CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 307 DORIT MAOR A TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ON USING 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 an interactive multimedia program to develop teachers’ understanding of a constructivist epistemology in science education. The aim of this study was to describe teachers’ reflections on and perceptions of a series of professional development workshops and how teachers changed their classroom practices after having participated in the workshops. The software, developed with the cooperation of teachers and students, is based on the Birds of Antarctica database (Maor & Phillips, 1996). This database was designed as an interactive program which requires teachers to use a constructivist-oriented approach to teaching and learning in order to promote the development of inquiry skills, particularly higher-order thinking skills. A series of workshops for teachers was conducted to empower them to become comfortable with using computers in science classrooms and to enable them to enhance their understanding of, and ability to use, personal and social constructivist approaches. Teachers’ perceptions of the process of learning with the multimedia program and their reactions to their experiences were assessed using a new instrument, the Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES). The results of the study suggest that teachers who participated as learners in the professional development program became familiar with a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment; understood the context, problems, and issues faced by students in the classroom; and were better able to facilitate students’ needs and understanding in this learning environment. KEY WORDS: constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment, professionaldevelopment, teacher perceptions. 1. PURPOSES OF STUDY The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, a new multimedia learning environment as experienced in a series of constructivist-oriented multimedia professional development workshops entitled An Interactive Multimedia Approach to Teaching Science and Mathematics. A constructivist-oriented approach concentrates on learners constructing their personal understandings during social interactions in the classroom. While it might not always be immediately evident, apparently individual learning (e.g. reflecting) also involves some aspect of social or group learning and, conversely, social learning (e.g. Learning Environments Research 2: 307–330, 2000. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 308 DORIT MAOR negotiating) involves individual learning (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). Both personal and social approaches to learning were adopted during these professional development workshops. Teachers needed to adjust to individual learning and social learning as they evolved in their classrooms. The teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, the workshops are reported here. A secondary purpose of the study was to investigate the potential for using professional development workshops as a means of engaging teachers in epistemological transformation and subsequently influencing their use of constructivism as a referent in their teaching practice. Teacher epistemology refers to teachers’ beliefs about pedagogy, the nature of knowledge, and student learning. This study focused on teachers’ difficulties in modifying their epistemologies to a more constructivist approach. A constructivist approach to 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, to overcome these difficulties, teachers need to experience a novel learning environment as learners themselves. Schön (1983) supports the creation of a learning environment for teachers which provides teachers with opportunities 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 supporting students’ constructions of their own understandings of the information being presented. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1. The Problem of Changing Teachers’ Epistemology There is evidence of teachers’ lack of success in changing their epistemologies 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 teachers have transmission-type epistemologies which resist change in the classroom (Tobin, 1993). In recent years, social constructivist epistemology has been shaping research and curriculum development in science and mathematics education (Cobern, 1998; O’Connor, 1998; Tobin, 1990). Teachers are obliged to ensure that students learn a current society-agreed body of viable knowledge for effective participation in that society (Tobin & Tippins, 1993). To achieve this, teachers have attempted to restructure their role in the classroom to that of a facilitator of students’ interpretations and reconceptualisations of information and knowledge. Individual learning is CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 309 embedded in a social process as other individuals and groups are always involved in the construction of such learning. Therefore, from a constructivist point of view, teachers need to take account of what students already know and to promote social interactions between students, thus creating learning environments that provide experiences that will increase classroom discourse and personal construction of knowledge. According to Lemke (1995), a discourse is perceived as an essential activity that promotes learning in the science classroom. Shifts in classroom discourse through the mediating role of the teacher can ensure that classroom community discourse becomes increasingly scientific (Tobin, 1998). Using a constructivist epistemology, new communicative relationships have been established between teachers and students (O’Connor, 1998). This has raised a question about the experiences that teachers should have in order to modify their teaching and provide students with experiences that align with constructivist epistemology. From a constructivist point of view, the “emphasis is on the teacher as a learner, a person who will experience teaching and learning situations and give personal meaning to those experiences through reflection” (Tobin & Tippins, 1993, p. 9). Teachers’ reflections on their experiences extend their understanding based on social interaction with peers and teacher educators. Teachers who use constructivism to underpin their teaching can plan and implement strategies to 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 