the video. The self-analysis provided a richdata source and reinforced my own analysis as instructor. I believe thatthe opportunity given to Dan to reflect on his own learning enriched thestudy and increased the credibility of my interpretations. Dan’s criticalanalysis of his self-reflection included the following comment:

Working cooperatively with a partner throughout the multimedia program Birds ofAntarctica was very useful because we could share thoughts and explanations, and wecomplemented each other at times, such as when there was something about which I didnot have adequate knowledge when my partner did. Discussion helped us to clarify certainthings which we could not have done if we worked individually. It gave me a sense ofrelief when I reached a dead end on something, Mark would offer a suggestion which ledme to see the problem more clearly and get closer to a solution. However, there were timeswhen I felt confined to doing only those things that were of common purpose between us.This meant that some of my insightful thoughts were not pursued further. (Dan, Journal)

This quote from Dan’s journal demonstrates his role as a learner in thecomputerised learning environment. He enjoyed the cooperation but wasalso aware of the limitations of being in a group situation. He summarisedhis learning this way:

I am confident that I have benefited from the workshop in general and the software inparticular. My hands-on experience with a multimedia program has led me to appreciatethe power and limitations of the technology. More importantly, I now have the knowledgeand experience which I can call upon in future when opportunities arise. I recommendmore teachers to utilise such professional development initiatives for their own good aswell as for their students. (Dan, Journal)

4.4. Classroom-Based Research

To assess further the impact of the workshops on the teachers’ classroompractices, I gathered classroom-based data from two teachers, Mark and Julie,who participated in the workshops and who subsequently conductedclassroom-based research projects. During the workshops, Mark used journalwriting to document his reflections from the workshops as well asimpressions from his classroom-based research. He reflected on his

DORIT MAOR322

experience as follows:

The use of ‘real life’ data and data analysis through inquiry learning as proposed by the Birds ofAntarctica package addresses the issues of relevance, motivation and scientific method. Throughthe use of such packages, I hope that I can further move my class towards student-centred learning,with my role continuing to change from teacher to guide. (Mark, Journal)

Mark claimed that he was familiar with the principles of constructivismas presented in the workshops. He found the concept of teacher asresearcher very valuable:

I enjoy the opportunity of being exposed to new ideas, and the use of computers as aninteractive medium that improves inquiry skills is very appealing . . . The use of the teacher-as-researcher concept was very compelling although the limited preparation time availableto classroom teachers could reduce its viability within our education system. The use ofthe planning model presented as part of the teacher-as-researcher concept was very usefuland helped greatly in planning this trial. (Mark, Journal)

Reflecting on the learning process in his class, Mark was pleased thatstudents worked in small groups and that I asked the students to takeownership of their questions. He suggested that each group should do ashort presentation of their investigation to the class.

The group work was greatly encouraged in the teacher workshops “totake the class into a different style of learning . . . it also initiated furtherdiscussion within the classroom on the nature of learning” (Mark, Interview).

In a conversation with Mark, he suggested that he would attempt a movetowards a more constructivist, student-centred approach to learning. Hefurther emphasised that the way students learn needed to be discussed withthem. Although Mark was critical about the slowness of the program andits robustness, he suggested that “the use of the real data and open-endedinvestigations does, however, appeal to me as a science teacher”.

As a result of participating in the workshops, Julie also allowed us tocollect data from research conducted in her classroom. A research assistantand I conducted the research with Julie functioning in a tertiary participant-observer role in her class. Although Julie actively engaged herself alongwith the students in the use of the program, decisions and guiding of thestudents were carried out by the research assistant and me. A follow-upinterview with the teacher enabled us to explore students’ involvement inthe process of learning with the multimedia program. Julie was willing toparticipate in this research project because she wanted her science studentsto use this form of technology, and she wanted something useful “that didnot have to end in assessment but which could be used for assessment ifdesired” (Julie, Interview). Julie stated: “I had been looking for someinteractive technology program that was not looking at science content.The process of science could be utilised from the data.”


