International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

Constructivist pedagogies of interactivity on a CD-ROM toenhance academic learning at a tertiary institution 

- Juliette D. G. Goldman, Griffith University
- Geraldine Torrisi-Steele, Griffith University

Abstract

Manytertiary institutions are encompassing a greater use of technology in theirsubjects than ever before. All academic teachers are earnestly encouraged toreconceptualise their subjects and incorporate multimedia of some sort whetheron CD-ROM or Web-based. This paper focuses on a CD-ROM written by two academicsfor three subjects in the Bachelor of Education at an Australian university.Based on the principles on constructivist theory of learning, three examples ofappropriate interactivity and their pedagogies are examined here to indicatethe variety, relevance, pedagogical principles and interest that can begenerated to enhance students’ academic learning using multimedia.  It is suggested that the application ofConstructivist principles may assist educational developers in designingpedagogical interactivities that are productive and effective.

Introduction

Multimedia technologies such as CD-ROMsand websites probably offer the greatest potential, to date, for enhancinglearning.  It is the interactive natureof these media that offers the greatest pedagogical promise.  Boling and Kirkley, (1995, p. 1) note that;

“Multimedia is experiential ... Althoughevery medium has experiential elements, multimedia frequently offers multipleelements simultaneously, or in rapid succession (text and animation andvideo and sound and hyperlinks and so on). At the same timethe user of the multimedia program is usually invited to interact with it; infact, most instructional programs won't do much of anything unless the userdoes interact with them.”

At the simplest level, many multimediaeducational products are nothing more than electronic page turners.  Interaction is limited to the ability of thestudent to ‘turn the pages’ by scrolling or clicking a button.  However, the essential value of interactivemultimedia technologies is that they can be used effectively to empowerstudents to take a more pro-active role in acquiring, analysing andsynthesising information. It is the potential of multimedia to foster thishigher level of interactivity that distinguishes it from older technologiessuch as projectors, radio and television. That is, multimedia is an active form of learning, whereas projectors,radio and television are passive forms. The focus on interactivity being of special value in facilitatinglearning, stems from the constructivist view that learners learn best when theyare actively constructing their own knowledge based on their own experiencesand their own information (Biggs, 1999; Torrisi and Davis, 2000).

The focus oninteractivity to maximise the pedagogical potential of multimedia emerges fromthe adoption of constructivism as the guiding theoretical basis for the designof many multimedia materials including the three examples examined later.  The constructivist view of teaching andlearning is commonly accepted as a framework for developing teaching andlearning strategies for designing multimedia learning environments in wayswhich will promote the reshaping of teaching practice towards student-centredlearning environments (Torrisi-Steele and Davis, 2000).  As Strommen (1999, p. 2) says,

 ‘...simply thinking up clever ways to use computers in traditionalcourses [relegates] technology to a secondary, supplemental role that fails tocapitalise on its most potent strengths. What is needed is a guiding philosophy that suggests principled changesin the curriculum, and effective uses of technology as part of thesechanges.  We think that this philosophymust be constructivism.’

Constructivism theory oflearning

Constructivism is aphilosophical theory of learning and understanding based on three primarypropositions (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.1), namely;

1. Understandingis in our interactions with the environment. That is,“…what we understandis a function of the content, the context, the activity of the learner, andperhaps, most importantly, the goals of the learner” (Savery and Duffy, 1996,p.1).

2. Cognitiveconflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning and determines theorganisation and nature of what is learned. That is, the goal of thelearning is “… a primary factor in determining what the learner attends to,what prior experience the learner brings to bear in constructing anunderstanding, and, basically what understanding is eventually constructed.” (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.1).

 3. Knowledge evolves through socialnegotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individualunderstandings (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.2). That is, “…concepts that wecall knowledge … are simply the most viable interpretation of our experientialworld” and that “all views, or all constructions, are not equally viable”(Saveryand Duffy, 1996, p.2).