that the process of changing teachers’ epistemology is a prerequisite to developing effective student learning in a constructivist-oriented learning environment. Like other learners, teachers construct their knowledge through social interaction with peers (Salomon, 1996), through applying ideas in practice, and through reflecting on and modifying those ideas. The need to provide teachers with opportunities to discuss and reflect critically on their pedagogies (Maor & Taylor, 1995; Taylor, 1996; Treagust et al., 1996) led to the design of a constructivist-oriented multimedia professional development program to support change in teachers’ epistemologies. According to Perkins and Unger (1994), computer-based learning environments offer learners a ‘problem space’ in which they can work through their understandings of challenging concepts. For many teachers, however, the introduction of computers into schools has often been seen as ‘business-as-usual’. However, with a constructivist-oriented multimedia program, it is possible to create a new classroom learning environment which effectively changes teachers’ classroom practices and redefines curricula, while also providing new ways of assessing students’ learning 310 DORIT MAOR (Salomon & Perkins, 1998). A professional development program for teachers can provide opportunities for them as learners to reflect on their classroom pedagogy. 2.2. A Professional Development Program using a ConstructivistOriented Interactive Multimedia Program Through a series of professional development workshops, it is possible that teachers can learn how to change their classroom practices to support students’ learning better. It has become clear that, in a constructivist-oriented approach to learning, teachers need to provide opportunities in which they can encourage students to generate and seek answers to their own questions. A constructivist-oriented multimedia program can facilitate this process which involves both individual and social learning. Previously, the use of computer software was perceived as assisting students’ learning in the roles of ‘tutor’, ‘tool’ and ‘tutee’ (Taylor, 1980). By contrast, today, more emphasis is given to the role of the computer as a cognitive tool which “can facilitate critical thinking and higher-order learning” (Jonassen & Reeves, 1996, p. 694). The focus has shifted to learning demands rather than what technologies can do. Two important observations have become widely recognised. Firstly, the computer by itself cannot do the learning and, secondly, the whole learning environment which includes the learner, the teacher and the computer together determines the extent of learning. Computers can be used for cognitive activities which lead to the reorganisation and extension of students’ cognitions (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). 2.2.1. Professional Development Workshops In this study, workshops were centred around an Interactive Multimedia (IMM) program, Birds of Antarctica (Maor & Phillips, 1996). The IMM program used by the teachers in the professional development workshops was developed using a constructivist-oriented view of learning with an intention to create a rich environment for students (Garbinger, 1996). The program is based on authentic research data collected on expeditions to Antarctica and contains meteorological and biological information for students to use during their own scientific investigations. To make learning more meaningful, emphasis was placed on the learning process as learners engaged with the content of the program. The program, designed to produce a constructivist-oriented learning environment, simulated authentic learning environments; provided multiple representations of data; engaged students in personal constructions of reality; enabled students to generate their own questions and investigations; and promoted social negotiations CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 311 between students by providing them with opportunities to reflect upon reallife issues. Thus, teachers using this constructivist-oriented program needed to build into their class programs time for reflection, debriefing sessions and whole-class sharing of ideas and experiences to promote reflections that supported the construction of students’ individual and collective understandings of knowledge and content (Galligan, 1995). This program design is supported by views which suggest that the shift from behaviourism as a basis for software design to cognitive and constructivist-oriented approaches requires multimedia tasks that involve real-world contexts in which users practise authentic tasks (e.g. Harper & Hedberg, 1997). According to Nelson (1994), learners need to be provided with a variety of experiences and multiple perspectives in order to develop their personal cognitive structures. Access to multiple representations of data challenges the learner to construct creative investigations requiring complex decision making. The aim of the professional development workshops was to provide experiences for participating teachers as learners using the IMM program. The emphasis during the workshops was on encouraging a social perspective to learning in which participants were engaged in learning through discussion and negotiation with their peers. During the workshops, teachers, in pairs, engaged in scientific investigations while exploring the program. They were encouraged to ask each other questions, to discuss and reflect on each others’ ideas, and to come to some common understandings of scientific investigations based on the program. To enhance teachers’ understandings of how to approach the program in a constructivist-oriented manner, two guided tours were provided. These tours, the Didactic Tour and the Constructivist Tour, represent two distinct teaching approaches: 1. The Didactic Tour adopted the traditional notion that knowledge exists external to the learner and can be transmitted through instruction. This guided tour contained questions for the users to follow as they used the program and then instructed them on how to progress and collect data to answer the questions. 