Julie found that the learning and teaching process had changed duringthe two weeks of interaction with the program, because: “Students workedwith minimal teacher’s supervision. They became more motivated, and theywere able to ask questions or conduct investigations.”

The students worked in pairs and enjoyed the ability to discuss and helpeach other to solve questions. They were not familiar with this form oflearning in the science classroom, and Julie acknowledged that it providedthem with more opportunities for developing scientific investigative skillsand creative thinking. This project encouraged Julie to plan the use ofportfolio assessment with her students using the multimedia program in thefollowing year.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Teachers’ Reflections on and Perceptions of a NewMultimedia Learning Environment

Teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, a new multimedia learningenvironment as experienced in a series of constructivist-oriented multimediaworkshops differed according to individual experiences. The impact of theworkshops on teachers’ classroom practices also varied according to teachers’aims for their students. In this particular study, I enabled teachers to engagein a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment in which theywere exposed to the use of a multimedia program and a constructivistapproach to learning. The reflections of the two teachers, Mark and Julie,who participated in classroom-based research, suggested that the professionaldevelopment program was rewarding, useful and effective in providingopportunities for them to reflect on their classroom practices.

Based on the CMLES data gathered during the professional developmentworkshops, it is clear that the teachers perceived the new multimedialearning environment as providing more opportunities for social interactionand negotiation of their learning. However, they preferred even moreopportunities for themselves as learners to participate in a constructivist-oriented learning environment. They identified a desire to negotiate theirideas during their interactions with the multimedia program and to engagein inquiry-based learning even if they chose not to avail themselves of iton all occasions. It would seem that the teachers found the opportunity toengage in social interactions with peers a valuable way of refining theirinvestigations and thus enhancing the quality of their learning. The teachersperceived the program to be both ‘authentic’ and ‘complex’. This reflectedthe design of the program and the constructivist-oriented nature of thelearning environment.

DORIT MAOR324

5.2. The Impact of the Professional Development Workshops onTeachers’ Classroom Practices

During the professional development workshops, the teachers experiencedas learners, and became familiar with, a constructivist-oriented multimedialearning environment. By reflecting on their own experiences as learners,the teachers understood the context, problems and issues that students facein the classroom when using the program in a constructivist-oriented learningenvironment. They were better able to facilitate students’ needs and toenhance the students’ understanding in this environment. This required a shiftin their epistemology and thus their classroom practices towards a moreinquiry-based approach within a socially interactive learning environment.

The use of computer-assisted learning in a constructivist-orientedlearning environment facilitated teachers’ appreciation of the potential forthe computer. From this experience, teachers enabled students to engage inhigher-order learning using the computer as a cognitive tool in the classroom.Teachers became aware of the need to provide opportunities for reflectionand negotiation of knowledge and content to develop a collectiveunderstanding as essential components of their classroom practices.

5.3. Implications for Further Research

The study would benefit from research using a larger sample size both inthe professional development workshops and in the classroom. Furtherinvestigations of teachers’ classroom practices using the CMLES willprovide additional data from which to develop an understanding of howteachers change their epistemologies and thus their classroom practicesusing constructivist-oriented multimedia learning programs. Additionaldata could also be gathered on students’ reflections on and perceptions oftheir experiences with a constructivist-oriented multimedia learningenvironment.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank the teachers who participated in the workshop for their valuablecontribution. This research is part of the author’s postdoctoral fellowshipand is supported by the Australian Research Council.


APPENDIX

Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES)What actually happens in my classroom?

• Teacher Form•

DIRECTIONS

1. Purpose of the QuestionnaireThis questionnaire asks you to describe important aspects of the classroom which you are inright now. There are no right or wrong answers. Your opinion is what is wanted. Your answers

will enable us to improve future science teaching.

2. How to Answer Each QuestionOn the next few pages you will find 25 sentences. For each sentence, circle only one numbercorresponding to your answer. For example:

Almost Often Sometimes Seldom Almostalways never

In this class8 I ask the students questions. 5 4 3 2 1

• If you think that you almost always ask the students questions, circle the 5.• If you think that you almost never ask the students questions, circle the 1.