The constructivist philosophy, by contrast tothe instructivist philosophy, espouses a view of learners as activelyconstructing knowledge on what they already know and understand, rather than aspassive recipients of knowledge (Biggs, 1999).  Thus, “…meaning is not imposed ortransmitted by direct instruction, but is created by the students’ learningactivities, [by] their ‘approaches to learning…’ ” (Biggs,1999, p.12).

Indoing so, learners become part of the learning process at a deeper level, feelactively involved in the process, and take on ownership for their own learning(See Biggs, 1999). Similarly, Dewey (1916), more than 100 years ago, referredto the “…disposition to penetrate to deeper levels of meaning – to go below thesurface and find out the connections of any event or object…[to]…try to placean act in its context which constitutes significance…” for the learner (p.326).  .

The learner, ratherthan the teacher, then becomes the focus of the learning environment (Tearle,Dillon and Davis, 1999. See Torrisi and Davis, 2000).  From a constructivist perspective, the focus of curriculum designshifts from being purely goal-orientated, strictly structured and orderedknowledge transmission, to a process focused on re-conceptualisation ofcurriculum design to ensure active exploration by the learner (Brown,1997).  Biggs (1999, p13) says that

Learning is … a way of interacting withthe world.  As we learn, our conceptionsof phenomena change, and we see the world differently. The acquisition ofinformation in itself does not bring about such a change, but the way westructure that information and think with it does. Thus, education is aboutconceptual change, not just the acquisition of information. 

In asimilar vein, Sorrell (2000) says, “Information is no longer power, it’sinterpretation that is important”.  Further, Biggs (1999, p. 13) notes that

What people construct from a learning encounter depends ontheir motives and intentions, on what they know already and on how they usetheir prior knowledge. Meaning is therefore personal…. The alternative is thatmeaning is ‘transmitted from teacher to student, like dubbing an audio-tape,which …is an untenable but not uncommon view.

Thus,the constructivist theory of learning generates a focus on learning to thelearner him/herself, students’ prior experiences of learning, their perceptionsof their learning situation, their approaches to learning and their learningoutcomes (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton,Hounsell and Entwistle, 1997).   It isthe process of engagement in the activities that results in learning (Dewey,1916, p. 169).

The changing role of theteacher

In applyingconstructivism theory to the design of multimedia, the principal aim, then, isto engage the learners in the active exploration and construction of their ownknowledge. Designingtasks that are appropriate to the learner’s needs means that the process of designof interactive multimedia materials forces a focus onto the characteristics ofthe learner, rather than the teacher’s role (See Biggs, 1999; and Prosser andTrigwell, 1999).  Consideration of thefactors that influence how the learner learns best, then becomes of paramountimportance. 

Furthermore,interactive multimedia materials lack the dynamics of face-to-face humanengagement, during which the teacher can respond to learner needs ‘on the fly’as the learning situation unfolds. Schon (1983, p.50) would probably refer tothis as ‘reflection-in-action’ whereby in the professional teacher’s skill,many quality judgements are made instantaneously and are dependent on “..tacitrecognition, judgements and skilful performances“ which are often difficult toarticulate, but result in skilful action or response by the teacher. Thus, indesigning educational multimedia, the difficulties that students may encounter,and the importance of constructive feedback needs to be predicted, and themultimedia module designed to cater for these predictions as best as possible,as a means of substitution of the teacher and his/her reflection-in-action (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton, Hounsell andEntwistle, 1997).