2. The constructivist approach suggests that knowledge is “personally constructed by learners who give meaning to the new experiences in terms of their prior knowledge and past experiences” (Maor & Taylor, 1995, p. 843). To achieve this, the Constructivist Tour required the users to construct their own questions, give some explanations of the different types of data that exist in the program and explore the data on their own. 312 DORIT MAOR To assist teachers further in understanding how to implement a constructivistoriented classroom learning environment, an action research approach was used during the professional development workshops. The classroom learning environment has been shown to be an important element in ensuring the efficacy of learning in an inquiry-based constructivist-oriented classroom and 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 development and use of instruments to assess the qualities of the classroom learning environment from the perspectives of the students and the teachers (Fraser, 1998, 1999). Students and teachers can describe their environment in the way in which they experienced it, rather than relying on an external observer who might judge the environment differently. The pioneering work of Walberg (Walberg & Anderson, 1968) who designed the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and Moos (1979) who designed the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) has been followed by extensive work in science education, including the development of specific instruments for different environments. This research has led to a diversity of instruments which are aimed mainly at the secondary or higher education level learning environments. Recently, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was developed to assess the extent to which a particular classroom environment is consistent with a constructivist epistemology (Taylor et al., 1997). One of the many promising applications of these instruments is in the description and evaluation of learning environments involving the use of computer-assisted learning (e.g. Maor & Fraser, 1996; Newby & Fisher, 1997; Teh & Fraser, 1994). For example, Maor and Fraser (1996) developed a five-scale classroom environment instrument, the Computer Classroom Environment Inventory (CCEI). Using instruments such as these could help teachers to reflect on their epistemological assumptions and thus redefine their teaching roles and practices. In higher education, Computer-Facilitated Learning (CFL) environments have been incorporated into university courses (Bain et al., 1998). The dimensions that emerged from Bain et al.’s (1998) research include the learning framework, the origin of the knowledge, learning directions, knowledge focus, and the learning process. Based on these emerging dimensions, Bain and colleagues concluded that no single continuum (e.g. Reeves, 1992) or process descriptions (e.g. Laurillard, 1993) is likely to characterise adequately differences between learning environments. Despite the existence of all of these instruments, none were capable of adequately describing teachers’ and students’ perceptions of their learning CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 313 experiences in a constructivist-oriented learning environment using IMM programs. This situation led to the development of a new instrument for this specific purpose as part of the present study. 2.3.1. Development of Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES) A classroom environment questionnaire, the Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES), was designed specifically for this study. The purpose of this instrument was to assess the degree to which students and teachers thought that their classroom learning environment was inquiry-based and constructivist-oriented. The first part of the CMLES measures teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the process of learning with the multimedia program and contains three scales, namely, Student Negotiation, Inquiry Learning and Reflective Thinking. The Student Negotiation scale (Taylor et al., 1994) is based on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) and measures the extent to which opportunities exist for students to explain and justify their developing ideas to other students; to listen attentively and reflect on the viability of other students’ ideas; and to communicate their own ideas to other students (Taylor et al., 1997). The Inquiry Learning and Reflective Thinking scales (Maor & Fraser, 1996) were based on the Computer Classroom Environment Inventory (CCEI). The Inquiry Learning scale (Maor & Fraser, 1996) was selected to measure the extent to which students have opportunities to engage in scientific investigations. The Reflective Thinking scale was used to measure the extent to which critical selfreflective thinking was occurring. These scales were developed for the current study and are based on a social-constructivist perspective of learning. However, none of these scales adequately assesses the constructivist nature of the IMM program. Thus, two new scales were developed for this purpose and included in the second part of the CMLES. The second part of the CMLES measures students’ reflections on and perceptions of an IMM program and contains the two new scales of Authenticity and Complexity. The Authenticity scale measures the extent to which students perceive the multimedia program as simulating an authentic learning environment. The Complexity scale measures the extent to which students perceive that the multimedia program provides multiple representations of the data. Each of these scales was designed in accordance with the goals of the IMM program to be constructivist in nature and to represent real-life situations. Their development was based on the literature (e.g. Garbinger, 1996; Maor & Phillips, 1996) which supported the design of a multimedia program that simulated an authentic environment (see 314 DORIT MAOR Authenticity scale) and displayed data in a variety of forms (see Complexity scale). The CMLES can be used to assess the extent to which these unique features of the IMM constructivist-oriented program were evident to participants in the learning environment. Responses to items in the CMLES are made on a five-point scale, ranging from almost never (scored as 1) to almost always (scored as 5). The CMLES exists in an ‘actual’ version (see Appendix) in which respondents are asked to rate their current learning environment, and a ‘preferred’ version in which respondents rate their preferred learning environment. Items in each version of 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 to talk to other students”, the corresponding item in the preferred form is “In this class, I would get the chance to talk to other