Exploring user interfaces to improve learning outcomes

The concept of information landscapes has been a constant theme in the development of interactive multimedia packages. For the interface and access to this information to be effective and efficient, consideration must be given to the cognitive load placed on the user. Improvement in learning outcomes can be supported by allowing students to focus on metacognitive processes as a component of performance support built into the interface. The renewed interest in student-centred learning environments and the move to constructivist paradigms place responsibility for learning firmly within the control of the student, but this responsibility can only result in improved learning when appropriate support is available and the necessary skills can be developed with students. This paper examines these issues in the context of the development of a CD-ROM based interactive multimedia package, ‘Investigating Lake Iluka’, and reviews evaluation of the learning outcomes from initial use of the package. Over the last decade there has been a significant shift in emphasis in curricula generally. Learning basic facts and definitions from textbooks has become less important than the application of knowledge in daily life and the development of higher order thinking skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and decision making. In many countries this shift has been developing in parallel with national programs which are emphasising a move toward a more literate populous. The quality of the learning outcomes of a nation’s education and training systems play a central role in determining the future levels of economic and social development. Many in-house industry training programs have realised that the focus should be on effective performance and problem solving rather the ability to remember facts and repeat theory without real understanding about its applicability Recent curriculum documents in many western countries emphasise the skills of investigation, reflection and analysis to generate or refine knowledge. The appeal of cognitive process training to support this development is obvious, and it seems far more efficient to provide the student with general-purpose problem solving than instruction on specific solutions to specific problems. If the learning outcomes from instruction are to reflect these trends, the learning materials being developed to take advantage of advances in technology must incorporate the latest developments in learning paradigms. Hedberg, Harper & Brown Page 2 THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF LEARNING There has been considerable controversy, which will no doubt continue to simmer, over the clarification of constructivism as opposed to subjectivism (Molenda, 1991). The constructivists argue that learning outcomes depend on: • the learning environment. • the prior knowledge of the learner. • the learner's view of the purpose of the task. • the motivation of the learner. The process of learning involves the construction of meanings by the learner from what is said or demonstrated or experienced. This may not match the meaning intended by the teacher. The role of the teacher is one of facilitating the development of understanding by selecting appropriate experiences and then allowing students to reflect on these experiences. Construction of meaning is a continuous and active process. Inactive learners will not be constructing meaning. Having constructed meanings, learners will then evaluate and consequently accept or reject them. They take final responsibility for their learning. The overarching issue in a constructionist view of learning is that individuals generate their own understanding, therefore students need to have some understanding and control over their learning process. Tasker (1992) has noted that the creative thinking and constructivist views of the late Roger Osborne provided rich insights into the science classroom and into the world of the learner in science (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). They also provided the substantial platform of knowledge which enabled the elaboration of a 'Generative Learning Model' for science education. Cliff Malcolm (1992) has supported these types of proposals and contends that children from the beginning develop theories and explanations which they revise and rebuild in the light of their experience. This is learning. Research into children's science (eg Osborne and Freyberg, 1985) shows that children's beliefs are often strongly held and resistant to change by simple instruction. To the learner, the constructivist learning experience may not look welcoming (Perkins, 1991). It may seem daunting and complex to those who feel ill-prepared for such creative freedom and choice of direction. Often constructivist learning situations suddenly throw students on their own management resources and many fend poorly in the high cognitive complexity of the learning environment. Cognitive support tools and the explicit acknowledgment of the double agenda of metacognitive self-management and learning can help. The scaffolding and coaching in the cognitive apprenticeship model offer another solution. Evaluation of constructivist learning emphasises higher-order thinking (Jonassen, 1991). It focuses on the process within an authentic task, rather than the product, and hence is assisted by student monitoring of the process. Context driven and dependent, this evaluation accepts the likelihood of multiple perspective’s, the possibility of a range of tasks, and the need to be evaluated by a panel of goal free examiners from a range of backgrounds . David Jonassen (1991) recommends the most effective application of constructivist learning environments is to the stage of advanced knowledge acquisition, where students already have well formed schema Hedberg, Harper & Brown Page 3 and knowledge integration. Advanced knowledge must be gained in order to solve complex domainor contextdependent problems. MULTIMEDIA DESIGN IN A CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAMEWORK A number of multimedia design models have been developed which illustrate the combination of complex learning environments and which also give students their own real control over their learning environment. Our model (Figure 1) is based on a more organic and iterative approach than traditional instructional systems design and attempts to frame the design process in a constructivist framework. 2 Screens—nodes and links Visual representations of project space