The teacher’s role

The teacher’s rolewithin the multimedia arena may be seen, then, as a manager of knowledge, afacilitator who provides advice in exploration, a guide, a helper and anassistant (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton,Hounsell and Entwistle, 1997).   Dewey(1916, p. 160) notes that “… the teacher is a learner, and the learner is,without knowing it, a teacher – and upon the whole, the less consciousnessthere is, on either side, of either giving or receiving instruction, thebetter”.   Ina study of Internet educational usage by High School students around theworld, Goldman and Hocking (1999) found that in their sample, nearly allteachers who used the Internet believe its usage motivates students in theirlearning, and since using it, nearly half the teachers had changed theirteaching techniques. In another study of internet connectivity of High School studentsaround the world, Goldman and Hocking (2000) found evidence that there areself-motivated teachers in High schools who are constructing interesting anduseful planned activities for students on the Net. For examples of differenttypes of projects see Goldman & Hocking (2002).  Further, students as young as Upper Primary School age, about 10years to 11 years, are also proving competent using technology in theirlearning, and some exhibit characteristics of being competent scriptwriters andeducational designers (See Goldman and Krause, 2001, 2002).

Teachers’computer inhibitions

 Forsome teachers, whether at school or university, the incorporation oftechnologies into the classroom, is difficult to contemplate, let alone carryout. Technological merging with education practice, is, for these teachers,uncomfortable and threatening, and even generates computer phobia.  Bradley andRussell (1997, p. 267) found that computer anxiety is present in a sizeableminority of school teachers, and that such anxieties “were inversely related tothe quality of prior computer learning experiences, and to the extent ofcurrent school support for computer usage”.  Rowland ( 2000, p.13) in examining the enquiring universityteacher says that  “…the development ofour teaching involves the kind of personal enquiry and openness to change thatinform our ability to make educational judgements in the light of personal andprofessional values”.

This principle whenapplied to modern educators suggests that they need to be open to the changingneeds of the technological and information-intensive society that is evolving (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).  New technologies provide tools with the potential toreconstruct education (Hammer & Kellner, 2001), and used effectively, newtechnologies result in positive changes to the way teachers teach and the waylearners perceive information (Hamza & Alhalabi, 1999).

Designing multimediainteractivities

Faradouly (1999)suggests that interaction design should be guided by questions such as:

• “Who are the learners?  - What do they need or want to learn, in what environment will the learning be applied, what do they already know?

• ‘What is the teacher trying to achieve with the instruction?’.  Clearly define goals and objectives and relevant content.

• ‘What skills, attitudes and knowledge are you trying to develop?’

• ‘How will content be structured?’

• ‘What strategies might be used?’

However,there also appear to be broader issues of design necessary to incorporatewithin a constructivist paradigm.

Successfulinteraction design which engages learners in actively exploring knowledge andexperiences, is the result of careful analysis of the learner and of thelearning outcomes. Biggs (1999, p.11) refers to such a process as constructivealignment. He says that;

A good teaching system aligns teachingmethod and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives, sothat all aspects of this system are in accord in supporting appropriate studentlearning. This system is called constructive alignment, based as it is on thetwin principles of constructivism in learning and alignment in teaching(Biggs,1999, p. 11)

Eightconstructivist principles

Inconstructivism, learning is seen to be affected by the context of the learning,and the beliefs and attitudes of the learner (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999, p.168). Learners should be given the opportunity to build on prior knowledge,encouraged to invent their own solutions, and to try out ideas and hypotheses.Savery and Duffy (1996, p. 3) note that effective instructional design ofmultimedia interactivities (as in other learning situations) may be based oneight constructivist principles, namely; 

1.Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.

2.Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task.

3.Design an authentic task.

4.  Design the task and learning environment to reflectthe complexity of the environment that students should be able to function inat the end of learning.

5.  Give the learner ownership of the process used todevelop a solution.

6.  Design the learning environment to support andchallenge the learner's thinking.

7.  Encourage testing ideas against alternative viewsand alternative contexts

8.  Provide opportunity for, and support reflection on,both the content learned, and the learning process itself.

In encouraginglearners to participate in the interactive experience, interactivities need tobe designed to provide experiences that have an appropriate balance betweensuccess and difficulty, and between control and discovery (See Smith and Ragan,1999; Seels and Glasgow, 1998).  Successwithout difficulty does not promote optimal learning, nor does difficulty withlittle or no success (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990. See also Dewey, 1916, p.157).

