assignment 3

Teaching and Learning in CBL (CBL7010)

EVALUATING INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Mary Price, 9788654

January 2010

Teaching and Learning in CBL (CBL7010) Mary Price, 9788654

2

C O N T E N T SPage

1 Introduction 3

2 Overview of Prototype 3 - 4

3 Evaluation of Appropriateness and Quality of Interactive Strategies Adopted 4 - 6

4 Interactivity – Recommendations 6 - 7

5 Evaluation of Appropriateness and Quality of Motivational Strategies Adopted 7 - 9

6 Motivation – Recommendations 9 - 11

7 Evaluation - Appropriateness and Quality of Collaborative Strategies Adopted 11 - 13

8 Collaboration – Recommendations 13 - 14

9 Conclusion 15

10 References 16 -18

DIAGRAMS AND CHARTS

Figure 1 - User-registration to facilitate personalisation of feedback 10

Figure 2 - Example of personalised feedback 10

Figure 3 - User-registration to facilitate personalised notes 10

Figure 4 - Example of personalised notes 11

Figure 5 - Example of accessible notes option 14

TABLES

Table 1 - Interactivity Log: The Vikings 5


3

1 INTRODUCTION

The ‘guarantee’ of developing a valuable interactive multimedia package that ‘supports effective

learning and teaching’ depends on ‘evaluation and revision’, (Alessi and Trollip, 2001).

This report evaluates the appropriateness and quality of a computer based learning (CBL) prototype

entitled ‘The Vikings’ that was designed and constructed by a development team in Queen’s

University. The evaluation forms part of the formative evaluation ‘cycle’, (Alessi and Trollip, 2001)

and considers the appropriateness and quality of the instructional design of the package in terms of

how well it supports interactivity, motivation and collaboration. The report also makes

recommendations to improve support in these areas.

2 OVERVIEW OF PROTOTYPE

‘The Vikings’ is a history package designed for and targeted at Key Stage 2 and as such is intended

to be used by primary school pupils in Years 5, 6 and 7. The content of the package correlates to

the primary curriculum ‘area of learning’ entitled ‘The World around Us’. Therefore, completion of

the package should enable pupils to develop knowledge, understanding and skills within the

contributory element of history. Additionally, pupils using the resource should have the opportunity

to develop skills and capabilities for ‘life-long learning’, including managing information, thinking,

problem solving and making decisions, being creative, working with others and self-management,

as specified within the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum (2007).

The developer claims that the instructional design of ‘The Vikings’ is underpinned by the theory of

situated learning, is highly interactive and student-centred and recommends that pupils use it while

working in pairs. According to Lave (1988 cited in Smith 2003, 2009) learning occurs as a

consequence of the ‘activity, context and culture’ in which it takes place and ‘social interaction’ and

‘collaboration’ are crucial elements. Situated learning, is based on Vygotsky social-constructivist

theory and emphasises ‘social interaction’ as a ‘critical component’’. McGregor (2007) discussing

the socio-cultural perspective of social-constructivist theory emphasises that ‘thinking and learning’

occurs through engagement with ‘cultural’ practices and Brown et al (1989), who observed learning

in ‘situ’, highlights the benefits of this approach stating that learning is effective as people who learn

in this way ‘pick up relevant jargon’ and ‘cultural practices’ very successfully.

From a teaching perspective situated learning shifts the focus from ‘knowledge transmission’

towards ‘knowledge construction’, (McInerney and McInerney, 1994 cited in Dalgarno 2001).


4

Whereas the traditional instructional design (TID) model assumes each learner ‘learns the same

things in the same way at the same time’, the socio-cultural instructional design (SCID) model

assumes that each learner ‘constructs his/her own meaning’ and learning results from ‘experience

and discourse’, (Grabinger et al, 2007).

Developers of the prototype have employed a ‘game’, ‘exploratory environment’ type methodology’

to present the content of the primary history topic ‘The Viking Age’. The game uses an

adventure/problem-solving scenario to ‘present information’ as described by Alessi and Trollip

(2001) in their ‘phases of instruction’ model. Thus within the ‘Vikings’ package the illusion of being

‘transported’ to ‘Norway in the year 800AD’ and the subsequent visits to Astrid’s hut, Sven’s

workshop and Olaf’s home and the ‘discussions’ that follow provide the ‘context’ and ‘culture’

aligned with situated learning.