students”. There are 25 items in 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-applicable instrument for use in future studies of constructivist multimedia learning environments. In this study, the CMLES was used to focus on the use of the computer in the science classroom. After the initial construction of the CMLES, two researchers and two teachers commented on it for face validity, clarity of language and suitability for the age levels concerned. As a result of this, modifications were made to the language of some of the items. Initially, the CMLES was administered to two classes of 38 Grade 10 students. Data from administration of the questionnaire were then analysed 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 to discuss their questions and their solutions to questions. In this class, I get the chance to talk to other students. Inquiry Learning Extent to which students are encouraged to engage in inquiry learning In this class, I find out answers to question by investigation. Reflective Thinking Extent to which students have opportunities to reflect on their own learning and thinking. In this class, I think about how I learn. Authenticity Extent to which the information in the program is authentic and representative of real life situations. Working with this IMM program, I find that I am presented with realistic tasks. Complexity Extent to which the program is complex and represents data in a variety of ways. Working with this IMM program, I find it easy to navigate. CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 315 discriminant validity (using the mean correlation of a scale with the other four scales as a convenient index). The reliability data in Table II suggests that each of the CMLES scales has high internal consistency, especially for scales containing a relatively small number of items. One item was omitted during the data analysis because it contributed to a low alpha reliability for the Complexity scale. It became evident during discussions with students that this was caused by students’ misinterpretation of the word ‘challenging’ in the item. Discriminant validity data suggest that the CMLES measures distinct, though somewhat overlapping, aspects of classroom environment. However, the discriminant validity should be checked with a larger sample of students in the future. Although the CMLES was validated with students, the teachers in this study responded to the CMLES in the role of learners in the professional development workshop. 3. METHOD 3.1. Aim The aim of this study was to describe teachers’ reflections on and perceptions of a series of professional development workshops and how they changed their classroom practices after having participated in the workshops. Specifically, I sought to describe teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, a new multimedia learning environment as experienced in a series of constructivist-oriented multimedia workshops. Additionally, I assessed the impact of the workshops on teachers’ classroom practices. 3.2. Sample An advertisement offering a workshop for science and mathematics teachers was sent to Heads of Science and Mathematics Departments in schools in Western Australia. Expressions of interest in attending the workshop were encouraging. Ten teachers from private and public schools participated in TABLE II Number of items, alpha reliability and discriminant validity for the Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment (CMLES). Scale No. of items Student Negotiation 5 Inquiry Learning 5 Reflective Thinking 5 Authenticity 5 Complexity *4 *One item was omitted. Alpha reliability 0.93 0.82 0.77 0.81 0.83 Mean correlation with other scales 0.50 0.56 0.59 0.50 0.49 316 DORIT MAOR 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 to introduce technology into their science and mathematics classes. There were eight males and two females in the group. To describe teachers’ perceptions of their experiences as learners using the IMM, an assessment of the classroom learning environment, using both quantitative data (survey) and qualitative data (workshops), was included in the study. 3.3. Data Sources Five major data sources were used: • teachers’ responses to actual and preferred learning environment questionnaires during the workshop; • audio recording of workshop discussions; • an analysis of a video recording made during the ‘hands on’ sessions with the interactive multimedia; • interviews with four focus teachers who provided their reflections on the workshops; • classroom-based research in two classrooms by participating teachers. Qualitative data obtained from workshop discussions, in the form of extracts from the teachers’ journals and interviews, provided insights into the teachers’ reflections on and perceptions of the workshops. Classroombased research provided data for a qualitative analysis of the learning environment in order to monitor the extent to which they adopted and supported constructivist-oriented and inquiry-based approaches in the science classroom when using the interactive multimedia program. 3.4. The Teachers’ Workshop A series of three separate three-hour workshops was conducted over a period of three weeks, with one session per week. Teachers came to a university computer laboratory after completing their normal school day. The workshops were designed to guide teachers in the use of the IMM program and to promote a constructivist-oriented approach to teaching and learning when using the program. The workshops included: • training sessions on how to use the IMM program; • an introduction to constructivist epistemologies to support the higherorder learning of students; CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 317 • the use of the program in a constructivist way to enhance the development of higher-order thinking skills; • guidance for teachers on how to generate questions and investigations based on the IMM program. 3.5. CMLES The newly-designed Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES) was used for the first time in this study to provide quantitative data on teachers’ perceptions of the learning environment during the professional development workshops. 3.6. Classroom-Based Research Two of the participating teachers, Mark and Julie, provided additional data for this project by conducting research in their classrooms. This provided an opportunity to assess the impact of the workshops on their classroom practices. 