Methods

Aim

This paper analysesthree examples of interactivities designed for student-teachers undertaking aBachelor of Education (Primary school) at an Australian university inQueensland. The activities are part of the modules on a CD-ROM which includedthree semester-long subjects for undergraduates, and some for post-graduateteachers. Each subject on the CD-ROM is estimated to take students about 52hours to complete. This is equivalent to a semester of face-to-face teaching(viz, 14 weeks x 3 hours). The scriptwriting of each of the subjects isestimated to have taken 1,000 hours, and the educational design took a further1,000 hours.

Background

This CD-ROMincludes a Social Studies curriculum subject called ‘Social and EnvironmentEducation’, which was developed for university students intending to be PrimarySchool teachers. The CD-ROM covers appropriate content, objectives, goals,strategies, resources, concepts and skills relevant for Grades 1-7, and is alsoembedded with appropriate pedagogies for teachers to implement (See Marsh,2001; Education Queensland, 2000). The subject “Social and EnvironmentEducation” includes 10 modules, each containing a varying number ofsub-modules, and students are required to proceed though these at their own pace,and respond in a variety of ways. Spread throughout the text are a number ofinteractivities for practice and comprehension for the student-teacher,followed by a number which are computer-marked.  The total number of marks worked out to be 140. The total marks gained byeach student-teacher was, at the completion of the 10 modules, converted by thecomputer to a percentage which was printed and signed by the student-teacher,then delivered to the Subject Convener as evidence of completion of the subject.

Thethree interactive examples of sub-modules addressed here are from the subjectSocial and Environment Education, and cover “The Water Cycle”, “The Lifecycleof the Frog”, and “Slipwriting”. Each is now examined.

TheWater Cycle

The interactivities in this sub-module proceeded asfollows;

• Text: A paragraph on the introduction to thissub-module on Water.

• Text: Explanation of outline of module in text anddotpoints.

•Problem posed: “Type five other environments teacherscan address in Primary School.”

•Comparison of response: “Compare your answers with thefollowing…”

Water

• Text: A paragraph on rainfall distribution inAustralia.

• Activity:  On the following map of Australia draw aline and shade in those areas which are have the highest rainfall.

• Text: A paragraph on cleanliness and purity ofwater.

• Activity:On the water cycle.  Consider the waterthat comes to the place where you live. Where does it come from? Type theplaces in sequence where it came from before it came to your tap. There are atleast 10 sequences.

Figure 1. Sequence of events of Watercycle frame

Ifyou need assistance, view the animation.

Figure2. Animated watercycle frame

• Comparisonof response: Compare your water cycle sequences with this one.

1. Moisture is evaporatedfrom the Pacific Ocean into the air by the action of the sun.

2. This moisture gathers and formsclouds which are pushed by winds onshore to the South Eastern coast ofQueensland.

3. The clouds are elevated bythe Macpherson Ranges and the Great Dividing Range (mountain ranges) as theclouds pass near them.

4. The moisture in the cloudscondense (join together) into bigger droplets called rain.

5. Rain is heavy, is unable toremain in the cloud, and falls to earth in South Eastern Queensland.

6.  Some of this rain falls in the Catchment area of the HinzeDam and flows down a hillside into a creek.

7. The creek flowed into HinzeDam.

8. It remains stored in theHinze Dam until needed

9. The water is purified bythe Local City Council and has flouride (a chemical aimed to help preventtooth decay) added to it.

10. The water is pumped along awater pipe called a conduit (pronounced con-dew-t).

11. Where the land under the pipeis steep, going uphill, a pump is needed to boost the water along on itspath in the conduit.

12. The purified water is directedto a smaller storage tank on the top of a hill.

13. The water remains in thestorage tank until needed.

14 .When humans turn on a tap, pure,clean, fresh water comes out in practically unlimited supplies, suitablefor humans and animals to drink.