3 EVALUATION OF APPROPRIATENESS AND QUALITY OF INTERACTIVE STRATEGIES ADOPTED

Interactivity is judged to be a ‘vague concept’ (Oliver, 1996 cited in Stoney and Wild, 1998) and

literature in this area includes much debate about its ‘meaning’ thus making it ‘difficult to examine’

(Lustria, 2007). Within the field of instructional design the terms ‘interaction’ and ‘interactivity’ are

frequently used to describe one and the same thing, (Rose, 1999). Nevertheless, Zhang and Fulford

(1994, cited in Kreijns et al, 2003) and Gilbert and Moore (1998) make a distinction between

‘instructional’ interactivity and ‘social’ interaction. This evaluation will be concerned with interactivity

as it relates to the ‘instructional objectives’ (Gilbert and Moore, 1998) contained within the ‘Vikings’

package.

Stoney and Wild (1998) describe interactive multimedia as programs that encompass a range of

media and which oblige users to be ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’ participants. Interactivity, according

to Aldrich et al (1998) is a fundamental feature of multimedia software and as such is ‘crucial to the

acquisition of knowledge’, (Sim, 1997). Laurillard and Taylor (1994) allude to the fact that the

interactive nature of multimedia offers the potential to ‘hold’ learners interest and ‘support’ learning

of ‘complex’ concepts while other researchers claim that it ‘boosts the speed’ of learning and

enhances ‘confidence and motivation’, (Horton, 2000, Klassen, Vogel and Moody, 2001, cited in

Sabry and Barker, 2009).

Previous attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of learning using multimedia products presumed

that this should be based on the degree of interactivity the product supported, Borsook and

Higginbotham-Wheat, 1991). Spector (1995, cited in Sims, 1997) on the other hand considers that

learning effectiveness has more to do with the user’s ‘mental engagement with the materials’ rather


5

than degree of interaction. The solution, according to Aldrich et al (1998) is being able to identify

‘interactivities’ that encourage ‘effective learning and put interactivity to good use’ thus enabling

learners to become ‘active in their own learning’ as stressed by constructivist theorists.

Educational technology research identified interactive learning activities on a ‘continuum’ ranging

from ‘reactive’ to ‘proactive’ where ‘proactive’ involves the learner in active ‘construction of

knowledge. More recently, Davies (2002) in consideration of interactive features that support

effective learning made a distinction between ‘navigational’ interactivity and ‘instructional’

interactivity, which he claims must ‘co-exist for successful learning’. Table 1 below illustrates the

instructional and navigational activities identified within the ‘Vikings’ package. The instructional

interactivity features have been phrased to facilitate collaboration as the developer anticipated that

learners will be working in pairs. An analysis of the table shows that the ‘navigational’ interactivity

features, which reflect the lower end of the continuum and are concerned with the learner ‘taking

some action and the computer responding’ (Aldrich et al, 1998), outweigh the ‘instructional’

activities. Eleven of the nineteen ‘instructional’ activities involve reading, while eight of the activities

require the learner to make decisions, discuss, compose, agree and consider as a means of

‘constructing’ their own meaning.

Table 1 – Interactivity Log: The Vikings

Instructional Interactivity Navigational Interactivity

1. Read text to understand task 20. Click to ‘Enter’ the package 2. Decide what artefact to uncover 21. Click ‘Next’ to move to grid 3. Discuss answers to 4 open questions 22. Click to Begin 4. Read and interpret clues 23. Key in coordinate for artefact 5. Read and interpret instructions 24. Click ‘OK’ and ‘Yes’ to begin study of sword 6. Read villager’s ‘Welcome’ message 25. Click hotspots on sword to view clues 7. Read question text x 3 26. Move mouse around the ‘village’ screen 8. Read answer to question x 3 27. Click to enter villager’s hut 9. Discuss and agree important points x 3 28. Click ‘Show Question’ x 310. Compose, agree and type notes x 3 29. Click ‘Answer Question’ x 311. Discuss who might own the sword x 3 30. Click to open ‘Take Notes’ screen x 312. Read definition of linked words 31. Save notes x 313. Read the information on Seven’s work 32. Click to return to ‘Village’ x 314. Consider/discuss Seven’s challenge 33. Click on ‘Guess Page’15. Discuss and agree answers to place names quiz 34. Click on owner of the sword16. Read correct/incorrect feedback 35. Click on Seven’s hands to see what he can make17. Read quiz questions 36. Click on ‘glossary’ hotspots18. Consider/discuss/agree correct answer 37. Move mouse over Seven’s work19. Read correct/incorrect feedback 38. Click to accept Seven’s challenge

39. Dragging suffixes around screen40. Print notes41. Click on ‘Quiz’42. Move mouse over each target to uncover possible answers43. Click on answer

Design for interactivity according to Bates and Leary (2001, cited in Sabry and Barker, 2009)

necessitates a transfer from ‘teacher-student dependence’ to ‘teacher-student independence’

design. Within the ‘Vikings’ package learners have a level of control over the activities they engage

with in terms of ‘sequencing, pace and amount of practice’ as described by Borsook et al (1990).


6

However, as highlighted by them devolving too much control can result in ‘disappointing

performance’. Indeed Laurillard and Taylor (1994) stress that while interactivity offers the potential

to enhance learning a disadvantage of these systems is that often learners fail to spend sufficient

time considering and ‘analysing’ content. Grabe and Grabe (2008) emphasise that instructional

software does not remove the necessity for ‘teaching’ or ‘teaching supervision’ and Laurillard and

Taylor (1994) suggest that ‘productive on-task activity’ is achieved when ‘interactivity and support’

are provided.

4 INTERACTIVE STRATEGIES - RECOMMENDATIONS

As highlighted in Table 1 above, the ‘Vikings’ package offers a range of instructional interactive

activities as described by Davies (2002), nevertheless, additional strategies could be implemented

to enhance interactivity that may make learning more effective. For example, elements 3, 9, 10, 13,

14 and 18, while mainly appropriate could be extended. Prior to starting their ‘quest’ learners are

asked four ‘open questions’, including a requirement that answers should be discussed and

recorded would create an opportunity for learners to ‘externalise’ their knowledge of the topic as a

means of increasing their understanding. Opportunities exist within elements 9 and 10 as suggested

above.

While the navigational interactivity within elements 14 and 18 is appropriate, at an ‘instructional’

level they could be improved. For example, learners could be asked to come up and record the

names of other Viking towns using the ‘suffixes’ that appear within the quiz. Additionally, the

summative quiz, ie Rollo’s Quiz, could be more comprehensive and incorporate a range of question

types. The current questions require simple recall and only assess a small element of the content.

Questions that encourage learners to analyse and discuss their findings would better facilitate

effective learning.

The ‘Vikings’ package is intended to be used by pupils in years 5, 6 and 7 and while elements of

existing ‘instructional’ interactivities could be enhanced for all, as indicated above, a greater range

of interactive elements could be provided, perhaps as extended activities, for more able learners

and those within years 6 and 7. For example, Chou (2003) suggests that to facilitate more ‘content

choices’ designers should consider incorporating links to ‘related learning materials’. Element 13

within Table 1 above provides one such opportunity. Currently rollovers are used to reveal facts

about the various examples of Sven’s work. Providing links to additional information in the form of

spoken narrative or short video clips followed by an interactive quiz would provide extended

learning opportunities for more able learners.


7

Referring to interactivity and control, Robertson (1998) states that they are ‘complex overlapping

concepts’. Although the control that complements interactivity within the ‘Vikings’ package allows

learners to ‘explore’ and ‘discover’ information independently, and this notion is embraced by the

theory of situated learning, Laurillard and Taylor (1994) stress that control and interactive elements

must be suited to their target audience. While the level of interactivity could be enhanced as

suggested above, the level of choice could be better controlled through the use of ‘narrative’ as

suggested by Dickey (2006). For example, explaining that each of the villagers held a clue to the

owner of the sword would discourage learners from by-passing some of the instructional ‘content’.

5 EVALUATION OF APPROPRIATENESS AND QUALITY OF MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES ADOPTED

Motivation has been described as a person’s ‘aroused desire for participation in a learning process’

(Curzon, 1990, cited in Armitage et al, 2003) and is considered to be ‘essential to learning’, (Alessi

and Trollip, 2001). Those who voluntarily participate in learning are said to be intrinsically motivated

while those who participate with the expectation of some form of return are thought to be

extrinsically motivated, (Malone, 1981). Deci and Ryan (2000) found that intrinsically motivated

learners are more ‘dedicated’, perform ‘better’ and demonstrate greater ‘persistence’ than those

who are extrinsically motivated and much research had been devoted to identifying instructional

techniques that enhance learners’ intrinsic motivation.

Instructional designers, according to Lepper and Malone (1987) should make use of motivational

strategies at ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ levels. At ‘macro-level’ the pedagogical methodology employed

must correspond to the needs of the target audience. A belief exists that games are by nature

intrinsically motivating. McFarlane (1997) makes the point that adventure games encourage a

‘playful’ approach to learning; therefore the adventure game/exploratory environment format

employed within the Vikings package has the potential to engage and motivate learners.

Nevertheless, Keller (2006) as a consequence of his research into ‘motivational design’ cautions

against instructional materials that are ‘very appealing without being effective’ and emphasises that

motivational strategies must ‘support’ instructional goals.

Motivational strategies at a ‘micro’ level will be concerned with ‘elements of a lesson’, (Lepper and

Malone, 1987). Much research has been undertaken to understand how elements of game design

could be ‘repurposed’ for instructional ends, (Dickey, 2006). Most notable is Malone and Lepper’s

model dating back to 1987 and Keller’s ARCS model (1983, cited by Small 1997). The content of

‘The Vikings’ package will be evaluated against motivational supports suggested by these models.


8

‘Curiosity’ according to Malone (1981) is an essential element of ‘intrinsically motivating

environments’ and Keller within the ‘Attention’ category of his model identified techniques for

‘arousing and sustaining curiosity’. The atmospheric music and graphic image within the opening

screen of the ‘Vikings’ package and the ‘motivational narrative’ (Dickey, 2006) used to ‘establish the

setting’, ie, “In the year 800AD …” and the ‘plot hook’, ie, “… it is now your job to uncover it” offer

the potential to attract attention and raise interest. The integration of questioning throughout the

package, ie, “Where will you go today?” and “Now how about a challenge – do you accept?” should

challenge the user, arouse curiosity and create a sense of ‘intrigue’. Additionally, the use of

‘hotspots’ within the ‘village’ screen adds an element of surprise and mystery. To add variability, as

suggested by Keller (2000), a range of activities have been integrated into the package, for

example, users must negotiate a ‘grid’ to select the artefact they wish to ‘uncover’, use roll-overs to

locate clues about the sword, have ‘discussions’ with villagers to gather information about the sword

and complete quizzes to assess their understanding.

Choice or ‘Control’ or the ‘illusion’ of it are said to increase user’s motivation, (Piaget, 1971, cited in

Malone, 1981). The ‘key’ to optimal motivation, according to Becker and Dwyer (1994, cited in

Stoney and Wild, 1998) is to provide ‘system, process and content’ control for the user.

Nevertheless, not all theorists agree. Lowyck and Pöysä (2001) make the point that control may

increase motivation but not necessarily ‘achievement’ and Snow (1980, cited in Naidu, 1995) is in

agreement stating that the assumption that all learners will make the best choices is ‘untenable’.

Thus, learner control is a ‘complex variable’ and matching control elements that lead to ‘optimal’

learning is a concern for instructional designers. When fully complete users will be able to choose

which artefact/s they wish to uncover, what ‘villagers’ they want to engage with to obtain information

and whether to use the ‘Note’ facility to record their findings. These features may enhance intrinsic

motivation as they facilitate a level of self-direction. One concern though is the option to ‘Guess’ the

owner of the sword before all relevant information has been gathered, therefore, there may be the

temptation, as observed by Laurillard and Taylor (1994), to ‘sample’ and ‘hurry on’ rather than

complete all activities first.

The developers have utilised strategies to enhance user’s motivation by incorporating motivational

feedback as recommended by Malone and Keller. Malone (1981) states that feedback should be

informative and constructive and should help users increase their knowledge. This element is

evident within ‘Rollo’s Quiz’. When the user answers a question correctly he/she receives ‘praise’

for each correct answer and a ‘reward’ on successful completion of the quiz. When questions are

answered incorrectly the user is directed back to the relevant section of the package to ‘find out the

facts’. Research completed by Moreno and Mayer (2005, cited in Clarke and Mayer, 2008) found

that learning was more successful when learners received ‘explanatory feedback’ rather than

‘corrective feedback’. This is evident within the ‘place names’ quiz as feedback in the form of

‘corrective’ and ‘explanatory’ feedback is provided for each correct and incorrect answer.


9

6 MOTIVATIONAL STRATEGIES - RECOMMENDATIONS

Mardsjo (1996, cited in Stoney and Wild, 1998) claims that the ‘interface in multimedia’ is not simply

an ‘access’ route to the product but defines the user’s ‘experience’ of it. Stoney and Wild (1998)

contend that learners are motivated by interfaces that are ‘easy to use’. They stress that

instructional designers must strive to produce intrinsically motivating interfaces that are ‘intuitive’ in

order to reduce ‘cognitive load’ and Preece et al (1994, cited in Karoulis, 2006) also stress this point

by suggesting that the ‘interface’ must ‘quickly disappear’ if the user is to be allowed to easily focus

on his ‘task’. To this end it is recommended that user guidance/directions within the ‘Vikings’ be

specified more clearly. Currently an instruction to ‘move your mouse over the sword – there may be

clues’ achieves nothing and would cause frustration to the user. Similarly, to speak to the villagers

the instruction to ‘click on the button below’ is ineffective as no button exists, therefore, the wording

of all instructions need to be made clear and unambiguous. A simple instruction to “Click on the

sword – there may be clues” would reduce the potential for uncertainty.

Currently, a proportion of the dialogue text within the package is revealed ‘letter-by-letter’ or ‘line-by-

line’ which could demotivate learners. Alessi and Trollip (2001) stress that ‘attention’ and

‘perception’ can be affected when information is presented either ‘too quickly or too slowly’. It is

recommended that text should be presented as one block which would make reading easier and

reduce the negative effect of the present technique.

Mooney and Bligh (1997) in their courseware development model for the design of CBL materials

for medical education recommended ‘personalised feedback’ as a key educational feature and Kim

and Keller (2008) found that the motivation of learners, in terms of confidence, was higher when

they received ‘personalised messages’. To enhance learner motivation it is recommended that

learners be required to ‘key in’ their name at the start of their session as shown in Figures 1 and 3

below. These details would then be used to personalise the learning experience by providing

‘personalised feedback and ‘personalised messages’ as shown in Figures 2 and 4 below.


10

Figure 1 – User-registration to facilitate personalisation of feedback

Figure 2 – Example of personalised feedback

Figure 3 – User-registration to facilitate personalised notes


11

Figure 4 – Example of personalised notes

Research undertaken by Visser & Keller (1990, cited in Song and Keller, 2001) showed that

‘excessive’ use of motivational strategies within CBL had a negative impact as it could ‘decrease

motivation’ by ‘annoying’ learners. This conclusion was confirmed by Song and Keller (2001) who

found that ‘motivationally saturated’ CBL was less effective than ‘motivationally adaptive’ CBL.

Similarly, Astleitner and Lintner (2001) caution against ‘seductive details’ that are ‘interesting’ but

‘disrupt’ the process of learning. Elements intended to raise interest were noted within the ‘Vikings’

package. While humour can maintain interest, if poorly used it may be ‘distracting’, for example,

hotspots, within the ‘Village’ screen reveal such statements as - ‘Tweet! Tweet! Silly move, kid!’ and

‘Sorry, but these cows have nothing to say because cows can’t TALK!!’ It is recommended that

these elements be removed as they are likely to cause annoyance and consequently ‘hinder’

learning.

Laurillard and Taylor (1994) found that ‘free exploration was rarely successful’. While social-

constructivist theory emphasises ‘active learning’ and ‘social-interaction’ there is recognition that

teachers ‘perform a critical function’ in ensuring that learning is meaningful, therefore, it is

recommended, as suggested by Laurilliard (1995, cited in Stoney and Wild, 1998) that learner

control within the package is supported by ‘coaching’ from the teacher. This could be achieved

through the provision of teacher support materials and ‘off-line’ activities to ‘scaffold’ learning,

Laurilliard (1995).

7 EVALUATION OF APPROPRIATENESS AND QUALITY OF COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES ADOPTED

Prichard et all (2006) define collaborative learning as an approach whereby students work

collaboratively ‘towards a common learning goal’. Concerned with SCID Garbinger et al (2007)

highlight ‘discourse’ as being ‘the chief mechanism for learning’ in socio-cultural learning

environments and emphasise that teaching strategies must concentrate on facilitating this.

McFarlane (1997) states that social interaction enhances understanding when learners are required

to ‘articulate’ their ideas in group ‘problem-solving’ situations. This view is shared by many


12

researchers. Underwood and Underwood (1990) found that group discussion was an ‘aid to

individual understanding’ and Laurillard (2008) makes the point that the requirement to express an

idea reveals for learners what they do not understand. Additionally, Blaye et al (1988, cited in

Laurillard, 1992) found that learners who worked in pairs were then able to work better by

themselves in a follow up task.

However, Wegerif et al (1998) referring to the potential of CBL to support collaboration, reports that

not all discussion ‘around computers’ is valuable. Indeed Alessi and Trollip (2001) acknowledge that

‘very few’ multimedia programs adequately support collaboration and research into computer-

supported collaborative learning (CSCL) has also confirmed that these environments often fall short

of the ‘social interactions needed for dialogue’, (Kreijns et al, 2003).

The ‘Vikings’ prototype presents the content of the topic ‘Viking Raiders’ in an ‘adventure game’

type scenario whereby the ‘quest’ is to ‘uncover’ an artefact and learn more about it using clues and

by questioning villagers. Crook (1987, cited in McFarlane, 1997) makes the point that ‘adventure

games’ encourage the ‘richest’ discussions. Having selected the sword, a series of questions are

posed, for example, ‘Who do you think owned this weapon’ and ‘Do you think it was used in battle?’

These questions could potentially encourage discussion between learners; nevertheless, without

additional support there is no guarantee of this.

Lipponen and Lallimo (2004) suggest that collaboration is facilitated when learners are required to

‘externalise ideas by writing’. In their view this process helps to make ‘thinking visible’ and

encourages reflection. Similarly, Garbinger et al (2007) identify the sharing of ‘findings’ as

something that would encourage ‘discourse’. Within the ‘Vikings’ package learners have the

opportunity to record their findings using a ‘Notes’ facility. This resource, if used appropriately, could

encourage discussion and an exchange of ideas to isolate relevant facts about the sword.

Research into ‘effective interfaces’ deduced that pupil ‘talk’ can be shaped by the software being

utilised and Wegerif et al (1998) identified a number of interface design elements that support

‘exploratory talk’. Exploratory talk, according to Wegerif et al, which involves ‘critical but

constructive’ discussion, can be encouraged when learners are presented with ‘choices’ that are

inserted into ‘motivating narrative’. The Viking place names quiz is one example of a feature that

could facilitate such talk. Another example is the ‘Guess Page’ feature. Before deciding the owner

of the sword the learners would need to draw together the evidence they had accumulated and

justify their selection before agreeing an answer. The summative quiz also provides users with an

opportunity to discuss and agree answers.

8 COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES – RECOMMENDATIONS


13

Laurillard (1992) identified conditions under which collaborative work using CBL simulations was

ineffective. These conditions included ‘lack of goal’ and ‘lack of preparation’ while Prichard et al

(2006) suggested that to be successful ‘collaborative’ work needs to be facilitated. Another problem

linked to collaborative learning surrounds the make-up of groups. Johnson and Johnson (1989,

cited in Kreijns et al, 2003) make the point that productive collaboration cannot be assured by

simply placing pupils in groups and Crooks (1997) concluded that to be successful collaboration

must be well ‘orchestrated’.

The ‘goal’ of uncovering an artefact is specified on the second screen of the package and later

learners are told that they must ‘locate’ the sword’s original ‘owner’. Laurillard (1992) identified ‘lack

of goal’ as one characteristic that reduced communication between learners. Although goals are

specified learners also need to locate, analyse and remember facts in order to learn about specific

objects used by Viking raiders and become familiar with Viking place names. The existing goals do

not fully reflect what is required; therefore, collaborative opportunities may be lost. Collaborative

opportunities would be maximised if the learning objectives were more explicit. In keeping with the

‘game-type’ methodology the goals should be couched in ‘motivating narrative’, for example, as a

‘challenge’, as suggested by Dickey (2006).

Research into the ‘quality of talk’ generated by different types of software suggests that the

‘structure’ of the task can influence discourse, Tolmie et al (1993). However Wegerif et al (1998)

found that software was not the only influence. Through research completed with primary school

children they discovered that the quality of talk improved when pupils received off-computer

coaching in ‘ground rules’, when the software interface supported collaboration and when the

content of the package was relevant to the curriculum being followed. Discussing how teachers can

‘promote’ collaborative learning, Webb (2009) makes the point that ‘learning groups’ do not

automatically participate in valuable ‘dialogue without help’. It is therefore recommended that

resource materials to accompany the package be created for teaching staff. The accompanying

notes would explain the benefits of collaborative learning, the pre-requisites for successful

collaborative learning and a series of ‘off-computer’ group work activities that would ensure that

learners were experienced collaborators prior to working at the computer.