4. RESULTS 4.1. Teachers’ Reflections on and Perceptions of the Constructivist-Oriented Multimedia Learning Environment To identify teachers’ perceptions of the constructivist multimedia learning environment during the workshops, actual and preferred versions of the CMLES were administered to the ten teachers who participated in the workshops. Although teachers worked in pairs during workshops, they completed the CMLES individually. Teachers were asked to respond to questions as learners in a new situation, namely, in a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment. Following the administration of the CMLES during the workshop, individual teacher scores were collated and displayed on an overhead projector for analysis and discussion by the teachers. Maximum, minimum and mean scores, calculated for each scale of both the actual and preferred versions of the CMLES, are presented in Table III. To facilitate comparison between teachers’ actual and preferred perceptions, the mean scores for each scale of both actual and preferred versions of the CMLES are presented graphically in Figure 1. The data presented in Figure 1 indicate that, in comparison with the actual environment, teachers preferred an environment with higher levels of negotiation, inquiry learning, reflective thinking, authenticity and 318 DORIT MAOR complexity. This suggests that, as learners, teachers would like to change the nature of their learning environments. The greatest discrepancy between teachers’ actual and preferred perceptions was for the Reflective Thinking scale, a measure of the extent to which the teachers, as learners, perceived opportunities to reflect on their own learning and thinking. Discussions with the teachers following administration of the CMLES indicated that the ability to reflect during the workshops was given different interpretations by individual teachers. For example, it was interesting to note that, although teachers worked in pairs, there were some cases of obvious differences of opinion within those pairs. Some teachers argued that, although they had the opportunity, they were not engaged in reflective thinking as they were trying to learn how to use the program. Others suggested that they engaged in reflective thinking even at the level of learning how to use the program. It was clear that teachers preferred more opportunities for themselves as learners to discuss their questions during their interactions with the multimedia program and to engage in inquiry-based learning during this time. Comments made during workshop discussions revealed teachers’ differing perceptions about the context within which some of the items in the CMLES were answered. For example, the concept of Reflective Thinking required more clarification: I think that the differences in reflective thinking are because teachers have different perceptions of what it really means. It’s something that we have always done as teachers and probably students too, but it’s hard to pinpoint . . . (Julie, Interview) Similarly, for the Student Negotiation scale, the teachers’ interpretations varied according to the specific task they were asked to complete. As Julie’s working partner, Gina, explained: TABLE III Maximum, minimum and mean scores for actual and preferred versions of the CMLES. Scale Student Negotiation Inquiry Learning Reflective Thinking Authenticity Complexity n = 10 Version Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Actual Preferred Maximum score 2 2 2 2 1 9 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 5 2 3 2 5 Minimum score 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 7 1 7 1 8 1 8 1 7 Mean score 16.8 18.5 16.2 18.6 15.5 19.9 19.7 21.4 19.8 20.6 CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 319 Figure 1. Scale means for actual and preferred versions of the CMLES. In the first block of questions, Student Negotiation, I think . . . depends a little on what we’re given to work with and what we’ve been asked to do both weeks. I have been sitting in front of the microphone and had to talk and be fair to somebody else, whereas . . . some people 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, also helps us to understand the diversity of responses to the Student Negotiation scale: “We worked together and I gave you [a score of] 22 and he gave you [a score of] 12. The opportunity [for negotiation] was there any time I wanted.” Moreover, some teachers perceived opportunities to engage in the social aspects of the learning environment during the workshops but chose not to pursue them: I did get the chance to talk to other students. I answered it but I know that, if I wanted to or needed to, I could . . . I knew the opportunity was there . . . I think it’s a different issue because I think there are other factors that cause you to talk and not to talk rather than just the program. There’s another factor not being measured, such as being familiar or unfamiliar. Some people like to talk more than others and some persons don’t like to look to others. They like the opportunity to think. (Julie, Interview) It is interesting to note from Figure 1 that the complexity of the multimedia program is at the level that teachers would like it to be, and that authenticity is almost at the level that they would like it to be. This reflects the design of the program which attempted to emphasise a constructivist-oriented approach to learning in which complexity and authenticity of the program were seen as central to the promotion of student negotiation, reflective thinking and inquiry learning. 320 DORIT MAOR 4.2. The Multimedia Program One of the first issues that arose during the study related to the complexity of the multimedia program. In the first meeting of the workshops, the teachers used the Constructivist Guided Tour which employed an open-ended approach and invited the users to construct their own questions, and then use the data in the multimedia program to answer those questions. This tour provided little assistance to the user regarding navigation through the program and 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 found this very frustrating and quite frankly a waste of time . . . The lack of clear explanations as to where and what everything was made progress very slow and laborious – it simply could not be done in this way with a classroom of average students . . . A similar approach in a classroom would result in rejection of the program by students. Only highly motivated and academically talented students could hope to cope with this