Designing educational media: Learner centred processesAndrew LitchfieldCentre for Professional Development Macquarie University |
The pressure is increasing for educators to incorporate new media - email, the web and multimedia - into their courses and teaching practice. Consequently educators need to develop new knowledge and skills in the design and production of multiple-media resources. There is a growing need for educators to understand processes of media design as well as processes of educational design. However the instructional design frameworks in the literature appear not to acknowledge the well established processes of media design.To assist the educator to design successful multiple-media learning resources this paper presents a conceptual framework that incorporates generic media proposal, media production and educational design processes. It is argued these processes should be learner centred to assist and improve educational outcomes.
In the paper these learner centred processes are depicted in a series of graphics which emphasise the iterative nature of media design. In the appendix there is a list of relevant questions that need to be answered when developing learner profiles to guide the design of educational media projects.
New media are enabling changes to educational practice in ways often portrayed as 'flexible delivery', 'flexible learning' and 'mediated learning'. Considerable organisational resources are being strategically expended to offer courses in flexible modes to more students. A common rationale is that internet-based flexible 'anywhere anytime' courses need to be offered by 'borderless' organisations to maintain their position and continued relevance in a global and diverse market of higher education offerings and competitive providers.
Industrial methodologies of how information is created, accessed, delivered, and used in our culture is swiftly changing. Dede (1996) argues that "to successfully prepare students as workers and citizens, educators must incorporate into the curriculum experiences with creating and utilising new forms of expression, such as multimedia. The core skill for today's workplace is not foraging for data, but filtering a plethora of incoming information. Expanding traditional definitions of literacy and rhetoric into immersion-centered experiences of interacting with information is crucial to preparing students for full participation in the 21st century society".
Slowly higher education curricula are changing from teacher-centred text information and written examination approaches to re-positioning students as active participants in the process of finding, organising, analysing, applying and presenting multiple-media information in novel ways to address issues and resolve a series of problems. The key learning outcome becomes a capacity to deal independently with new information in a range of contexts in a range of forms using various media.
More fee-paying students are sensibly seeking courses that develop the knowledge and skills that the information economy and employers need. Microsoft University and other virtual entities are beginning to provide quality offerings and will take 'life-long' learners away from traditional 'bricks and mortar' institutions.
So cultural, political, economic and institutional demands are increasing for educators to utilise new media communications - email, the web and multimedia - in their courses and teaching practice. Flexible curricula are evolving into mediated experiences developed and moderated by facilitators. There is a very real need for educators to understand processes of generic media design and to develop skills in producing multiple-media learning resources.
However the instructional design literature appears not to acknowledge, nor has the discipline incorporated into its established frameworks and models, the established processes of media design and in particular the methodologies of the audio-visual medium - the first ubiquitous screen culture.
The development of design skills can be considered as a never-ending process of self-development - a life long creative process. Knowledge and skills acquired in one project are then utilised in the next project. A recognition of the primacy of systematic and iterative process in all design is paramount.
Multiple-media design outcomes can be considered the result of collaboration between the members of the project team, the funding source, and the target audience for each particular project. This collaboration is depicted in Figure 1 and is ongoing throughout each specific project. Successful project outcomes depend on the design team's ability and skill in project managing this collaborative process.
Figure 1: Multiple-media design process
Multiple-media design teams require self and team management skills, knowledge of financial and client management strategies, and an ability to analyse and then meet the needs of each project's specific audience or target user. Using the rhetoric of promotional culture the user is well known as the consumer; and in educational contexts the learner is our consumer and educators facilitate learning outcomes.
Media projects usually commence with the formation of a project proposal - often in the form of a funding application. Figure 2 illustrates the likely content of any proposal with the main components being the projects concept, objectives, the human, technical and financial resources required in the form of a budget and the consequent project constraints and limitations. These components need to be researched, analysed, and then clearly, succinctly and persuasively stated. The primacy of iterative process in design is recognised as the proposal is developed through several cycles and drafts.
Figure 2: Media project proposal
These elements of a media project proposal are the likely content requirements of an application for funds. Proposal application and grant selection, via successful 'grantspersonship' by the project team leader, is a common process used to obtain media project funding. Funding is usually needed before the project can move into the production phase. During the project's production many design difficulties can be resolved by referring back to the project's proposed concept and objectives.