• Activity: Non-assessable activity on estimated cost ofthis water infrastructure for Australia.

• Activity: Six assessable activities worth a quarter of amark each, including some on classroom pedagogies for primary children.

• Activity: Activityon teachers helping children develop empathetic values about waterconservation.

• Comparisonof response: Compare your answers with these.

Thissub-module on the Water Cycle attempts to contextualise water into broadenvironments, the water cycle itself, rainfall distribution, cleanliness ofwater, addition of fluoride, costs of infrastructure associated with catchment,and finally delivery of water.  Theanimation of the water cycle is used as a pedagogical prompt for students’learning, to help them write the ten sequences.  In terms of educational design, it seemed more effective todesign it in this manner than in reverse. Finally, students were given anon-assessable activity as construction of knowledge for the six assessableactivities following, which were linked to classroom pedagogies forchildren.  This sub-module then ended ona problem-solving activity related to the role of teachers in developing valuesabout water conservation in children.

The Lifecycle of the Frog

This sub-module is shorter than that ofthe Water cycle, because its environmental contexts were addressed in previoussub-modules.

•Text: A paragraph about frogs

• Problem posed: “What does life-cycle of an animal (or human) mean? Type youranswer.”

• Comparison:“Compare your answer to this.”

• Text: A paragraph about other life cycles, eghumans.

•Activity: “On thefollowing life-cycle, click and drag the various stages of the frog’slife-cycle to their accurate position in the sequence”.

• Assessmentresponse: Positive reinforcement.

Figure3. Lifecycle of the frog frame

Thissub-module provided information about frogs, posed a problem, provided answerfor comparison, then extended the information further to other lifecycles.  Finally, in the drag and clickactivity, learners were to provide forced choice ordinal steps within the lifecycle. The sub-module closed with positive reinforcement.

Slipwriting

Slipwriting is anactivity used in Social Studies Curricula (and other curricula) where a complexproblem or issue is being studied, say, recycling.  Students write their ideas on slips of paper which are thensorted, and grouped according to particular headings, and then linked accordingto their relationships.   From theresulting piles, headings and inter-relationships, students then list, group,label and establish a generalisation about the problem.  Slipwriting is useful for any grade, andhelps children particularly understand concepts, and their links to other ideas,conceptualisations, and the inter-relationships of many parts of our lives withthe environment and animals.

In this example,Slipwriting is used as a pedagogical example for student-teachers, and appliedto learning about the environment as follows;

Slipwritingstrategy (student-teachers undertake the slipwriting activity)

• Problem posed: “Whatare some ways in which we can care for the environment?”

• Directionprovided:  “Type up to 10 entries inthe box below?”

• Directionprovided: “Click and drag your responses, to the circle,one-by-one, into piles of ideas that are similar. Label each pile. Use the DrawPencil to link any of the piles that are inter-connected.”

• Directionprovided:  “Discusswith your partner/group what statements or generalisations you can make aboutyour piles of information.”

Figure 4. Slipwriting frame

b) Student-teacheranalysis of the slipwriting activity above

• Problem posed:Student-teachers were then asked, “Reflect on your undertaking of theslipwriting exercise. What do you think are the main steps required toimplement this strategy in the classroom.”

Figure 5. Steps of slipwriting strategy frame

• Comparison: “ Compareyour steps with these.”

Step 1. A problemis presented or a question asked.

Step 2. Children(form groups of 3-5) write individual responses on a number of slips of paper,with one idea on each slip.

Step 3. Childrenplace their slips in the centre of their group, and discuss and arrange theminto piles, each with similar characteristics. Make a heading, generalisationor statement about each pile and label it accordingly. Make links, as in aspider’s web, between and among the piles where appropriate.

Step 4. As a class,share your statements or generalisations, and give examples where relevant.