approach. (Mark, Journal) This notion of frustration and uncertainty was also expressed by Julie: “I’d like 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 to some extent and not too easy for the students (Julie, Interview). The frustration of some of the teachers resulted in changes in the guided tour to make it more didactic in nature (i.e. the questions were presented with instructions for navigation in order to solve the questions). It was important for the learners quickly to become familiar with the program and to be able to navigate successfully before being able to engage in higher-order tasks. Although I wanted to introduce the curriculum material in a constructivist-oriented way, I realised that I had to compromise so that the users could become familiar with the multimedia program and not be discouraged by their first experiences. The teachers emphasised that, even when they were doing a simple task, they were thinking on a ‘deep level’. Therefore, direct and explicit instruction on how to use the program was necessary. For example, Mark said: We had lots of other ideas as we were doing it [simple task]. So, it enabled us to do that because we thought of temperature of water and temperature of air, and then that soon resulted in a selection 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, the didactic and the constructivist, helped him to compare the merits of the two teaching approaches. CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 321 4.3. The Learning Process Dan analysed a video recording segment of himself and Mark while they were interacting with the multimedia program during one of the workshops. His analysis of the video and his self-reflection provided excellent insight into the hands-on section of the workshop. In particular, he emphasised the benefit of the program to his own professional development. I chose to include this case study as another source of data because there was an opportunity for the teacher himself to reflect on and analyse his own learning as demonstrated on the video. The self-analysis provided a rich data source and reinforced my own analysis as instructor. I believe that the opportunity given to Dan to reflect on his own learning enriched the study and increased the credibility of my interpretations. Dan’s critical analysis of his self-reflection included the following comment: Working cooperatively with a partner throughout the multimedia program Birds of Antarctica was very useful because we could share thoughts and explanations, and we complemented each other at times, such as when there was something about which I did not have adequate knowledge when my partner did. Discussion helped us to clarify certain things which we could not have done if we worked individually. It gave me a sense of relief when I reached a dead end on something, Mark would offer a suggestion which led me to see the problem more clearly and get closer to a solution. However, there were times when 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 the computerised learning environment. He enjoyed the cooperation but was also aware of the limitations of being in a group situation. He summarised his learning this way: I am confident that I have benefited from the workshop in general and the software in particular. My hands-on experience with a multimedia program has led me to appreciate the power and limitations of the technology. More importantly, I now have the knowledge and experience which I can call upon in future when opportunities arise. I recommend more teachers to utilise such professional development initiatives for their own good as well as for their students. (Dan, Journal) 4.4. Classroom-Based Research To assess further the impact of the workshops on the teachers’ classroom practices, I gathered classroom-based data from two teachers, Mark and Julie, who participated in the workshops and who subsequently conducted classroom-based research projects. During the workshops, Mark used journal writing to document his reflections from the workshops as well as impressions from his classroom-based research. He reflected on his 322 DORIT MAOR experience as follows: The use of ‘real life’ data and data analysis through inquiry learning as proposed by the Birds of Antarctica package addresses the issues of relevance, motivation and scientific method. Through the 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 constructivism as presented in the workshops. He found the concept of teacher as researcher very valuable: I enjoy the opportunity of being exposed to new ideas, and the use of computers as an interactive medium that improves inquiry skills is very appealing . . . The use of the teacheras-researcher concept was very compelling although the limited preparation time available to classroom teachers could reduce its viability within our education system. The use of the planning model presented as part of the teacher-as-researcher concept was very useful and helped greatly in planning this trial. (Mark, Journal) Reflecting on the learning process in his class, Mark was pleased that students worked in small groups and that I asked the students to take ownership of their questions. He suggested that each group should do a short presentation of their investigation to the class. The group work was greatly encouraged in the teacher workshops “to take the class into a different style of learning . . . it also initiated further discussion within the classroom on the nature of learning” (Mark, Interview). In a conversation with Mark, he suggested that he would attempt a move towards a more constructivist, student-centred approach to learning. He further emphasised that the way students learn needed to be discussed with them. Although Mark was critical about the slowness of the program and its robustness, he suggested that “the use of the real data and open-ended investigations does, however, appeal to me as a science teacher”. As a result of participating in the workshops, Julie also allowed us to collect data from research conducted in her classroom. A research assistant and I conducted the research with Julie functioning in a tertiary participantobserver role in her class. Although Julie actively engaged herself along with the students in the use of the program, decisions and guiding of the students were carried out by the research assistant and me. A follow-up interview with the teacher enabled us to explore students’ involvement in the process of learning with the multimedia program. Julie was willing to participate in this research project because she wanted her science students to use this form of technology, and she wanted something useful “that did not have to end in assessment but which could be used for assessment if desired” (Julie, Interview). Julie stated: “I had been looking for some interactive technology program that was not looking at science content. The process of science could be utilised from the data.” CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 323 Julie found that the learning and teaching process had changed during the two weeks of interaction with the program, because: “Students worked with minimal teacher’s supervision. They became more motivated, and they were able to ask questions or conduct investigations.” The students worked in pairs and enjoyed the ability to discuss and help each other to solve questions. They were not familiar with this form of learning in the science classroom, and Julie acknowledged that it provided them with more opportunities for developing scientific investigative skills and creative thinking. This project encouraged Julie to plan the use of portfolio assessment with her students using the multimedia program in the following year. 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1. Teachers’ Reflections on and Perceptions of a New Multimedia Learning Environment Teachers’ reflections on, and perceptions of, a new multimedia learning environment as experienced in a series of constructivist-oriented multimedia workshops differed according to individual experiences. The impact of the workshops on teachers’ classroom practices also varied according to teachers’ aims for their students. In this particular study, I enabled teachers to engage in a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment in which they were exposed to the use of a multimedia program and a constructivist approach to learning. The reflections of the two teachers, Mark and Julie, who participated in classroom-based research, suggested that the professional development program was rewarding, useful and effective in providing opportunities for them to reflect on their classroom practices. Based on the CMLES data gathered during the professional development workshops, it is clear that the teachers perceived the new multimedia learning environment as providing more opportunities for social interaction and negotiation of their learning. However, they preferred even more opportunities for themselves as learners to participate in a constructivistoriented learning environment. They identified a desire to negotiate their ideas during their interactions with the multimedia program and to engage in inquiry-based learning even if they chose not to avail themselves of it on all occasions. It would seem that the teachers found the opportunity to engage in social interactions with peers a valuable way of refining their investigations and thus enhancing the quality of their learning. The teachers perceived the program to be both ‘authentic’ and ‘complex’. This reflected the design of the program and the constructivist-oriented nature of the learning environment. 324 DORIT MAOR 5.2. The Impact of the Professional Development Workshops on Teachers’ Classroom Practices During the professional development workshops, the teachers experienced as learners, and became familiar with, a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment. By reflecting on their own experiences as learners, the teachers understood the context, problems and issues that students face in the classroom when using the program in a constructivist-oriented learning environment. They were better able to facilitate students’ needs and to enhance the students’ understanding in this environment. This required a shift in their epistemology and thus their classroom practices towards a more inquiry-based approach within a socially interactive learning environment. The use of computer-assisted learning in a constructivist-oriented learning environment facilitated teachers’ appreciation of the potential for the computer. From this experience, teachers enabled students to engage in higher-order learning using the computer as a cognitive tool in the classroom. Teachers became aware of the need to provide opportunities for reflection and negotiation of knowledge and content to develop a collective understanding 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 in the professional development workshops and in the classroom. Further investigations of teachers’ classroom practices using the CMLES will provide additional data from which to develop an understanding of how teachers change their epistemologies and thus their classroom practices using constructivist-oriented multimedia learning programs. Additional data could also be gathered on students’ reflections on and perceptions of their experiences with a constructivist-oriented multimedia learning environment. 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank the teachers who participated in the workshop for their valuable contribution. This research is part of the author’s postdoctoral fellowship and is supported by the Australian Research Council. 325 CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT APPENDIX Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (CMLES) What actually happens in my classroom? • Teacher Form• DIRECTIONS 1. Purpose of the Questionnaire This questionnaire asks you to describe important aspects of the classroom which you are in right 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 Question On the next few pages you will find 25 sentences. For each sentence, circle only one number corresponding to your answer. For example: In this class 8 I ask the students questions. • • • Almost always Often Sometimes 5 4 3 Seldom 2 Almost never 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. 4. 5 4 3 2 1 Course Information Please provide information in the box below. Please be assured that your answers to this questionnaire will be treated confidentially. 5. a. Name: b. School: c. Grade/Year-level: d. Sex: Completing the Questionnaire Now turn the page and please give an answer for every question. male/female (please circle one) 326 DORIT MAOR PART I: THE PROCESS OF LEARNING WITH IMM PLEASE INDICATE THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE FOLLOWING LEARNING ACTIVITIES DO OCCUR IN THIS CLASS Almost Often Sometimes Seldom Almost always never Student negotiation In this class . . . 