The makeup of collaborative groups has been found to influence group outcomes. Hooper and

Hanafin (1991) established that group achievements ‘correspond’ to the state of group interactions

and Johnson and Johnson (1989, cited in Kreijns, 2003) found that effective collaboration was

unlikely in the absence of ‘social interaction’. Similarly, Crook (1997) suggests that productive

collaboration among primary school children may depend on existing friendships among members

of the group. While the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1991, cited in Bank and

Cunningham, 1998) emphasise that teachers in constructivist classrooms ‘perform a critical learning


14

function’ and consequently are responsible for creating the conditions for effective collaborative

learning. It is therefore recommended that support materials to accompany the ‘Vikings’ package

include guidance for teachers, not only on the importance of ‘coaching’ as suggested previously, but

on the composition of collaborative groups and highlighting research on ‘friendships groups’.

While the ‘Notes’ option within the package supports collaboration through the ‘externalisation’ of

ideas as a means of reflection and sharing (Lipponen and Lallimo (2004), Garbinger et al (2007),

the full benefits are unlikely to be realised in its present format as there are no ‘prompts’ to

encourage users to make use of it. An alternative design would be to present the ‘notes’ page in a

more ‘visible’ way so that it is easily accessible. An example of this is provided in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 – Example of accessible notes option

A review of the ’instructional’ and ‘navigational’ activities available within the ‘Vikings’ package, as

shown in Table 1 above, indicates that the designers have incorporated a range of techniques that

have the potential to encourage collaborative learning. Nevertheless, opportunities could be

maximised if the design narrative incorporated specific prompts or ‘cues’ (McGregor, 2007, Hummel

et al, 2006, Mercer, 1994) to encourage learners to collaborate. For example where learners are

required to make decisions there could be a prompt that says “You will now have a number of

decisions to make…” or “Discuss your findings ….”. These cues are described as ‘psychological

tools’ (McGregor, 2007) used to ‘mediate thinking’ which can scaffold learning.

9 CONCLUSION

This aims of this report were to evaluate the design of ‘The Vikings’ prototype in terms of how well

the instructional strategies used support interactivity, motivation and collaboration and to make

recommendations to improve support in these areas with reference to the literature.


15

The findings from the evaluation suggest that additional support strategies are required within the

three main areas under investigation to ensure that the package adequately supports effective

learning. Although the interactive, motivational and collaborative strategies employed by the

designers were found to be mainly appropriate, opportunities exist for improvements in each area.

While the package is underpinned by the theory of situated learning which emphasises the

importance of social interaction and collaboration, it is evident that this approach, if unsupported

may not be successful with the target audience. Consequently, a number of recommendations

relating to the support and control elements offered within the package have been made some of

which focus on the support teachers will require in order to ‘scaffold’ learning in the primary

classroom.


16

R E F E R E N C E S

Aldrich, F., Rogers, Y. and Scaife, M., 1998. Getting to grips with ‘interactivity’: helping teachers access the educational value of CD-ROMs. British Journal of Educational Technology. Volume 29 (4), pp 321-332.

Alessi, S. M. and Trollip S., 2001. Multimedia for learning – methods and development, 3 rd Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Armitage, A et al, 2003. Teaching and training in post-compulsory education, 2nd Edition, Maidenhead: Open University Press

Bonk, C.J. and Cunningham, D.J., 1998. Chapter 2: Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J. Bonk and K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse, pp 25-50. Mahwah, J.J: Erlbaum.

Borsook, T.K. and Higginbotham-Wheat, N., 1991. Interactivity: What is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction? Educational Technology. Volume 31 (10), pp 11-17.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, A., 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, Volume 18 (1), pp 32-42. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1176008. [Last Accessed: 13 January 2010].

Clarke, R.C. and Mayer, R. E., 2008. e-Learning and the science of instruction, proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 2nd Edition, Pfeiffer.

Crook, C., 1997. Children as computer users: The case of collaborative learning. Computers Education, Volume 30 (3/4), pp 237-247

Davies, C.H.J., 2002. Student engagement with simulations: a case study. Computers and Education, Volume 39, pp 271-282.

Dalgarno, B., 2001. Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for computer assisted learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32 (2), pp 183-194.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour, Journal of Psychological Inquiry, Volume 11, pp 227-268.

Dickey, M.D., 2006. Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design, Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 53 (2), pp 67-83.

Gilbert, L. and Moore, D.R., 1998. Building interactivity into web courses: tools for social and instructional interaction, Educational Technology, Journal 38 (3), pp 29-35.

Grabinger, S., Aplin, G. and Ponnappa-Brenner, G., 2007. Instructional design for sociocultural learning environments, e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, Volume 10 (1).

Karoulis, A., 2006. Guidelines on the design of effective CBL environments. Informatics in Education, Volume 5 (1), pp 77-86.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A. and Jochems, W., 2003. Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 19, pp 335-353.Kim, C.M. and Keller, J.M., 2008. Effects of motivational and volitional email messages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students’ motivation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 39 (1), pp 36-51.


17

Laurillard, D., 1992. Learning through collaborative computer simulations. British Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 23 (3), pp 164-171.

Laurillard, D. and Taylor, J., 1994. Designing the stepping stones: An evaluation of interactive media in the classroom, Journal of Educational Television, Volume 20 (3), pp 169-84.

Laurillard, D., 2009. The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Volume 4, pp 5-20.

Lave, J., 1988. Situated Learning: The Theory into Practice Database. Available at: http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/. [Last Accessed: 2nd January 2010].

Lepper, M.R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D.L. and Gurtner, J., 1993. Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer based tutors. In S.P. Lajoie and S.J. Derry (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools, pp 75-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lowyck, J. and Poysa, J., 2001. Design of collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 17, pp 507-516.

Lustria, M.L.A., 2007. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Journal 58 (6), pp 766-776.

McFarlane, A., 1997. Information technology and authentic learning – realizing the potential of computers in the primary classroom, Edited Angela McFarlane, Routledge/Falmer, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York.

McGregor, D., 2007. Developing thinking, developing learning: A guide to thinking skills in education. Open University Press, McGraw-Hill, England.

Malone, T.W., 1981. Towards a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive Science: A multidisciplinary Journal, Journal 5 (4), pp 333-369, Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a784395478, [Last Accessed: 15 November 2009].

Mooney, G.A. and Bligh, J.G., 1997. Computer-based learning materials for medical education: a model production. Medical Education, Journal 31, 197-201, Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121661294 [Last Accessed: 15 November 2009].

Naidu, S., 1995. Definitions of instructional control in learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Volume 11 (1), pp 12-19.

Prichard, J.S., Bizo, L.A. and Stratford, R.J., 2006. The educational impact of team-skills training: Preparing students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 76, pp 119-140.

Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum, Available at: http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/docs/key_stages_1_and_2/areas_of_learning/the_world_around_us/WAUGridHistory.pdf, [Last Accessed: 13 January 2010].

Rose, E., 1999. Deconstructing interactivity in educational computing. Educational Technology, Journal 39 (1), pp 43-49.

Sabry, K. and Barker, J., 2009. Dynamic interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Volume 46 (2), pp 185-197.


18

http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/

Sims, R., 1997. Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 13 (2), pp 157-180.

Small, V., 1997. Motivation in instructional design. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/motivation.htm, [Last Accessed: 15 November 2009].

Smith, M. K., 2003, 2009. Communities of practice, the encyclopaedia of informal education, Available at: www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm [Last Accessed: 3rd January 2010].

Stoney, S. and Wild, M., 1998. Motivation and interface design: maximising learning opportunities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 14, pp 40-50

Su, B., Bonk, C.J., Magjuka, R.J., Liu, X and Lee, S., 2005. The importance of interaction in web-based education: A program-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, Journal 4 (1).

Underwood, J.D.M. and Underwood, G, 1990. Computers and learning, helping children acquire thinking skills. Chapter 7, Stimulating social interaction with the computer, Blackwell.

Webb, M., 2009. The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Volume 79, pp 1-28.

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N. and Dawes, L., 1998. Software design to support discussion in the primary curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Volume 14, pp 199-211.


19

assignment 3

Documents

evaluation of appropriateness

evaluation appropriateness

effective learning

theory of situated learning

learning cbl prototype

lifelong learning

evaluation forms

history package