• Problem posed: “Whatare the advantages and disadvantages of this pedagogy? Type your response in nomore than two paragraphs.”

This sub-module hasthe learner undertake the slipwriting activity first. Then, students are askedto decipher the strategy in 4 steps and report them. Then, students comparetheir answer with the given one. Finally, students are asked to construct what they consider are theadvantages and disadvantages of this pedagogy.

Discussion

The design of eachof these interactivities were based on constructivist theory, where the learneris provided with a variety of learning activities whose pedagogies are aimed atengendering a greater understanding based on students’ prior knowledge.  Table 1 indicates the application of theconstructivist principles to the 3 sub-modules .

Table 1: Application of the 8Constructivist principles to interactivities on The Water Cycle, The Lifecycleof the Frog, and Slipwriting.

Source: (Savery& Duffy 1996, p. 3)

In Table 1, each ofthe eight constructivist principles applicable to each of the three sub-modulesis addressed, resulting in both commonalities and in varied ways.  For example, in the first principle toanchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem, all threesub-modules are anchored in the larger problem of environmental degradation andit inter-related bio-diversity.  Inothers, there is variation.

Of the 8constructivist principles, the one that was not specifically addressed here was“Provide opportunity for, and support reflection on, both the content earnedand the learning process itself”.  These3 sub-modules were embedded within broader modules, and in the design, theauthors included this at varying stages within the modules, frequentlyfollowing the completion of a pedagogical task or problem-solvingactivity.  In each of these threeexamples above, this constructivist principle was not evident, however, it waspresent later in the modules where students were asked to write theirreflections on their learning process and their learning progress.

Conclusion

Multimedia hasenormous potential for enhancing the learning of adults and children. Here, aselection of three examples of sub-modules designed for subjects in a CD-ROMfor Bachelor of Education students at an Australian university, were examinedin terms of the principles of a constructivist approach. Enhanced interactivityof the learner, on an individual basis, and the knowledge and/or theexperiential, means that what is being learned is aimed to be more relevant tothe learner and therefore more likely to be relevant or reflected upon (Dewey,1916). That is, the learner will be changed in some way/s for having had theexperience of learning (Biggs, 1999). Grant and Vansledright (2001; pp.75-76) note that the promise ofconstructivist views includes shifting control for learning to the learner,enhancing motivation, increasing expectations of what students can learn, andbuilding interdisciplinary connections.

Thus, it seems thatthe application of the eight constructivist principles had wide scope for itsapplication of enhancing learning and providing variation of pedagogy.  This approach, to address suchcharacteristics, are the underlying principles used by the scriptwriter and theeducational designer here. No doubt, there are a very large number ofpedagogies that could be employed in teaching about the watercycle, the frogcycle and slipwriting.  However, thevariety chosen here has a two-fold aim; to enhance both student-teachers’learning, and their understanding of how they can teach these topics tochildren.  Biggs (1999, p. 2) says“there is no single all-purpose best method of teaching. Teaching isindividual”. This characteristic may be said to apply also to these threesub-modules from our CD-ROM where variety of pedagogy is one of the keycharacteristics included in addressing students’ variety of learningstyles.  

The constructivisttheoretical approach, when used in conjunction with multimedia, may be summedup, as Grant and Vansledright (2001; 158) note, to  “… open up wonderful worlds to learners”. Such worlds areincreasingly being experienced by all university students, and any otherlearners, to make learning more enjoyable and relevant. The implications ofsuch learning on-line have the potential to enhance individual growth to alevel of quality rarely experienced before (cf Dewey, 1916) as learning becomesan activity where its self-consciousness is shed, and the act of learningbecomes meaningful, relevant, active, enjoyable and uplifting.  Such characteristics of learning auger wellfor enhanced lifelong learning for everyone with computer access, andconcurrently an enhanced quality of life in many societies.

References

         Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for QualityLearning at University, Society for Research into Higher Education,Buckingham: Open University Press.

         Boling,E. & Kirkley, S. (1995). Interaction Design for Multimedia Software, AAIM4th Annual Conference on Multimedia in Education and Industry [On-line], Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~iirg/ARTICLES/multimedia/interactionDesign_MM.html[12 Jun 2001]

         Bradley,G. and Russell, G (1997). Computer Experience, School Support and ComputerAnxieties, Educational Psychology, 17, 3, 267-284.

         Brown,T. (1997). Multimedia in Education –Conclusions. http://129.180.87.4/Units/CurricSt/CSIT513/573/573_12.html [27 September 1999].

         Csikszentmihalyi,M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper& Row.

         Dewey,J. (1916) Democracy and Education, New York: Macmillan.

         Education Queensland. (2000). Study ofSociety and Environment Syllabus, Brisbane: Government Printing Office.

         Fardouly,N. (1999). Instruction Design of Learning Materials.  University of New South Wales [On-line], http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/learning/instructionaldesign/materials.htm [10 December 2000].

         Goldman,J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (1999). Internet educational usage by High Schoolstudents around the world, Educational Practice and Theory, 21,1, 67-85.

         Goldman,J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (2000). Internet connectivity in the education ofhigh school students around the world: An Australian originated study, Journalof Pacific Asian Education, 12, 2, 25-39.

         Goldman,J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (2002). Internet curriculum projects by HighSchool students around the world, World Studies in Education 3,1.

         Goldman,J. D. G. & Krause, J. (2001). Interactive multimedia collaborativestrategies employed by upper Primary School students: A case study, EducationalPractice and Theory, 23, 2, 61-80.

         Goldman,J. D. G. & Krause, J. (2002). Preparatory collaborative problem-solving forinteractive multimedia projects in a Primary school.  Unpublishedmanuscript.

         Grant, S. G. and Vansledright, B. (2001). Constructinga powerful approach to teaching and Learning in Elementary Social Studies,Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

         Hammer,R. & Kellner, D. (2001). Multimedia pedagogy and multicultural educationfor the new millennium. Current Issues in Education, 4 (2).Available:

http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume4/number2/index.html[05 June 2001]

         Hamza,M. & Alhalabi, B. (1999). Technology and Education: Between Chaos andOrder. First Monday – Peer-Reviewed Journal on the internet [On-line],

Available:http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_3/hamza/[06 July 2001]

         Marsh, C. (2001). (Ed) Teaching aboutStudies of Society and Environment  (3^rded.), Sydney: Prentice Hall.

         Marton, F., Hounsell, D., andEntwistle, N. (1997). The Experience of Learning. Implications for Teachingand Studying in Higher Education ( 2^nd ed.), Edinburgh: ScottishAcademic Press.

         Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning andTeaching.  The Experience in HigherEducation, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education andthe Open University.

         Rowland, S. (2000). The EnquiringUniversity Teacher, Buckingham: The Society for Research into HigherEducation and the Open University.

         Savery,J. R., and Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional modeland its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson, (Ed.) Constructivistlearning Environments: case Studies in Instructional design, EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

         Seels ,B. and Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions, (2^nded.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

         Smith,P.  L. and Ragan, T. J. (1999). InstructionalDesign, (2^nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-HallInc.

         Schon,D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, Aldershot, Arena.

         Sorrell,M. (2000) Trend of the world as we know it…is American. The Australian,8 February, p.27.

         Strommen,D.  (1999). Constructivism,Technology, and the Future of Classroom Learning.  http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/construct.html

[ 27September 1999].

         Torrisi,G. and Davis, G. (2000). Online Learning as a catalyst for reshaping practice–The experience of some academics developing online learning materials, TheInternational Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 166-176.

         Torrisi-Steele,G. and Davis, G. (2000). A”A website for my subject”: The experiences of someacademics’ engagement with educational designers in a team based approach todeveloping online learning materials, Australian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 16(3), 283-301. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/torrisi-steele.html