1. students get the chance to talk to each other. 2. students discuss with each other how to conduct investigations. 3. students ask other students to explain their ideas. 4. students ask me to explain my ideas. 5. students explain their ideas to me. 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 5 4 3 2 1 Inquiry learning In this class . . . 6. students find out answers to questions by investigation. 7. students carry out investigations to test their own ideas. 8. students conduct follow-up investigations to answer emerging questions. 9. students design their own ways of investigating problems. 10. students approach a problem from more than one perspective. Reflective thinking In this class . . . 11. students think carefully about how they learn. 12. students think critically about their own ideas. 13. students learn to be sceptical. 14. students learn how to become better learners. 15. students think critically about their own understandings. 327 CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT PART II: THE IMM PROGRAM Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements about how the IMM program IS experienced by students Strongly Agree Don’t Disagree Strongly agree know disagree Authenticity of the IMM Program Working with this IMM program . . . 16. students find that it reflects the complexity of a real life environment. 17. students find that data are presented in meaningful contexts. 18. students find that it presents information relevant to them. 19. students find that they are presented with realistic tasks. 20. students can choose from a wide range of information. 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Complexity of the IMM Interface Working with this IMM program . . . 21. students find it to be user friendly. 22. students find it easy to navigate. 23. students find it makes them think. 24. students find it is easy to use. 25. students take only a short time to learn how to use the program. *For student and teacher actual and preferred on-line forms, see http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/smec/ forms/CMLES REFERENCES Bain, J.D., McNaught, C., Mills, C. & Lueckenhausen, G. (1998). Describing computerfacilitated 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 dialogue (pp. 7–23). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Duffy, T.M. & Cunninngham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan. 328 DORIT MAOR Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33. Fraser, B.J. (1999). Using learning environment assessments to improve classroom and school climates. In J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 65–83). London: Falmer Press. Fullan, M.G. (1993). Changing forces: probing the depth of educational reform. New York: Falmer Press. Galligan, J. (1995). Computers and pedagogy: it’s not what you’ve got, it’s how you use it. In R. Oliver & M. Wild (Eds.), Learning Without Limits: Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 1995, Volume 1. Perth, Australia: Educational 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 a constructivist 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 and Why: ASCILITE ‘97: Conference Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology, 11–31. Jonassen, D.H. & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–720). New York: Macmillan. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for effective use of educational 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 a computerised classroom environment from a constructivist perspective, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401–421. Maor, D. & Phillips, R. (1996). Developing a multimedia package for teaching thinking skills. 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 computerised classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 839– 854. Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: procedures, measures, findings, and policy implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Nelson, W. (1994). Efforts to improve computer-based instructions: the role of knowledge representation and knowledge construction in hypermedia systems. Computers in the Schools, 10, 371–399. CONSTRUCTIVIST MULTIMEDIA LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 329 Newby, M. & Fisher, D. (1997). An instrument for assessing the learning environment of a computer laboratory. Educational Computing Research, 16, 179–190. O’Connor, M.C. (1998). Can we trace the efficacy of social constructivism? Review of Educational Research, 23, 25–71. Perkins, D.N. & Unger, C. (1994). A new look in representations for mathematics and science 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 Technology for Training and Education Conference (ITTE ‘92). Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland, 99–113. Salomon, G. (1996, July). Technology’s promises and dangers in a psychological context: implications for teaching and teacher education. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Teacher Education: Stability, Evolution and Revolution, Wingate Institute, Israel. Salomon, G. & Perkins, D.N. (1998). Individual and social aspects of learning. Review of Research in Education, 23, 1–24. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Taylor, R. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press. Taylor, P.C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151–173. Taylor P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & White, L.R. (1994, April). The revised CLES: a questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Teh, G. & Fraser, B.J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of achievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 8, 147–161. Tobin, K.G. (1990). Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(4), 29–35. Tobin, K.G. (Ed.). (1993). The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, 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 in science and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press. Walberg, H.J. & Anderson, G.J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419. Wheatley, G. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education, 75, 9–21. 330 DORIT MAOR White, R.T. (1993, April). The path to quality learning. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association for Research in Science teaching, Atlanta, GA. DORIT MAOR Science and Mathematics Education Centre Curtin University of Technology GPO Box U 1987, Perth 6845, Australia D. Maor@smec.curtin.edu.au