The most appropriate production process for multiple-media is arguably an extension of audiovisual production methodology. As Nelson (1990) observes "in what field have the psychological and visual effects of screens been widely experimented with, and come to great prominence? Why movies of course. Many people have now noticed that interactive software is in some ways like movies, and that the process of making software is in some interesting ways like movie-making".
Figure 3: Media production process
Figure 3 represents the well-established production processes of film and video making. In the pre-production phase the content script is developed and tasks scheduled until the project is considered ready for production. In the production phase the project's multiple-media content is created, recorded and/or collected. In the post-production phase the raw media is edited, evaluated and usability-tested, re-edited and re-edited in the search for excellence until eventually the program is considered to be ready for distribution - or more likely the project's funds run out!
These media production phases proceed within the ongoing collaborative design process between the project team, the funding sources and the audience for each particular project.
Generic media production phases and activities are now incorporated into the processes of systematic educational design to form a framework for the design of multiple-media learning resources.
These four phases incorporate the common elements of instructional systems design; determine the instructional goal, analyse the instructional goal, analyse learners and contexts, write performance objectives, develop assessment instruments, develop instructional strategy, develop and select instruction, design and conduct the formative evaluation of instruction, revise instruction, and conduct summative evaluation (Dick & Carey 1996).
As with media production, the educational design process is ongoing throughout each project's development requiring frequent iterations of the cycle ensuring that issues arising in one iteration inform the next.
Figure 4: Educational multiple-media design process
The educational design process is depicted in Figure 4. The sequential activities of the media production process have been incorporated into the planning and production phases of the cycle.
The planning phase is without doubt the most important stage of the educational design cycle - 'failing to plan is planning to fail'. The time and effort spent planning indisputably leads to more efficient, effective and successful production, implementation and evaluation phases. Specific educational planning activities may include:
The production phase typically involves expensive hardware and software and is demanding on staff time and other resources. In the production phase each medium and technology requires different tools and a variety of production skills are needed by members of the project team. When cost-effective sub-contractors can produce specific content elements or production tasks.
The production phase should involve the development of successive prototypes or drafts, each iteration being formatively evaluated for effectiveness and reliability. Formative evaluation at this stage by appropriate learners as well as subject matter experts is becoming known as usability testing and allows the intended learners to directly inform the design process.
Funding restrictions and time constraints often determine the number and extent of production revisions that are possible, however a minimum of three iterative drafts are invariably required to produce a quality outcome.
The implementation phase involves incorporating the project into the teaching and learning program. Relevant issues which should have been identified in the planning phase include; the learners access to the resource, the technical skills learners need, any required administration and adequate support systems.
The implementation phase should incorporate well-designed formative evaluation strategies to monitor the performance, effectiveness and learning impact of the project.
Within educational design evaluation activities are of two types: formative and summative. The evaluation framework and procedures should be determined in the planning phase. Ways of obtaining evaluation information could include: focus groups, one-on-one interviews, questionnaires, observations and the new techniques of 'usability testing'. Both quantitative and qualitative data may be gathered.
A range of formative evaluation measures should inform all phases of the project, giving life to the iterative nature of the educational design cycle. During the formative phase, data is collected that enables designer's to improve the project to ensure it achieves its potential to enhance learning. As already mentioned formative evaluation should occur throughout the design process; when the objectives are re-examined, when the content is matched with the objectives, when the needs assessment is compared to the project's concept and goal, when target learners and peer subject experts usability test prototypes, and during the implementation of the project within the teaching and learning program (Mauldin 1995).
The more formal summative evaluation phase involves analysing the outcomes of the implementation phase and measuring the effectiveness of the project against the criteria for its success established during the planning phase. Summative evaluation may address learning aims and outcomes, cost effectiveness, access, and the impact of all these on both the teacher's and the learner's technical skills and the conditions that achieve best results.
Evaluation activities may use complex and formal protocols, or a more simple and informal framework. There may be a formal requirement for particular evaluation strategies as part of the project's funding agreement. It should be remembered that innovative practice will involve mistakes and should be considered a source of learning.
Given that there is no 'recipe' it is essential to realise that the reaction and the outcomes from the users of educational media programs will ultimately decide the success or failure of any particular design. With its unique opportunities for user- participation multimedia has the most potential for interaction and individualised learning of any communication technology. So more than with any other medium the multimedia designer must collaborate with the user.
Maintaining a user-centred perspective within the media design process appears essential to develop interactive outcomes. Karat and Bennett (1991) define 'user-centred' to mean "that the total system function is crafted to meet requirements for effective user learning and efficient user access to that function. That is, the eventual users must see the system as useful and useable in their ongoing environments in addition to the system being affordable, logically complete, and technically sound".
In educational projects an iterative learner centred design approach requires that the project proposal, production and educational design processes be developed with the media designer's repeated attention focused on how to meet perceived learner needs. Figures 5, 6 and 7 represent such an approach.
Figure 5: Learner centred
project proposal process
Figure 6: Learner centred
media production process
Figure 7: Learner centred educational
media design process
Although learner requirements may be explicitly considered at some points in the project design the continued focus is often difficult to maintain. Despite the difficulties a learner centred perspective ensures the numerous needs of the project's user are centrally focused in a systematic manner.
From the first stages of developing the project proposal it is advised to create a detailed learner profile to guide design decision-making. The appendix lists relevant questions to ask when developing a learner profile.
It is likely that many of the principles of multiple and multi-media interaction will increasingly be based upon constructivist theory developed from contemporary cognitive psychology as multimedia programs only come into existence and change when users perceive, interpret and interact with the various media. As Norman and Spohrer (1996) observe;
the basic issues can be described through such key words as 'constructivism' 'learner centred' and 'problem-based' At the heart is the idea that people learn best when engrossed in the topic, motivated to seek out new knowledge and skills because they need them in order to solve the problem at hand. The goal is active exploration, construction, and learning rather than the passivity of lecture attendance and textbook reading...The new media are driving and enabling these constructive pedagogies to be incorporated into curriculum development. The capabilities of the new media raise the possibility that at last a communication technology exists that is capable of accommodating various learning options and styles and which allows the learner to be highly self-directed in their exploration and presentation of a subject area.The new approach, termed "learner centred" is somewhat akin to the "user-centred" focus of modern interface design. Here, the focus is on the needs, skills, and interests of the learner. Learner centred is often accompanied by a problem-based approach, where the problems are picked to fit the interests and needs of the learners. The focus is on the learner and authentic problems rather than on the structured analysis of the curriculum content - though both are clearly necessary.
Figure 8 represents a learner centred approach to educational media design which encourages the participants in a collaborative design process to build a shared understanding of the many learner-sensitive issues and requirements for successful outcomes.
Figure 8: Learner centred educational multiple-media design framework
Ultimately the reactions and outcomes from learners will decide the success or failure of any educational media design. Deciding which technology to use is not the primary issue for educators. The real challenge is how to design and utilise the new media's potential for improving communication and individual learning and of how to best address the changing needs and expectations of learners in rapidly changing cultural, political, economic and institutional contexts.
Dick, W. and Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (4th edition). New York: Harper Collins.
Karat, J. and Bennett, J. (1991). Working within the Design Process: Supporting Effective and Efficient Design. In Carroll, J. (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp269-285.
Litchfield, A. (1994). Producing Multimedia: a user-centred approach. Proceedings of the Multimedia and Design Conference, University of Sydney, 26-28 September 1994, pp 3-10.
Mauldin, M. (1995). Developing Multimedia: A Method to the Madness. Technological Horizons in Education, 22(7), 88-90.
Nelson, T. (1990). The right way to think about software design. In Laurel, B. (ed.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Addison-Wesley, New York, pp235-243.
Norman, D. & Spohrer, J. (1996). Learner-centred Education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27.
Toffler, A. (1990). Powershift. Bantam, New York.
© Andrew Litchfield, CPD, Macquarie University NSW 2109 Australia
andrew.litchfield@mq.edu.au
Author: Andrew Litchfield Lecturer Technology in Learning and Teaching Centre for Professional Development Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia Email: andrew.litchfield@mq.edu.au or: alitchfi@ocs1.ocs.mq.edu.au Please cite as: Litchfield, A. (1998). Designing educational media: Learner centred processes. In C. McBeath and R. Atkinson (Eds), Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit. Proceedings EdTech'98. Perth: Australian Society for Educational Technology. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/litchfield1.html |