• Or you can choose the number 2, 3 or 4 if one of these seems like a more accurate answer.

3. How to Change Your Answer

If you want to change your answer, cross it out and circle a new number. For example:

8 I ask the students questions. 5 4 3 2 1

4. Course Information

Please provide information in the box below. Please be assured that your answers to this

questionnaire will be treated confidentially.

a. Name: b. School:

c. Grade/Year-level: d. Sex: male/female

(please circle one)

5. Completing the QuestionnaireNow turn the page and please give an answer for every question.

DORIT MAOR326

Almost Often Sometimes Seldom Almostalways never

Student negotiation

In this class . . .1. students get the chance to talk to each other. 5 4 3 2 12. students discuss with each other how to 5 4 3 2 1

conduct investigations.3. students ask other students to 5 4 3 2 1

explain their ideas.4. students ask me to explain my ideas. 5 4 3 2 15. students explain their ideas to me. 5 4 3 2 1

Inquiry learning

In this class . . .6. students find out answers to 5 4 3 2 1

questions by investigation.7. students carry out investigations to 5 4 3 2 1

test their own ideas.8. students conduct follow-up investigations 5 4 3 2 1

to answer emerging questions.9. students design their own ways of 5 4 3 2 1

investigating problems.10. students approach a problem from 5 4 3 2 1

more than one perspective.

Reflective thinking

In this class . . .11. students think carefully about 5 4 3 2 1

how they learn.12. students think critically about 5 4 3 2 1

their own ideas.13. students learn to be sceptical. 5 4 3 2 114. students learn how to become 5 4 3 2 1

better learners.15. students think critically about 5 4 3 2 1

their own understandings.

PART I: THE PROCESS OF LEARNING WITH IMM

PLEASE INDICATE THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE FOLLOWING LEARNING ACTIVITIES DO OCCUR IN THIS

CLASS


PART II: THE IMM PROGRAM

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statementsabout how the IMM program IS experienced by students

Strongly Agree Don’t Disagree Stronglyagree know disagree

Authenticity of the IMM Program

Working with this IMM program . . .

16. students find that it reflects the complexity 5 4 3 2 1of a real life environment.

17. students find that data are presented 5 4 3 2 1in meaningful contexts.

18. students find that it presents information 5 4 3 2 1relevant to them.

19. students find that they are presented with 5 4 3 2 1realistic tasks.

20. students can choose from a wide 5 4 3 2 1range of information.

Complexity of the IMM Interface

Working with this IMM program . . .

21. students find it to be user friendly. 5 4 3 2 122. students find it easy to navigate. 5 4 3 2 123. students find it makes them think. 5 4 3 2 124. students find it is easy to use. 5 4 3 2 125. students take only a short time to learn 5 4 3 2 1

how to use the program.

REFERENCES

Bain, J.D., McNaught, C., Mills, C. & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Describing computer-facilitated learning environments in higher education. Learning Environments Research,1, 163–180.

Baird, J.R. & Northfield, J.R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne,Australia: Monash University.

Cobern, W. (1998). Science and a social constructivist view of science education. In W.Cobern (Ed.), Socio-cultural perspectives on science education: an international dia-logue (pp. 7–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Duffy, T.M. & Cunninngham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the designand delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educa-tional communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.

*For student and teacher actual and preferred on-line forms, see http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/smec/forms/CMLES

DORIT MAOR328

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and ap-plications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.

Fraser, B.J. (1999). Using learning environment assessments to improve classroom andschool climates. In J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: measuring, improving and sus-taining healthy learning environments (pp. 65–83). London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M.G. (1993). Changing forces: probing the depth of educational reform. NewYork: Falmer Press.

Galligan, J. (1995). Computers and pedagogy: it’s not what you’ve got, it’s how you useit. In R. Oliver & M. Wild (Eds.), Learning Without Limits: Proceedings of the Aus-tralian Computers in Education Conference 1995, Volume 1. Perth, Australia: Educa-tional Computing Association of Western Australia, 83–90.

