The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Multimedia Learning in Games, Simulations, and Microworlds

This chapter reviews and critiques the scientific evidence and research methods studying the use of games, simulations, and microworlds as multimedia learning tools. This chapter focuses on interactive educational multimedia, which is distinguished from scripted forms of educational multimedia by the degree to which users participate in and control the multimedia software. This chapter also uses the distinction between explanation and experience to understand the unique design opportunities of interactive educational multimedia. The strongest empirical evidence comes from the simulation literature, especially that related to questions about how to design a simulation’s interface to provide feedback and questions about students engaged in discovery learning activities. Microworld research is less empirically rigorous with evidence continuing to remain largely anecdotal based on implementation reports. Research on gaming is the most transitory, ranging from early research on learning from playing games to learning from designing games. Current debates among educational researchers about what constitutes scientific research are particularly relevant to anyone interested in research about interactive multimedia due to the increased use of qualitative research methodologies and the newly emerging trend toward design experiments. What Is Multimedia Learning in Games, Simulations, and Microworlds? The purpose of this chapter is to review the scientific evidence on the use of games, simulations, and microworlds as multimedia learning tools. This is a tall order. All three have very distinctive design and research pedigrees resulting in many cases from very distinctive philosophies about education. Despite these differences, there are advantages to considering all three in discussions of interactive multimedia because each has strengths and ideas that help mitigate weaknesses or gaps often found in the other two (Rieber, 1992; 2003 for detailed discussions). This chapter is written to consider games, simulations, and microworlds within the broad organizational framework of educational multimedia. Most of the educational multimedia studied by researchers is not interactive or experiential, but instead is used as part of instructional texts that explain content to students. For that reason, it is useful to consider the distinction between explanation and experience when trying to understand the design and use of educational multimedia. Multimedia that emphasizes explanation uses multimedia elements (e.g., text, static graphics, animation, and audio) in “scripted” ways. By scripted, I mean multimedia that is designed to be read or viewed in one particular way,

[1]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[2]  K. Frank,et al.  Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective , 2003 .

[3]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Minds In Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children''s , 1994 .

[4]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Mental models: A research focus for interactive learning systems , 1992 .

[5]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  The role of meaning in interpreting graphical and textual feedback during a computer-based simulation , 1996, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Denis Newman Opportunities for Research on the Organizational Impact of School Computers , 1990 .

[7]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research. , 2002 .

[8]  D. Perkins,et al.  Partners in Cognition: Extending Human Intelligence with Intelligent Technologies , 1991 .

[9]  D. Penner Building Knowledge and Meaning Through Modeling , 2002 .

[10]  Celia Hoyles,et al.  Computers and exploratory learning , 1995 .

[11]  R. Mayer Models for Understanding , 1989 .

[12]  Larry Cuban,et al.  High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox , 2001 .

[13]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Alternative Approaches to Using Modeling and Simulation Tools for Teaching Science , 1999 .

[14]  Andrea A. diSessa An Overview of Boxer. , 1991 .

[15]  Sasha A. Barab,et al.  Activity Theory As a Lens for Characterizing the Participatory Unit. , 2004 .

[16]  Harold Abelson,et al.  Boxer: a reconstructible computational medium , 1986, CACM.

[17]  Karen L. Rasmussen,et al.  Since Malone's Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction: What's the Score in the Gaming Literature? , 1993 .

[18]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[19]  Steven Poole,et al.  Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution , 2004 .

[20]  Laurie D. Edwards,et al.  Microworlds as Representations , 1995 .

[21]  Anthony D. Pellegrini,et al.  The future of play theory : a multidisciplinary inquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith , 1995 .

[22]  D. Berliner Comment: Educational Research:The Hardest Science of All , 2002 .

[23]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction , 1992 .

[24]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Animation as feedback in a computer-based simulation: Representation matters , 1996 .

[25]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Information Technology and Education: Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking , 1987 .

[26]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy , 2000 .

[27]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Research for educational Communications and Technology , 1997 .

[28]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  A Microworld-Based Approach to Science Education , 1992 .

[29]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  Designing Computer Games to Help Physics Students Understand Newton's Laws of Motion , 1984 .

[30]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Project KID DESIGNER: Constructivism at Work through Play , 1998 .

[31]  Jeremy Roschelle,et al.  Technology Design as Educational Research: Interweaving Imagination, Inquiry, and Impact , 2000 .

[32]  Kris D. Gutiérrez,et al.  Comment: Culture, Rigor, and Science in Educational Research , 2002 .

[33]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Using Computer Animated Graphics in Science Instruction with Children , 1990 .

[34]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments , 1999 .

[35]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games , 1996 .

[36]  A. Paivio Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[37]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[38]  Larry Cuban Oversold and Underused , 2001 .

[39]  Cynthia Carter Ching,et al.  Children as designers of educational multimedia software , 1997, Comput. Educ..

[40]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks , 1990 .

[41]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[42]  D. Clements,et al.  Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children's Cognition , 1984 .

[43]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Software Design as a Learning Environment , 1990, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[44]  A. Onwuegbuzie,et al.  Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come , 2004 .

[45]  Wallace Feurzeig,et al.  Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education , 1999, Modeling Dynamic Systems.

[46]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation , 1991 .

[47]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students , 1998 .

[48]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: finding the right mix , 2004 .

[49]  D. Penner Cognition, Computers, and Synthetic Science: Building Knowledge and Meaning Through Modeling , 2000 .

[50]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Using Computer Simulations in Inductive Learning Strategies with Children in Science. , 1995 .

[51]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  To Teach or Not to Teach? Comparing the Use of Computer-Based Simulations in Deductive versus Inductive Approaches to Learning with Adults in Science , 1995 .

[52]  Y. Lincoln,et al.  Scientific Research in Education , 2004 .

[53]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[54]  C. Douglas Wetzel,et al.  The Effectiveness of Games for Educational Purposes: A Review of Recent Research , 1992 .

[55]  James Paul Gee,et al.  What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy , 2007, CIE.

[56]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Information Technology and Education: Computer Criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking , 1987 .

[57]  Paul Horwitz Designing Computer Models That Teach , 1999 .

[58]  B. Sutton-Smith,et al.  The Ambiguity of Play , 2000 .

[59]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[60]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[61]  Richard J. Shavelson,et al.  Scientific Culture and Educational Research , 2002 .

[62]  B. White ThinkerTools: Causal Models, Conceptual Change, and Science Education , 1993 .

[63]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[64]  Denis Newman Formative Experiments on the Coevolution of Technology and the Educational Environment , 1992 .

[65]  D. Jonassen Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? , 1991 .