Garbinger, S.R. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 665–693).New York: Macmillan.

Hand, B., Lovejoy, C. & Balaam, G. (1991). Teachers’ reaction to a change to aconstructivist teaching/learning strategy. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 37(1),20–25.

Harper, B. & Hedberg, J. (1997). Creating motivating interactive learning environments:a constructivist view. In R. Kevill, R. Oliver & R. Phillips (Eds.), What Works andWhy: ASCILITE ‘97: Conference Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conferenceof the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education. Perth, Australia: CurtinUniversity of Technology, 11–31.

Jonassen, D.H. & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: using computers ascognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational com-munications and technology (pp. 693–720). New York: Macmillan.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for effective use ofeducational technology. London: Routledge.

Lemke, J.L. (1995). Textual politics: discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &Francis.

Maor, D. (1993). An interpretive study of the development of students’ inquiry skills in acomputerised classroom environment from a constructivist perspective, Curtin Uni-versity of Technology, Perth, Australia, unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluatinginquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Educa-tion, 18, 401–421.

Maor, D. & Phillips, R. (1996). Developing a multimedia package for teaching thinkingskills. In C. McBeath & R. Atkinson (Eds.), The Learning Superhighway: New World?New Worries?: 3rd International Interactive Multimedia Symposium, 21–25 January(Symposium Proceedings). Perth, Australia: Promaco Conventions, 242–248.

Maor, D. & Taylor, P.C. (1995). Teacher epistemology and scientific inquiry in compu-terised classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 839–854.

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: procedures, measures, find-ings, and policy implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nelson, W. (1994). Efforts to improve computer-based instructions: the role of knowl-edge representation and knowledge construction in hypermedia systems. Computersin the Schools, 10, 371–399.


Newby, M. & Fisher, D. (1997). An instrument for assessing the learning environment ofa computer laboratory. Educational Computing Research, 16, 179–190.

O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the efficacy of social constructivism? Review ofEducational Research, 23, 25–71.

Perkins, D.N. & Unger, C. (1994). A new look in representations for mathematics andscience learning. Instructional Science, 22, 1–37.

Reeves, T.C. (1992). Effective dimensions of interactive learning systems. In A. Holzl &D. Robbs (Eds.), Finding the Future: Proceedings of the Second Information Technol-ogy for Training and Education Conference (ITTE ‘92). Brisbane, Australia: Univer-sity of Queensland, 99–113.

Salomon, G. (1996, July). Technology’s promises and dangers in a psychological con-text: implications for teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the SecondInternational Conference on Teacher Education: Stability, Evolution and Revolution,Wingate Institute, Israel.

Salomon, G. & Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review ofResearch in Education, 23, 1–24.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic Books.

Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teach-ers College Press.

Taylor, P.C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Edu-cational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151–173.

Taylor P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learn-ing environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.

Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & White, L.R. (1994, April). The revised CLES: a questionnairefor educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathemat-ics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research As-sociation, Atlanta, GA.

Teh, G. & Fraser, B.J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms ofachievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Edu-cation, 8, 147–161.

Tobin, K.G. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science educa-tion. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 29–35.

Tobin, K.G. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washing-ton, DC: AAAS Publications.

Tobin, K.G. (1998). Issues and trends in the teaching of science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 129–151). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tobin, K.G. & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning.In K.G. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–23).Washington, DC: AAAS Publications.

Treagust, D., Duit, R. & Fraser, B.J. (Eds.). (1996). Improving teaching and learning inscience and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

Walberg, H.J. & Anderson, G.J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journalof Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.

Wheatley, G. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning.Science Education, 75, 9–21.

DORIT MAOR330

White, R.T. (1993, April). The path to quality learning. Paper presented at the annualconference of the National Association for Research in Science teaching, Atlanta, GA.

DORIT MAOR

Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyGPO Box U 1987, Perth 6845, AustraliaD. [email protected]

Documents

A Teacher Professional Development Program on Using a Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment