Instructional 20Design by Z76i1hCE


									Instructional Design
Section Editors:
Jenny Burson, University of Houston
Jerry Price, University of Houston
Stephanie Boger-Mehall, University of Houston

Technology continues to develop at an accelerated rate, bringing new
opportunities for teacher educators to share with students what could hardly
be imagined even a few years ago. However, as has been seen in many
other disciplines, the field of educational technology is becoming so broad
that the need for specialization is becoming apparent. This posses and
interesting question. Technology and Education: Are they really compatible?
Watkins (1993) argued that the application and use of educational
technology is at best a piecemeal and uncoordinated effort. To solve these
problems, the authors in this section have found that the collaborative
process in instructional design brings together expertise from many areas of
specialization and coordinates the efforts of these individuals toward a single
In the panel discussion of collaborative technology projects, Abate proposes
the need for participant collaboration in developing instructional multimedia.
He indicates that the COE development teams at Cleveland State University
(CSU) are composed of users with first hand knowledge of the need
requirements. Increased familiarity with technological tools, advances in
software, and higher levels of collaboration are altering the role of faculty in
the development of instructional materials. Success in collaboration is a
function of the interaction of many variables. Therefore, identifying and
cultivating key variables is essential to building a collaborative design
environment. As a specific example of this collaborative process at CSU,
Hayes discusses how the use of technology in the Microteaching laboratory
fosters effective supervision and reflective teaching skills. Without the use of
technology, students would be deprived of evaluative feedback. To add to
this body of research, Abate, Atkins, Benghiat, Hannah, and Settlage
consider five examples of using technology in exploring the potential of new
material development. They have found that the uncertainty and unknown
typically associated with new technology is being replaced with the optimism
gained from prior successful developments with technology. As their faculty
continue to develop new materials, they have devised the expertise that
comes from having accomplished the entire process, not just as developers,
but more importantly as collaborators in an ongoing effort to improve the
quality of instruction.
The use of the Systematic Curriculum Instructional Development (SCID) a
business model developed at the Center on Education and Training for
Employment (CETE), Ohio State University is the focus of the two articles
discussing the training of teachers to use multimedia in their classrooms.
Nelson and Sologuk use a case study approach to focus on the project's
impact on the developmental process of the learning environment for North
Dakota's teachers to use multimedia in their classrooms plus the
enlightenment of approximately thirty educational professionals in the use of
this collaborative process. While Hoskisson, Stammen, and Nelson discuss
the same model to develop multimedia to training for pre- and inservice
teachers, they take a more theoritical perspective toward the use of existing
models for technological training. Their developmental experience caused
them to question current methods of addressing the power of the computer
or multimedia in current teaching models or learning situations.
Downs and Clark suggest that we need to use existing research to provide
guidelines until further research is accomplished in the use of presentation
programs. As well as using current research, they suggest that as these
presentation programs proliferate the need for additional research is
emphasized as these programs will become the preferred method for
presenting information. Fu and Ouyang recommend that similar research
must be employed when using presentation graphics in distance education.
They explore graphic design as one aspect of effective teaching in a distance
learning environment.
The remainder of papers in this section deal with initial efforts in developing
software through collaborative efforts. Laffey and Musser review the
collaborative process used at the University of Missouri-Columbia to develop
prototype journaling software to improve learning during the field
experiences of preservice educator. The software and architecture developed
for sharing and learning from mutual experiences has an exciting potential
for both students and faculty. The paper presented by Forman provides an
introduction to a laser disc produced at Georgetown and to the process that
led to developing such a resource. The disc called Math and Science in the
`Real World': The Lilley Cornett Woods Video Disc, was produced by an
education department faculty member clinging to an idea and collaborating
with a group of K-12 teachers and students. The final article decribes one
faculty members effort to have students join this collaborative process with
Millhoff reviews a course designed to bring students together across
disciplines to develop computer-based multimedia products. His report
suggests that student participants can create significant projects, cover a
significant amount of information, and achieve functional levels of
competency in multimedia production using the colloaborative process.


      Watkins, J. (1993). Technology and education: Are they really
      compatible? In D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds.)
      Technology and Teacher Education. Charlottesville: Association for the
      Advancement of Computing in Education.
Jenny Burson is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education at the University of
Houston, 4800 Calhoun, Farish Hall 214, Houston, TX 77204-5872.
Jerry Price is the Manager of the Center for Information Technology in
Education in the College of Education at the University of Houston, 4800
Calhoun, Farish Hall 214, Houston, TX 77204-5872. E-mail:
Stephanie Boger-Mehall is a doctoral student in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education at the University of
Houston, 4800 Calhoun, Farish Hall 214, Houston, TX 77204-5872.

          Components of a Collaborative Design Environment

                                Ron Abate
                        Cleveland State University

Developing instructional multimedia requires the efforts of many individuals.
Each individual offers specific talents and varying levels of understanding to
the development process. Assembling a group of competent individuals is
only the first step toward successful development. To design usable
software, one must involve the users in the design process (Grudin, 1990).
An appropriate environment for design is also critical. Minimally, this
environment must support the needs and interests of individuals while
providing structure for participant collaboration.
A design environment that supports participant collaboration is evolving in
the College of Education (COE) at Cleveland State University (CSU). This
collaborative environment has emerged from a variety of approaches
implemented to encourage faculty involvement. One constant has remained
across all development efforts, however. That important constant is the
revision process (Abate, 1993). Faculty developers and faculty users
continually revise multimedia materials for student use. What this implies for
faculty is that all projects represent prototypes regardless of how long they
may have been in use. The revision/prototype model encourages active
participation on the part of faculty and this participation increases continued
commitment to development.
Some approaches aimed at involving users are more successful than others,
but some work environments start out more conducive to collaboration than
others. In the COE, multimedia materials are developed hand-in-hand with
and by users to support their work interests. This point highlights a key
difference between development in the COE versus development in a more
traditional setting and suggests one reason why a collaborative design
environment is possible. Whereas, many development teams are composed
of instructional designers who are faced with the task of gathering user
information and then determining the needs of that user. This process
invariably separates the developer from the user. The COE development
teams are composed of users with first hand knowledge of the need
requirements. Alone, the condition of user development is not sufficient for a
collaborative design environment but it does increase the potential for
success in collaboration.
What constitutes a collaborative design environment and what does this type
of environment suggest for the development of multimedia instructional
materials in teacher education? Success in collaboration is a function of the
interaction of many variables. Identifying and cultivating key variables is
essential to building a collaborative design environment. What are some of
the conditions of collaboration that recur across a wide range of
personalities, time periods, and fields? Michael Schrage (1989) has identified
thirteen conditions common in successful collaborations. Several of these
conditions are evident in the collaborative efforts that have evolved in the
COE. These circumstances include the following: 1) competence; 2) a shared
goal; 3) mutual respect, tolerance and trust; 4) representation; 5)
communication; 6) responsibility; and 7) decisions making. These seven
conditions describe the COE collaborative design environment.


No individual is competent at all aspects of a multimedia production. One
team member may provide pedagogical expertise, another computer
programming skills, and another video production skills. Each collaborator
brings expertise to a project. As such, collaboration is frequently an act of
balancing and blending the skills of a development team. There is, however,
a minimal level of competence required for every multimedia project.
Without competence, collaboration is of little value.

Shared, Understood Goal

The goal of a multimedia development project is not collaboration. The
relationships between developers is subordinate to achieving an end goal.
Although collaboration makes for a more productive and enjoyable work
environment, it is simply a means to achieve a goal. Establishing a shared
goal is like developing a prototype. First, the multimedia instructional
materials are proposed by a faculty developer. The purpose of the materials
is presented to development team members. Initially, individuals may
discuss the purpose formally. As time passes, several versions of a project
goal will be stated before the development team shares an understanding of
the goal. With time and further discussion, the goal becomes clearer. Little
effort is then expended discussing the goal beyond this agreement of
Projects with clear goals progress quickly. The opposite is true when goals
are ill-defined. In instances where goals are ill-defined, collaborators
recognize that the project will progress slowly. They patiently work toward a
shared understanding. Sometimes this is done formally but more often than
not the collaborators provide time and informal advice to the principle
developer. Frequently, all that is needed is additional time to help the
principle developer clarify the goal. Time is a variable that cannot be
overlooked in the seminal stage of a project. Time spent up front in goal
definition is time saved in development effort and revision.

Mutual Respect, Trust, and Tolerance

Friendships can be useful in collaborations but they are not essential.
Successful collaborators focus on the strengths within relationships. As such,
collaborators respect what the other individuals bring to the effort while
tolerating weaknesses. Trust is essential. Each member of a collaboration
must have confidence in the other members' purpose and commitment,
otherwise, there is little reason to believe that the individual is contributing
to the shared goal. The adage "we sink or swim together" describes the trust
relationship and points out why mutual respect is critical. For example, some
collaborators may not agree with the pedagogy that underlies a development
effort, but all understand the goal and support the principle developer.
Mutual respect, trust, and tolerance are cultivated slowly. In the COE, new
developers are initially directed toward simple projects with only one or two
collaborators. Simple projects tend to get completed on a more timely basis
and the new developer enjoys initial success while learning how the process
works. Building mutual respect, tolerance, and trust is a complicated
undertaking since some faculty prefer to work alone. Part of building respect
and tolerance is achieved by providing support for faculty in everyday tasks
or by assisting them in non-collaborative development efforts. In the future,
these faculty developers may be more likely to place their trust in the
collaborative approach having benefited from an effective traditional working


Representation is a two way street. Collaborators question each other
continuously and representations change as collaborators refine their
understandings. It takes multiple representations to coordinate the multiple
perspectives of collaborators. Reference points are essential for
understanding among a diverse group of collaborators. Most often, the type
of problem posed and the background of the collaborator dictate the most
successful form of a representation. For example, in the production of a
short video the director may best understand where to place cameras for
effect by having the pedagogy covered in the video segment explained by
the content expert through analogy. The content expert may best
understand how a computer program will flow by seeing an informal
storyboard. A faculty member may best understand the complexity of a
project through a visual representation such as a timeline or spreadsheet. In
each instance, the choice of representation changes but the goal remains the
same - provide a shared understanding for the collaborator.


Communication is tied closely to the nature of the relationship between
different collaborators and the task at hand. Quality communication is
mandated by circumstance. The more critical the time press, or more
difficult the problem faced, the higher the level of communication required.
Communication is also essential in defining goals and developing
representations. In working collaborations, communication is purposeful.
Questioning and argumentation are prime examples of purposeful
communication. When everyone understands or agrees, there is little reason
to communicate.
Channels of communication may change and levels may fluctuate but
collaborators must understand the purpose of communication. In a recent
CSU video production, one individual served as a mediator/translator
between the technical experts and the pedagogical experts during a field
shoot. As such, the level of communication was limited to specific individuals
and the level of interference was low but the level of information
communicated was high. Successful communication in a multimedia
development project is seldom formal, thus two important communication
qualities, flexibility and spontaneity, are enhanced. It is common for COE
collaborators to accomplish more in informal meetings, standing in hallways
when need dictates, than in formal meetings scheduled weeks in advance.


It was noted in the section on competence that each participant brings
specific talents to a collaboration. It is anticipated that participants will take
responsibility for their area of expertise. There are, however, no job
descriptions or divisions of labor to eliminate participation in other aspects of
the task at hand. The requirement of establishing shared understandings
reveals that the opposite is true. Collaborators must share information and
exchange functions periodically if they are to collaborate successfully.
Asking for assistance, soliciting ideas and performing whatever duty is
necessary to meet the goal of the task is part of every participant's
responsibility. This extended view of responsibility suggests that participants
have clear lines of responsibility within their area of expertise but that they
are not restricted to predetermined boundaries based on their area of
expertise. In the case of a recent videodisc project at CSU, lines of
responsibility were blurred considerably when the principle developer, whose
functional role was that of content expert, took on an additional role of
assistant editor and later still became actively involved in the programming
of the software. In this instance, responsibility for completion of specific
tasks rested with the functional experts but the input provided by the
content expert was invaluable. The expectation that all individuals contribute
wherever and whenever they have something to offer is instrumental in
eliminating potential "turf wars."

Decisions Making

Experience with numerous multimedia development projects has led to the
conclusion that it is not necessary to seek consensus on decisions among all
collaborators. Collaborators expect argumentation. It is part of the
collaboration process. Collaborators understand that the strength of the
collaboration rests in the fact that each individual brings a different
perspective to the process.
The mutual respect and trust established early on in the process encourage
participants to focus on issues surrounding the task, not the personalities
involved. To this extent, the decisions are depersonalized and greater effort
may be directed toward solving real problems. Invariably it is the variables
of the collaborators' abilities to communicate and to share responsibility that
will determine whether they are successful at decision making. Other
variables such as chance, personalities, and time pressures will also
influence whether the collective ideas of all participants are considered.


The seven conditions of a collaboration environment described above stand
in contrast to the conditions of traditional software development. The
collaborative environment assumes that users are in the best position to
determine what their requirements are and what the best ways to meet
those requirements should be. The conditions emphasize experience over
formal description.
The collaborative development approach does have limitations; some
personalities are better suited to sharing control than others. Considerable
time is expended defining project goals. Additional effort is spent on
revision. However, based on the COE experience there is an important link
between user development and product use. Furthermore, the collaborative
environment has played an instrumental role in expanding the video
production and software development skills of content experts, and
providing them with the confidence to undertake individual projects that will
enhance their delivery of instruction.


      Abate, R. J. (1993). The development of multimedia instructional
      materials in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher
      Education 1(2). 169-180
      Grudin, J. (1990). Obstacles to participatory design in large product
      development organizations. In Proceedings of PDC'90: Participatory
      Design Conference (pp. 14-21). Seattle, WA. Palo Alto: Computer
      Professionals for Social Responsibility
      Schrage, M. (1989). No More Teams!. New York ,Currency Doubleday .
Ron Abate is a faculty member of the College of Education at Cleveland
State University, Cleveland, OH 44115. E-mail:

      Utilizing Multimedia Technology as an Evaluation Tool for
              Supervision in the Microteaching Laboratory

                               Linda Hayes
                        Cleveland State University

HyperCard accommodates the development of an assessment instrument
that can be used by supervisors in the micro-teaching lab. The benefit of
using HyperCard with a predetermined teaching evaluation criterion is that it
allows the supervisor additional opportunity to focus on linguistics and the
effectiveness of the teaching in an actual classroom. Therefore, the
utilization of HyperCard gives direction and facilitates effective supervision.
We incorporated aspects of various models integrating several principles of
effective teaching and student success into an evaluation tool depicting
character and competencies needed for effective teaching.

Development of the HyperCard Evaluation Instrument

Three major studies were used to identify instruction characteristics for
effective teaching. The first was the 42 process-product research studies
conducted by Rosenshine and Furst (1973) where it was concluded that
there are 11 teacher process variables with correlation variables consistent
with products, student performance or achievement. The research identified
the following five teacher processes in relation to student achievements:

   1. Clarity of teacher's presentation and ability to organize classroom
   2. Variability of resource materials; media, supplies and learning
      activities used by the teacher.
   3. Enthusiasm characterized in the teacher's voice inflection, movement,
      and verbal versus nonverbal agreements.
   4. Task orientation or business teacher behaviors, organizational
      strategies and academic focus.
   5. Student opportunity to learn, that is, the teacher's coverage of content
      with students in order to test at a later time.

Six other variables were also identified in this study: using student ideas,
justified criticism, use of structuring comments, appropriate questions based
upon simple versus most complex within the cognitive domain, encouraging
students to elaborate on their ideas, and challenging instructional materials
(Rosenshine & Furst, 1973).
The second major research that supports Rosenshine and Furst (1973) is the
Good and Brophy Model (1986 & 1988) which identifies 15 factors related to
effective teaching. These factors reflect two teacher skill categories:
classroom management, and technique and structural learning strategies.
In 1979, Anderson, along with Evertson and Brophy, developed an
instructional model consisting of 22 specific principles based upon the
integration of research on how young children learn. These 22 principles
were divided into six group headings: obtaining group attention, introducing
the lesson, ensuring everyone's attention, meeting individual needs within
the group, teacher questions and student responses, and praise and
Based upon these three models for effective teaching, the Microteaching
Evaluation Instrument was created. The evaluation instrument was divided
into six major sections methodologies of effective teaching; anticipatory
behaviors; body and delivery; professional demeanor; mastery indicator;
and teacher comments and four categories to reflect effective teacher
principles. Each of the four categories has specific teacher product skills to
be observed.

Supervisor Feedback

Bloom, 1976 postulates feedback as the teaching behavior most consistently
related to student achievement. He further explains that students need to
know corrective procedures, which is more involved than knowing if a
response is right or wrong. More importantly, supervisor feedback provides
an opportunity for intervention which is necessary for cultivating effective
teaching characteristics. The role of supervisor is greatly enhanced with the
use of technical equipment such as a Macintosh PowerBook computer and
camcorders. This equipment provides direct support to the written
documentation that becomes useful in student reflection. Microteaching
gives opportunity to intervene at the skill development level in the teacher
training program. Some researchers identify this approach of intervention as
technical coaching or supervisor-teacher evaluation.
During the ten minute micro-teach the supervisor is able to document their
observations and recommendations in regard to l) the utilization of active
teaching strategies, 2) helpful teaching hints, and 3) overall total grade for
the micro-teach based on a five point system with five being the highest
score possible to achievement and one being the lowest.


The use of technology in the Microteaching laboratory fostered effective
supervision and reflective teaching skills. Without the use of technology,
students would be deprived of the benefit of tape review and evaluative
feedback. Supervisor expertise affords the pre-service teacher with an in-
depth knowledge of what is considered effective teaching skills.

      Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M. & Brophy, J. E. (March 1979). An
      experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups.
      Elementary School Journal, 193-223.
      Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New
      York: McGraw-Hill.
      Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1988). Looking in Classrooms, 4th ed.
      New York: Harder & Row.
      Good, T. L. & Brophy, J. E. (1986) Teacher behavior and student
      achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
      Teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
      Rosenshine & Furst, (1973). The use of direct observation to study
      teaching. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on
      Teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Linda D. Hayes, Assistant Professor College of Education, Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, OH 44115.
  Creating Technology Assisted Instructional Materials for Teacher

                                 Ron Abate
                         Cleveland State University

                              Sandra L. Atkins
                         Cleveland State University

                             Kathleen Benghiat
                         Cleveland State University

                             C. Lynne Hannah
                         Cleveland State University

                               John Settlage
                         Cleveland State University

Increased familiarity with technological tools, advances in software and
higher levels of collaboration are altering the role of faculty in the
development of instructional materials at Cleveland State University (CSU).
The College of Education (COE) at this university has developed instructional
materials integrating video, videodiscs, and software into the teacher
education program since 1989. (Abate, 1990). As a result of this ongoing
effort, selected faculty in the COE are more familiar with both the use of
technology in the classroom and the effort required to create technology
based instructional materials. Access to and instructional support for the use
of software authoring tools has also encouraged these faculty members to
participate in the development process. This poster session presents an
overview of the ongoing creation of technology assisted instructional
materials at CSU. Five development efforts are considered: (1) videodisc
presentation utilities, (2) multimedia databases, (3) computer mediated
micro teaching, (4) videodiscs assisted discussions and (5) videodisc
classroom models.

Presentation Utilities

Faculty are currently enhancing their lectures using videodiscs in conjunction
with computers, projection devices and simple presentation software. Using
a preprogrammed HyperCard stack (Abate & Hannah, 1994), faculty may
select segments from a videodisc and display them to a lecture audience.
The current version of the software automatically initializes a videodisc
player and informs the user if the player is attached and if is contains a
videodisc. Each card in the HyperCard stack includes a videodisc remote
control with reverse, forward, play, stop, step, frame, find, and picture
capabilities. In addition, the card contains six locations to enter text to
describe segments , first and last frame holders for each segment and
corresponding video buttons to display the segments identified in the start
and stop frame holders. (See Figure 1.)
The software is simple, straightforward and easy to use. Faculty identify
useful video segments on a videodisc using the remote control buttons
provided on each card in the stack. Specific frame numbers are recorded in
the first and last frame holders. Segment descriptions are typed into the
corresponding field and the video button associated with those fields is
tested. In some instances faculty may select to create an entire presentation
and then send each segment to videotape. This added step eliminates the
need for a computer set up in the lecture hall but reduces some of the
flexibility associated with computer control of the presentation.
Comments from faculty suggest that students' understanding of course
materials are enhanced through the addition of video examples of exemplary
teaching. In addition, it provides for controlled observational experiences.
The videodisc presentation software is not especially sophisticated but it has
changed the way many faculty perceive the instructional use of technology.
In addition, it has encouraged faculty to examine how technology might
improve their teaching while providing a method for enhancing what they
already do in their classes.

Multimedia Databases

A custom multimedia database of lessons was created for a reading
foundations course. The original vision for the multimedia database was to
provide an environment where preservice teachers simulate field
experiences with guidance from a teacher mentor. The preservice teachers
enter the recorded classroom along with an instructor in a group setting. The
computer controlled videodisc provides the capability to stop the lesson for
purposes of observation, discussion and evaluation and to connect to the
reading methodologies presented in class. Following this group use, students
may be sent to individual work stations to work on follow-up assignments.
Each of the multimedia database lessons contains Hypertext links, teacher
comments, and video information. The database includes background
information on the methodology employed and text links related to text and
video from the lesson, student prerequisites, and reference information. In
addition, a lesson plan is provided with direct links to the video of the
lesson. (See Figure 2.)
                                     Figure 1.
In practice, the materials appear successful in bridging the gap between
textbook information and the "real world" but the lack of adequate lab
facilities to support individual use by students in courses with large
enrollments limits faculty interest and use of multimedia databases.

                                  Figure 2.

Computer Mediated Microteaching

A primary goal of teacher education is to prepare preservice teachers to
implement a variety of instructional strategies. Microteaching provides
opportunities to practice different courses of action under circumstances
where the number of classroom variables and student behaviors are
minimized. Software was developed (Abate, 1995) for recording student
actions in a microteaching session. The software is used in conjunction with
a VHS camcorder to record a student microteaching session. A single screen
(See Figure 3.) provides a checklist of teaching behaviors. Using a track ball
on a portable computer, an instructor records teaching behaviors during the
microteaching lesson. When the microteaching session is completed, the
instructor prints out their comments along with checklist of behaviors. The
checklist contains the time that each behavior occurred during the
microteaching session and student may review their tape to identify when
they performed particular behaviors. As such, the simple analysis software
supports the basic format of microteaching by providing immediate feedback
tied directly to time and events presented in a student lesson.
                                  Figure 3.

Videodisc Assisted Discussions

A videodisc for an elementary science course has been developed to support
strategies for facilitating whole class discussions. The instructional model
presented is the Learning Cycle (Renner, Abraham & Birnie, 1988). The
Learning Cycle Model encourages the acquisition of concepts through first
hand experiences. The videodisc used to facilitate quality discussions show a
science education professor teaching a two day lesson to preservice
elementary school teachers. The concepts introduced with the Learning
Cycle approach lesson were physical and chemical properties of powders.
Students view eight selected segments from the videodisc in pairs. A
HyperCard stack records student data entry and controls the video. (Figure
4). The student's task is to select instructional conversational elements
demonstrated in each video segment, estimate the student to teacher talk
and record notes for later reference. After viewing the videodisc, students
began the development of microlessons that they will teach to their peers.
Students then use an audiotape of their lesson to rate their own use of
instructional conversational elements. Based on comments made by the
students, it appears that the videodisc, computer program and subsequent
class discussions are helpful in reinforcing students use of instructional
conversational elements.

                                  Figure 4.

Videodisc classroom models
A videodisc was created to provide inservice and preservice teachers with an
example of a rich mathematical classroom environment. An urban sixth
grade classroom, where problem solving and communication are integral
components of the learning environment, was captured on video. The
videodisc lesson begins with the students negotiating problem definitions.
Students focus on what they are being asked to find, not how to solve the
problem. In the second phase of the lesson, the students work
collaboratively to solve the five posed problems. Some students self select to
work in groups, others choose to work alone. The only constraint imposed on
the students is that they must remain focused on the tasks at hand. After
students solve a problem, they are able to enter their name in a log book
signifying that they are interested in presenting their answer to the class.
The final phase is the student presentation of solutions. The presentation
phase includes a discussion of the solution, alternative solutions, and
acceptance of the solution. The videodisc title Negotiation, Collaboration,
Presentation reflects the three phases of this mathematical problem solving
environment (Atkins, 1995). The visual materials have proven essential in
providing preservice and inservice students with powerful images of a
communicative problem solving approach. Students are better able to
examine the role of the teacher and student in creating a safe problem
solving environment. The flexibility and control features embedded in the
videodisc technology offer additional opportunities to examine the teacher's
role in establishing a problem solving environment and in developing an
understanding of students mathematical reasoning.


Technology assisted instructional materials continue to be developed by
faculty at CSU. Projects are ongoing, the five examples listed above are;
part of standard teaching practice. A growing number of faculty are
exploring the potential of materials development. As new technologies
become available, new approaches will be tested. The uncertainty and
unknown typically associated with new technology is being replaced with the
optimism gained from prior successful developments with technology. As the
Cleveland State faculty continue to develop new materials, they formulate
the expertise that comes from having worked through the entire process,
not only as developers, but also as collaborators in an ongoing effort to
improve the quality of instruction.


      Abate, R. J. (1990). A multimedia environment for preservice teacher
      education. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 2(3), 14-19
      Abate, R. J. (1995). Software development for a microteaching
      laboratory. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.), Technology and
      Teacher Education Annual, 1993 (pp 470-473). Charlottesville, VA:
      Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
      Abate, R. J. & Hannah, C. L. (1993) Experiences with a videodisc
      presentation utility. In J. Willis, D. Carey, R. Carey, & D. Willis (Eds.),
      Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1993 (pp 445-447).
      Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
      Atkins, S. L. (1994). Creating images of model elementary school
      mathematics programs. In J. Willis, B. Robin, & D. Willis (Eds.),
      Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1993 (pp 448-450).
      Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in
      Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R,. & Birnie, H. H. (1988) The necessity of
      each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high school physics.
      Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 39-58.
Ron Abate, Sandra L. Atkins, Kathleen Benghiat, C. Lynne Hannah, and John
Settlage are on the faculty of the College of Education at Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, OH 44115.

     A Case Study: Developing Multimedia Training for Teachers

                             Marilyn K. Nelson
                       North Dakota State University

                              Sally Sologuk
                       North Dakota State University

Multimedia is impacting people of all ages. Computer games, encyclopedias,
and educational software in the home computer market are making heavy
use of sound, video, animation, and music. Whether at home, in the office,
or at the video arcade in the mall, people of all agesour learnersare
becoming accustomed to the pizazz that multimedia offers.
Society is indirectly forcing us to implement new teaching strategies into the
curricula. Integrating multimedia technology into education can be both
fascinating and challenging. Selecting only those concepts and ideas that can
be most effectively presented through interactive media requires good
instructional design-using the right multimedia products for the right tasks.
Multimedia technology should focus on the curriculum and the teacher first.
When the teacher's im`plementation of multimedia is curriculum-driven and
designed to be learner-centered, it can dramatically enhance and support
the appropriate teaching models, learning situations, and learning styles.
Teachers are the key component to insure that multimedia integration
embellishes the teaching process. They often lack resources-time, finances,
and equipment-to explore the possibilities. For the teachers in North Dakota,
a grant made a formal teacher training program in multimedia design a
With financial support from a US West Foundation grant awarded to North
Dakota State University's School of Education/Tri-College University's
Educational Administration program, a consortium of universities and school
districts is developing a multimedia training program for teachers. The
Project, Collaboratively Created Multimedia Modules for Teachers, will
develop and implement a series of multimedia modules to assist K-12
teachers and university teacher educators to integrate multimedia
educational tools into their day-to-day teaching.

Five Phases of Project

This process is separated into five phases:

      Phase I: Analysis - uses needs analysis, job analysis, and task
       verification processes.
      Phase II: Design - outlines the overall curriculum and develops the
       foundation for the training program.
      Phase III: Instructional Development - determines what will be taught
       and what learning activities, materials, and instructional methods will
       be used; develops the modules which are comprised of learning guides
       including supportive multimedia methods; field testing; pilot testing
       and revision processes.
      Phase IV: Training Implementation - activates the training plan, its
       evaluation, and documents learner achievement.
      Phase V: Program Evaluation - evaluates each of the five phases,
       including product, phase, and process evaluation.

The project is currently in Phase III: The Instructional Development Process.
The following information will review Phases I-III, what transpired in each
phase of the project, and a review of the process.
The first objective of the project was to develop competency-based training
modules for preservice and inservice education through a systematic
curriculum and instructional development process. The Systematic
Curriculum Instructional Development (SCID) model (copyrighted 1990) for
curriculum development from the Center for Education and Training for
Employment (CETE) at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, was
chosen. The process began in Phase I.
Phase I: Analysis Process

A significant part of the instructional systems model is the analysis phase.
The foundation for the planning and training activities is determined in this
step. The purpose of the job analysis is to identify all of the crucial tasks
performed by workers in a particular job; the workers are the teachers using
multimedia to enhance their lessons in the classroom. The data obtained is
used to design new occupational training programs or to revise and update
current training programs. In a business environment, management can also
use the information to write relevant job descriptions, determine work flow,
and improve work efficiency and effectiveness.
The Developing A CurriculUM (DACUM) method of conducting a job analysis
has proven extremely successful for the Center for Education and Training
for Employment. The DACUM philosophy places significant importance on
using expert workers in an occupation to describe what tasks they perform.
Two basic roles existed in this process: 1) those determined to be expert
workers in multimedia and 2) a facilitator from CETE who collected the
information and put it in final form.
Twelve local men and women were prudently selected to participate on the
DACUM Panel. Each individual profiled expertise in different skills and
competencies and were considered to be top performers in their area. To
reflect the range of teachers who would eventually be involved in the
training, the panel needed to represent a cross-section: elementary, middle
school, and high school teachers; a university teacher educator; a university
multimedia coordinator; a technology trainer; a university student; a
computer science professor; and two public school district technology
After two full days, the panel of experts, under the guidance of a CETE
facilitator, generated a DACUM chart-the product of the job analysis process.
The chart encompasses a list of general task categories called duties and
many tasks for each duty. In addition to the duties and tasks, the panel of
experts also identified (1) general knowledge, skills, important worker
behaviors; (2) tools, equipment, supplies, and materials; basic media skills;
and (3) future trends/concerns that may cause job changes for teachers
integrating multimedia into their curriculum and classrooms.
The DACUM chart, the duties and the number of tasks it encompassed, is
listed below:

     Duty   A: Acquire Basic Computer Skills (5 tasks)
     Duty   B: Improve Curriculum with Multimedia (14 tasks)
     Duty   C: Deliver Instruction with Multimedia (11 tasks)
     Duty   D: Utilize Support Services (5 tasks)
     Duty   E: Improve Teacher Communication with Multimedia (12 tasks)
     Duty   F: Promote Multimedia in the Classroom (6 tasks)
      Duty G: Pursue Professional Development (10 tasks)

Besides the twelve DACUM panel members, an additional thirty qualified
individuals reviewed and verified the DACUM list of duties and tasks in a task
verification process to determine the competencies needed by teachers who
integrate multimedia into their lessons. The question they asked themselves
when completing the questionnaire was, "Is this task actually performed by
the teacher using multimedia technology?" A comment section was available
following each duty. Once the DACUM duties and tasks were verified, it was
sent to CETE where it was printed and returned for distribution to all
personnel associated with the project.

Review of Phase I

For several years, DACUM has been effectively used to determine a job
analysis. Expert workers are gathered to describe tasks involved in their
specific occupation. Our panel of experts, though, was not comprised of
expert workers from one specific occupation. The collaborative brainstorming
to determine the duties and tasks confused them. The tasks for a teacher
using multimedia in instruction had never been defined because no specific
job existed. The process was stymied by the diversity of the participants'
backgrounds and the logistics did not flow. After a half-day into the process,
the panel was forced to change the question from, "What tasks do you
perform when using multimedia technology?" to "What tasks are performed
by the teacher using multimedia in the classroom?" As one panel participant
stated at the end of the process, "I believe the initial listing of our roles in
technology were off target from the focus of the project." Once the panel re-
focused, the process went well. An exuberant exchange occurred between
the people involved. The group dynamics was powerful and the energy-level
was rampant.
The task verification instrument was sent to over 30 people. Their
responsibility was to verify that the duties and tasks generated by the
DACUM panel were valid for teachers integrating multimedia into instruction
and to rate the importance and difficulty of each task. Confusion surfaced
here, also, because of the lack of expertise in this specific job area. In the
comment section, one person wrote, "This was a very difficult form to
complete. In my opinion, it was too complex, too wordy, and I'm not sure
how you can use this information."
Other significant comments and thoughts were presented through the task
verification process. There was a feeling of excitement for what was to come
with the project and many were extremely pleased about the collaboration
between higher education and K-12 personnel. One participant suggested
that provisions needed to be made to address the wide range of teachers
who would be in the training: pre-school to post-secondary, experienced
user vs. non-user, specific curriculum area, and individual teaching styles. A
common theme in the comment section related to the time factor-the
demand on a teacher's already too busy schedule to keep abreast of new
technolo gies and applications. Another person advised that everything
possible be done to make the multimedia technology training modules both
appealing and teacher friendly. Concerns about copyright issues were also

Phase II: Design

This phase involved 24 people who were trained by the Ohio State CETE
personnel to use the SCID process. The SCID participants came from varied
backgrounds: computer technicians, multimedia experts, curriculum
developers, classroom teachers, teacher educators, students, administrators,
and practitioners. Seven of the participants in the DACUM Panel were also
involved with SCID.
After a five-day training session, the 24 newly trained SCID facilitators
formed Design Teams to develop the Modules and Learning Guides for the
competency-based curriculum. There will be seven Modules which reflect
each of the duties: A-G.

Review of Phase II

Individual agendas had an affect on the group's direction. Some felt
inadequate. One participant noted, "Since I did not have a focus until Friday,
my contribution was marginal." Another person wanted to be involved in
designing multimedia products, but had no framework or interest for
curriculum writing. A teacher with interest in curriculum design said that she
wanted to stay clear of the `techie' stuff.
The process was an exercise in awareness and respect for each other's role
and interest in multimedia. The participants were forced to think about
issues collectively and support the direction of the project. A university
professor in computer science confirmed, "It is important to develop new
support service mechanisms for teachers who wish to get involved with
multimedia in the classroom." He also acknowledged a greater appreciation
for the K-12 teachers and their needs.
The enthusiasm and motivation was remarkably positive. An interesting
bond developed and evaluations indicated a sincere appreciation for the
collaborative teamwork approach. The diversity that made one part of the
process a challenge, also opened the door to a refreshing professional
networking system. The teamwork interaction and small group activities
were considered "wonderful sharing experiences." One elementary teacher
expressed that this was her most exhilarating professional experience.
Phase III: Instructional Development

This is the phase we are currently in at the time of this writing. This phase
determines what will be taught and what learning activities, materials, and
instructional methods will be used in the teacher training program. The
program-based curriculum that was chosen focuses on the learner/trainee.
The modules (duties), which are comprised of learning guides (related
tasks), will become the competency-based curriculum package. At the time
this paper was written, the modules/learning guides were being drafted. A
standard format, presented during the SCID training from the CETE
facilitator, was established for all learning guides. This allows the designers
to be free of routine decisions and they can concentrate on the content. The
basic structure of the learning guide includes identifying the performance
required, the conditions under which it will be performed, and the criteria or
standard to be met. These learning guides are designed to be used
When the learning guides are completed, the design teams will gather to
validate the articulation between all the learning guides for each specific
module. Naive readers will then read for clarity. Instructional design and
competency-based authenticity will be evaluated. Technical designers will
then be engaged for assessing multimedia applications, and networking
connections. Field testing and pilot testing will complete the cycle in this
ongoing refinement process.

Review of Phase III

The DACUM and SCID sessions were completed in June and July, 1995,
when the participants' schedules were somewhat repressed. They had more
freedom to gather and/or communicate. The lazy-days-of-summer
atmosphere filtered into the environment. The thrust of the Fall agenda is
challenging the design teams with many obstacles: incompatible schedules,
distance, athletic coaching, and additional job-related demands.
Some of the learning guides clustered up to four related tasks. The time
span from June to October diminished the clarity of the tasks written during
DACUM. The design teams have had some difficulty interpreting the written
tasks. Generally, a telephone call and five minutes of interaction will clarify
the confusion. If necessary, we review the videotapes from the DACUM
sessions when the tasks were stated.
The learning guides will be completed at the end of 1995. Before each one is
submitted, the design team must complete a learning guide review checklist.
This will assure that the intended design is internally consistent and delivers
the intended objectives. Most of the refinements will be done after the field

The targeted date for piloting and implementing the Collaboratively Created
Multimedia Modules for Teachers is the 1996-97 school year. During the
implementation process the teachers will be mentored by trained personnel.
An ongoing updating system will ensure that the modules will remain current
of technological innovations.
The project's impact on the learning environment in North Dakota's schools
and universities is unknown. Evaluations from the DACUM process and SCID
training sessions have assured us that the project has already motivated and
enlightened approximately thirty educational professionals.
Multimedia can amplify the teacher's performance in the classroom. To be
the catalyst in the empowerment process will be both a privilege and a
responsibility. North Dakota teachers deserve the helping hand provided by
North Dakota State University's US West Project to enhance their lessons
with the motivation and pizazz that multimedia offers.
Marilyn K. Nelson is a graduate fellow and assistant to the director of the US
West Foundation Grant Project at North Dakota State University, School of
Education, North Dakota State University, 210B Family Life Center, Fargo,
ND 58105, (701) 231-7104 (W) (701) 437-3934, E-mail:
Sally Sologuk is the administrative assistant with the US West Foundation
Grant Project, School of Education, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
58105, (701) 231-7921. E-mail:

   A Case Study: Selecting Design Models for Multimedia Training

                            Dale Y. Hoskisson
                       Valley City State University

                             Ron Stammen
                      North Dakota State University

                             Marilyn Nelson
                      North Dakota State University

In a recent successful grant proposal to US West, a consortium of
universities and public school districts were awarded over $200,000 to train
pre- and inservice teachers to use multimedia in their classrooms. One of
the initial decisions in writing the grant was the choice of development
models to use in the creation of the modules and learning guides. The
Systematic Curriculum Instructional Development (SCID) model from the
Center on Education and Training for Employment (CETE), Ohio State
University was chosen for this purpose. The authors of the grant felt that the
SCID process would be recognized as an effective planning tool by US West
because of its extensive use in the business setting.
Using SCID as the instructional design tool, teams of educators were
assembled to produce a series of learning guides to bring multimedia into
the classrooms of North Dakota's schools and teacher preparation
institutions. This paper will compare SCID with a generic instructional
systems design model. Each step of the models will be briefly explained and
areas of overlap and differences will be noted. Following the comparison, the
strengths and weakness of SCID for use in this type of planning will be

Instructional Design

The purpose of instructional design is to aid the learning of the individual
(Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992). Instructional design is a systematic,
orderly but flexible approach to helping the learner that integrates all
components of the learning situation and includes an analysis of the
components in logical order and coordinates the overall process among
those involved (Briggs, 1977). "This systematic method is termed
instructional design. It is based on what we know about learning theories,
information technology, systematic analysis, and management methods"
(Kemp, Morrison, & Ross, 1994, p. 6).

The Instructional Design Model

Although there are many instructional design models, there is considerable
overlap among them. The elements common to many can be pulled together
to create a generic model. This model includes the following 16 areas:

   1. Perform needs assessment. Needs assessment is a process to
      determine a system's needs and goals and the priorities among those
      needs (Gentry, 1994).
   2. Set broad instructional goals. Goals are broader than objectives and
      need not be stated in behavioral terms. They are general outcomes of
      the instruction (Briggs, 1977).
   3. Determine learner characteristics. For instruction to be effective it is
      important to know something about the learner including academic
      abilities, personal and social characteristics, and learning style
      preferences (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1996; Kemp et
      al., 1994).
4. Conduct analysis of setting. The instructor needs to be aware of the
   physical environment, the adequacy of existing materials, and the
   abilities of the instructional personnel (Knirk & Gustafson, 1986).
5. Conduct tasks analysis. This is a critical step in instructional design
   (Kemp, et al., 1994). The task analysis determines the content to be
   taught. (Smith & Tillman, 1993).
6. Specify performance objectives. A performance objective is an
   accurate statement of a learner capability that can be observed as a
   performance (Gagné et al., 1992).
7. Specify enabling objectives. These objectives are the sub-objectives
   that enable the learner to achieve the performance objective (Smith &
   Tillman, 1993).
8. Construct performance measurement. It is essential to determine if
   the desired learning has taken place as a result of the instruction
   (Briggs, 1977).
9. Sequence objectives. Objectives need to be sequenced because some
   may be prerequisite to others and some may be learned concurrently
   (Gentry, 1994).
10.       Review technical and communication resources. The instructor
   needs to be aware of the resources available for use in the design and
   delivery of the instruction (Heinich et al., 1996, Knirk & Gustafson,
11.       Specify strategies. Appropriate strategies guide the learner to
   construct bridges between new information and what is already known
   (Kemp, et al., 1994).
12.       Design materials. The materials can be selected from existing
   products and used as-is or modified to meet the local needs. Or the
   teacher may decide to design new materials for the instruction
   (Heinich et al., 1996).
13.       Organize management and support systems. All instructional
   settings and projects require management and support systems. The
   instructional development activity must be administered so that the
   necessary materials are developed and the supporting systems can
   proceed (Knirk & Gustafson, 1986).
14.       Conduct formative evaluation. Formative evaluation is the in-
   process effort to determine if the materials or design have weaknesses
   and if they can be made more effective and efficient (Smith & Tillman,
   1993). Usually there are specific points at which the evaluation is
15.       Implement plans. Of course, at some point the planning needs to
   be implemented.
16.       Conduct summative evaluation and revise. Summative
   evaluation is conducted after the materials have been used in a setting
   for which they were intended. The information from both the formative
       and the summative evaluations are used for making revisions in the
       instruction. The summative evaluation is also used to determine the
       learner achievement, (Kemp, et al,, 1994) and for making decisions on
       the future use of the materials. (Smith & Tillman, 1993; Dick, 1977).


SCID is an instructional design model developed at Ohio State University.
(All information for the SCID model is from participation in the training and
from the material provided in the training. For more information about SCID,
contact Bob Norton at CETE, The Ohio State University, 1900 Kenny Rd.,
Columbus, OH 43210-1090, 800.848.4815). It is designed for use in the
development of training for jobs in industry and business. Therefore, it has
been frequently used in areas where there is a well established process or
set of activities that must be accomplished to produce a specific product. A
panel of experts on the process is convened to define and describe the steps
of the process and then determine how to teach the process to novices.
SCID is similar in nature to the generic instructional design model. There are
a few more steps and the steps are grouped into phases, but the overall
process is very compatible with the general instructional design principles.
The explanation of SCID will include a comparison with related steps in the
generic design model. The SCID model includes the following steps:

Phase 1: Curriculum analysis

       Needs analysis. The actual needs of the situation are determined. The
       purpose is the same as in the generic model.
       Job analysis. This analysis is conducted by a panel of experts who are
       considered to be top performers in the targeted job. They describe the
       job in terms that those performing the job would understand. There is
       no specific comparable step in the other model. However, the same
       type of analysis would be part of the task analysis.
       Task verification. Here others are asked to validate the work of the
       panel of experts. Again, this step has no specific comparable
       component in the generic model.
       Select tasks. From all those that have been identified, specific tasks
       are selected for inclusion in the instruction. Although there is no one
       comparable step, the selection of tasks to be included is done in the
       needs analysis or in the task analysis steps of the generic model.
       Standard task analysis. All the steps of the process are specified and
       described along with all the attendant knowledge and equipment
       needed to complete the job. This is very much a part of standard
       instructional design models.
     Literacy task analysis (optional). If there are literacy requirements
     then a literacy task analysis is needed at this point. Although there is
     no specific literacy analysis in the generic model, it would be part of
     the task analysis step.

Phase 2. Curriculum design

     Make decisions about the training approach. Based on the information
     gathered in Phase 1, decisions should be made about the type of
     program, materials, and support media to be developed and how much
     individualization will be needed. This would be accomplished in step
     11, specify strategies
     Development of learning objectives. Each of the tasks selected for
     inclusion in the instruction must have a learning objective written for
     it. The form requires that an action verb to describe the performance
     be part of the objective. The same basic form and step are included in
     the generic model. The form of the objective follows that of the classic
     Mager (1962) model.
     Development of job performance measures. Both models call for this
     step. A measurement tool must be developed to gage the success of
     the instruction. The tool is frequently referred to as a test.
     Preparation of a training plan. A detailed plan that includes all aspects
     of personnel, facility, and equipment needs. The generic model
     includes two steps that cover this same area: Review technical and
     communication resources and organize management and support

Phase 3: Instructional development

     The following two steps are used for competency or performance
     based programs.
     Develop a competency profile. What can an individual who is
     competent in this area do? What would a profile of this person be like?
     There is no corresponding step in the generic model.
     Develop leaning guides or modules. These are the actual instructions
     for teaching the material. This step is carried out in steps nine and
     eleven, sequence objectives and specify strategies.
     For more traditional programs: develop a curriculum guide and
     develop lesson plans would substitute for the competency profile and
     the learning guide.
     Develop supporting media. The media may be as simple as a
     purchased poster or as sophisticated as an interactive videodisc
     program. The corresponding step in the generic model is to design
     materials. Neither model requires the media to be designed from
     scratch. Rather, off-the-shelf products used as-is or modified to make
     them fit, or specially constructed materials are used according to the
     needs of the situation.
     Pilot-test and revise the materials. This is a type of formative
     evaluation and would be part of the formative evaluation step in the
     generic model.

Phase 4: Training implementation

     Activating the training plan. Everything is in place so the instruction
     can begin. This and conduct the training would be part of the
     implementation step in the generic model.
     Conduct the training.
     Conduct formative evaluation. It may be stretching it to call this
     formative evaluation since you are already using the finished product
     in a real setting. But regardless of the name, evaluation of the product
     is conducted at this point in both models. In the generic model, this is
     part of the summative evaluation.
     Document training. Student achievement and instructor performance
     must be recorded and documented in some way. Again, this would be
     part of a well-done summative evaluation in the generic model.

Phase 5: Program evaluation

     Conduct the summative evaluation. This evaluation, also part of the
     generic model, is used to make decisions about the future use and
     modification of the training. Cost effectiveness, student achievement,
     worker productivity, learner satisfaction, and value of the media used
     are some of the areas that might be looked at.
     Analyze and interpret information. The analysis will determine what
     needs to be done next. This is part of the summative evaluation and
     revision process of the generic model.
     Taking corrective actions. The instruction needs to be revised or
     completely redone according to the decisions based on the analysis.
     The generic model calls this revision.



SCID, as a specific instance of an instructional design model, has proven to
be a powerful planning tool. Using SCID, a group of people with dissimilar
backgrounds and experiences was able to come together and create a usable
plan for teaching K-12 teachers to use multimedia in their classrooms. Some
members of the teams, including classroom teachers, had never participated
in any form of curriculum development beyond their own classroom. The fact
that many of the participants were strangers to each other and had never
been involved in this type of activity before makes the result of the SCID
model even more remarkable.
The learning guides are grouped into 7 modules designated A-G. They are:
      A. Acquire basic computer skills
      B. Improve curriculum with multimedia
      C. Deliver instruction with multimedia
      D. Utilize support service for multimedia
      E. Enhance teacher communication with multimedia
      F. Promote multimedia in the classroom
      G. Pursue professional development related to multimedia
They represent an ambitious undertaking. The training will take a teacher
from complete computer novice to a promoter of multimedia in the
classroom. The learning guides are designed to be self-taught and self-
The effectiveness of the plan is yet to be tested, but the mechanism to
improve it is built into the process. Therefore, problems and concerns will be
addressed during the design, production and application of the learning
SCID helped the teams to systematically cover the content and logically
order the presentation. Without a well developed instructional design
process such as SCID, it is doubtful that the learning guides could have been
produced in such a short amount of time and with such a diverse and large
group of individuals.


It became apparent, however during the process that there were some
problems with the model because SCID is so similar to the generic model,
we can also question other instructional design models. But understanding
the nature of the problem was not as easy as knowing that there was one. It
might be easiest to explain the problem in terms of an analogy.
In "Eight Heads," a 1922 woodcut by M. C. Escher there are four female and
four male heads. Two of the male and two of the female heads are figure
when the picture is held one way and the other heads form the ground. But
when the picture is turned upside down the other four heads become figure
and the first heads become ground. What is interesting is that although one
set of heads is definitely the figure, there is the disturbing feeling that there
is much more information available in the illustration. To truly understand
the picture you need to have that other information.
It is the same in instructional design. We pick a goal and develop objectives
thereby creating our figure and at the same time relegating everything else
to ground. Then we do our best to eliminate the influence of the ground on
the instruction. Yet there is the disturbing feeling that there is more
information available and that to truly understand the problem we need that
other information. To not deal with that other information is unwise.
Learning a concept is not an isolated phenomenon. Assimilating a principle is
not a single act. What we don't study, what we don't find (ground) is just as
important as what we do study and find (figure).
In our efforts to answer the two main question of what does an expert do
and how do we teach others to do it, we created our figure and relegated
many important things to the ground. One of those important things was the
nature and power of the computer and multimedia technologies and their
potential for changing the classroom.
If we examine the learning guides in modules B and C, this problem
becomes apparent. The learning guides for B are:

   1.   curriculum evaluation
   2.   review of multimedia software/hardware
   3.   identify learning activities
   4.   select multimedia
   5.   modify use of multimedia
   6.   design multimedia
   7.   evaluate try-outs

These are strikingly similar to standard instructional design steps (see
Heinich et al., 1996). This is what we have been doing all along. The
difference is that software is substituted for books and worksheets, and
hardware for movie projectors and bulletin boards. If this is appropriate,
then all we really need to do is make the substitution and continue doing
what we have done all along with the addition of teaching about software
and hardware.
Yet there is important information lurking in the ground. The advantage the
computer brings to the student is the ability to gather and manipulate
information in far more powerful ways than was possible before and to
collaborate with others in ways that were impossible before. Because of this
advantage, the computer can have a more profound effect on education than
the printing press has had. The computer and related multimedia
technologies have the potential to make the classroom walls dissolve into
the worldwide landscape and make school an activity instead of a place. If
all we do is insert multimedia into the classroom, we have only made it
easier to go from lecture to film to slide. In other words, doing the same old
thing more conveniently.
But if we expect a qualitative difference, then maybe we need to rethink the
models. Following the same processes used with older technologies may not
unleash the power of the computer. Look at the titles of learning guides
developed. They speak of the regular things happening only with the
addition of multimedia capabilities. Getting students involved in the power to
manipulate and transform information and helping them cope with this
power and improve the quality of their lives with it are not mentioned.
Another important item is shown by looking at the underlying assumption of
SCID that we are dealing with a well ordered process for which there are
experts and one best way to accomplish the task. The sample subject used
in the SCID training is the process of mowing the lawn. This is a very
predictable process (in most circumstances). There are limited options and
the outcome is almost always known. It is a good example for many industry
settings. But is has limited value in a dynamic, ever-changing classroom.
In "Concave and Convex," Escher has created an impossible world where
concave and convex are constantly shifting, throwing the mind into complete
ambiguity and confusion. An interesting verbal representation of this same
confusion is the expanded Epimenides paradox (Hofstadter, 1979).
       The following sentence is false.
       The preceding sentence is true.
Both the picture and the words are paradoxical - self-contradictory. Try to
follow the perspective of Escher's lithograph or the logic of the Epimenides
paradox and see where you end up. What we see and what we understand
depends on our perspective.
Teaching is an ambiguous activity just like "Concave and Convex." At any
moment we are teaching more than we think and less than we think because
of shifting perspectives. There are an infinite number of perspectives from
which a student can view our teaching. What we actually teach depends on
the perspective from which we are viewed. However, our leaning guides
were developed as if we were working with a well-ordered process for which
we could find the best way to go about using the process to accomplish our


These problems occur because the models have not been tempered in
ambiguous tasks embedded in highly problematic environments. We
repeated earlier modes, not addressing the power of the computer or
multimedia. We only asked what is the right way to use multimedia in the
classroom. Not what are the many ways, the many possibilities of
multimedia impact on the classroom. We were searching for the experts
Unfortunately, there is no specific process for the use of multimedia in the
hurly-burly of a child-filled classroom. Can we say: "This is the procedure to
follow"? "Do it this way and you will be doing it right"? To ask the question,
"What does a multimedia using teacher do?" will not produce a response
upon which a system of instruction can be based because there is no one
process or even several processes that can be identified as being the
answer. Any one answer will leave out too many other answers. "What
happens next? and Then what do you do?" are the questions we were
asking. We should have been asking, "How can the learner more effectively
interact with the subject material to produce better learning?"
Would we use SCID again, given these problems? Probably. It is a powerful
planning tool. We produced usable learning guides under difficult
circumstances. It guided us through the entire process helping us to include
all aspects of our planning needs. Also, we are not aware of a model that
overcomes the limitations of SCID. That is the real problem. Perhaps we
need to follow Hanson's advice.
It is important to realize, however, that sorting out differences about data,
evidence, observation, may require more than simply gesturing at
observable objects. It may require a comprehensive reappraisal of one's
subject matter. This may be difficult, but it should not obscure the fact that
nothing less than this may do.


      Briggs, L. J. (Ed). (1977). Instructional design: Principles and
      applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
      Dick, W. (1977). Formative evaluation. In L.J. Briggs (Ed.),
      Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs:
      Educational Technology Publications.
      Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of
      instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
      Gentry, C.G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development:
      Process and technique. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
      Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge
      University Press, p. 19.
      Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (1996).
      Instructional media and technologies for learning. Englewood Cliffs:
      Prentice Hall.
      Hofstadter, D. R. (1980). Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden
      braid. New York: Vintage.
      Kemp, J.E., Morrison, G.R., & Ross, S.M. (1994). Designing effective
      instruction. New York: Macmillan.
      Knirk, F.G. & Gustafson, K.L. (1986). Instructional technology: A
      systematic approach to education. New York: CBS College Publishing.
      Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto:
      Fearon Publishers.
      Smith, P. L. &Tillman, J.R. (1993). Instructional design. New York:
Dale Hoskisson is an Assistant Professor at Valley City State University,
Valley City, ND 58072, (701) 845-7129.
Ron Stammen is an Assistant Professor at North Dakota State University,
FLC 210, Box 5057, NDSU, Fargo, ND 58105, (701) 231-7210.
Marilyn Nelson is a Graduate Fellow at the North Dakota State University
School of Education, FLC 210, NDSU, Fargo, ND 58105, (701) 231-7104.

      Research-Based Message Design Strategies for Multimedia

                            Elizabeth Downs
                       Georgia Southern University

                             Kenneth Clark
                       Georgia Southern University

As the sophistication of presentation programs increases, the designer is
capable of implementing a multitude of special effects into the design of
projected multimedia presentations for group instruction. While these
programs offer variety to the user, the special options can introduce many
aspects of visual imaging that cause problems for the viewers.
Presentation programs such as Power Point, Astound, and Persuasion
provide the designer with options for text design, color, visuals, animation,
and transitional effects. Due to the relative ease of incorporating these
variables into the screen design, users may be designing projected
multimedia presentations which present too much stimuli to the viewers.
"Screen design is defined as the coordination of textual and graphic
elements to present sequenced content, in order to facilitate learning"
(Mukherjee & Edmonds, 1993, p. 112).
One of the limitations in utilizing these programs is the lack of empirical data
to describe effective screen design for instructional purposes. Grabinger
states "while aesthetic guidelines exist to help designers create attractive
displays, there are few if any empirically based guidelines to help
instructional designers combine text elements in ways that facilitate
learning" (1993, p. 35).
There are many similarities between projected multimedia presentations and
other projected media formats. When media are projected for group
instruction, the delivery systems may differ but many of the symbol system
attributes remain the same. Therefore, results of existing research on other
media can provide key factors for designing effective multimedia
presentations for group instruction. In addition, research on selective
attention theory can provide guidelines for incorporating visual variables and
cueing strategies into a presentation.

Media Attributes

Knowlton (1966) has identified three types of pictures: realistic, analogical,
and logical. When an aspect of the real world is perceivable through the
visual modality and is depicted visually, it is a realistic picture. Analogical
pictures represent either the phenomenal or non-phenomenal world through
the visual world. An example of an analogical picture would be using a visual
of a river to teach young children the process of blood flowing through veins
and arteries in the body. Logical pictures includes those visuals in which
schematization is used to represent various elements, or in the case in which
the referent of the visual does not exist in any tangible form. One example
of a logical picture would be the use of diagrams that are intended to
represent the movement of atoms.
The classification of pictures based on Knowlton's taxonomy is based on the
function or purpose for which the visual is being used. As Knowlton has
stated "It is not possible to categorize visual-iconic representations
independently of the textual context in which they are embedded" (1966, p.
180). Many of the visuals selected for inclusion in multimedia presentations
would be classified as realistic pictures. The purpose of including these
visuals would be to support the content that is being taught. The existing
research suggests that the inclusion of visuals can support learning.
However, the variance of backgrounds of theorists conducting this research
has caused Levie to state that "it is clear that `research on pictures' is not a
coherent field of inquiry. Thus, most picture research is embedded within
separate areas usually identified by the mental processes evoked by stimuli
rather than by surface-level features of the stimuli themselves" (1987, p.

Selective Attention

Selective attention has been defined as "the ability to attend voluntarily to
some attributes of the stimulus array and to ignore other attributes" (Enns &
Girgus, 1985, p. 319). Researchers have found that individual's abilities to
selectively attend to specific aspects of a visual is a skill (Barrett & Shepp,
1988; Day, 1978; Day & Stone, 1980; Enns & Cameron, 1987; Enns &
Girgus, 1985; Lorch & Horn, 1986; Shepp, Barrett, & Kolbet, 1987; Smith &
Kemler, 1977). According to Broadbent (1958), the quantity of information
entering the nervous system, usually exceeds the capacity of the higher
level perceptual analysis system. "The selection is not completely random,
and the probability of a particular class of events being selected is increased
by certain properties of the events and by certain states of the organism"
(Broadbent, 1958, p. 297).
Lorch and Horn have stated that selective attention is "the efficient use of
task-relevant information without disruption by irrelevancies" (1986, p.
184). The addition of irrelevant stimuli within a visual affects an individual's
selective attention strategies (Barrett & Shepp, 1988; Day & Stone, 1980;
Enns & Cameron, 1987; Grabinger, 1993; Lorch & Horn, 1986; Nibley, 1993;
Smith, Kemler, & Aronfreed, 1975).

Cueing Strategies

Dwyer has defined cueing as "the process of focusing learner attention on
individual stimuli within the illustration to make the essential learning
characteristics distinct from other stimuli" (1978, p. 158). The research on
attention-directing cues in two-dimensional representations includes the
effect of labeling (Dusek, 1978), color and form (Day, 1978; Miller, 1978,
Tufte, 1992), and the use of arrows and pointers (Rosonke, 1975) to cue
visual attention. Dusek (1978) found that the use of labeling increased
central learning. Dusek concluded that labeling is effective for focusing
attention and for providing an encoding strategy. Day (1978) found that
subjects of all ages increased their accuracy when utilizing color cues. In
addition, Miller (1978) suggests that the 2nd-grade subjects recorded higher
search times when shape cues were utilized. Color cues were more effective
for the 6th-grade students. Rosonke (1975) discovered that for older
subjects, all cueing methods were effective for the task of locating certain
portions of the drawings. For 1st-grade subjects, the pointer was the most
effective cueing strategy, while arrows were more effective than the auditory


When one sets about to create a presentation, using new multimedia
presentation programs one must look to the research to provide guidelines
for using all the capabilities the program has to offer.


As Tufte has established, "Of all design elements, color most exemplifies the
wholeness of design, the necessity to reason globally...The first principle for
use of color is: Above all, do no harm. Color must work to enhance
information resolution" (1992, p. 16-17). Current families of computers are
capable of generating millions of colors. As a result, the designer can quickly
overpower the viewer with palettes of unnecessary and confusing hues and
values. The basic principles of graphic design are imperative when given the
endless possibilities of color available with our current computers.

      limit the selection to two colors per screen
      text color should provide high contrast from background color
      use solid color background for screens, avoid using textured or
       designed backgrounds
      use consistent colors for text and background throughout a
      use color to direct learner's attention


When selecting text, the designer is confronted with many options including
font, size, color, placement, justification, case, spacing, and style. Grabinger
contends ". . . users prefer screens that use headings, directive cues, and
spaced paragraphs to indicate the hierarchy of the content and to break the
content into studyable chunks of information" (1993, p. 72). Designers
should consider the content being delivered when deciding on the simplicity
of the screen text format. Some general guidelines include:

      sans serif
      18 point minimum
      6-7 lines of text per screen
      present a single concept or topic per screen
      limit the number of colors you choose for your text
      left-justify text
      use headings/subheadings to provide hierarchy of the content
      use a combination of upper and lower case, avoid the use of all upper
      use a minimum of 1 1/2 spaces between lines


Visuals should be used only when they support the instructional content.
Keep in mind that developmental level influences the learner's ability to
utilize visuals effectively. In addition, type of visual influences the
appropriateness for given content. Degree of realism is a consideration when
using visuals to teach content.

      visuals should be directly related to the content of the text on the
      teach young learners about the visual that is being used
      discuss the content of the visual with the learners
      realistic visuals should be used when the content is dependent on the
       detail in the supportive visual
      limit the number of visuals per screen

Special Effects

Special effects should be minimized. Overuse directs the learners attention
away from the content and toward the special effect. Transitional time factor
should be considered as another element to helping the learner keep
focused. If the designer chooses slow transitions, there is a tendency on the
learner's part to lose interest and motiva tion. "Builds" can be utilized in the
same effective manner as disclosure techniques for non-electronic media.
This procedure can help direct the learner's attention to the relevant
material if the "builds" are not in and of themselves distracting. When using
transitions and "builds", they should be kept consistent throughout the

      minimize the use of special effects
      use consistent styles of builds and transitions throughout a
      avoid builds that use overpowering effects such as flying or walking
      avoid effects that are slow transitions from one screen to another
      avoid transitions that change the viewer's focus of attention such as
       checkerboard dissolves or diagonal wipes


Until further research is done using these presentation programs, we need to
use existing research to provide guidelines. As these presentation programs
proliferate, these will become the preferred method for presenting
information. This is an area that is open to research.
Prior to having empirical data to support screen design strategies, it is best
to keep simplicity at the forefront of multimedia design. Just because one
has the ability to produce special effects does not mean it is the most
instructionally sound decision. Tufte suggests "Successful designs will be
self-effacing, lucid and endlessly sympathetic to users, asking not that users
admire the display screens and all the function depicted, but rather that
users simply go ahead and reason about their own information efficiently
and gracefully" (1992, p. 16).

Barrett, S. E., & Shepp, B. (1988). Developmental changes in
attentional skills: The effect of irrelevant variations on encoding and
response selection. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 382-
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Day, M. C. (1978). Visual search by children: The effect of background
variation and the use of visual cues. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 25, 1-16.
Day, M. C., & Stone, C. (1980). Children's use of perceptual set.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 428-445.
Dusek, J. B. (1978). The effects of labeling and pointing on children's
selective attention. Developmental Psychology , 14(1), 115-116.
Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State
College, Pennsylvania: Learning Services.
Enns, J. T., & Cameron, S. (1987). Selective attention in young
children: The relations between visual search, filtering, and priming.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 44, 38-63.
Enns, J.T., & Girgus, J. (1985). Developmental changes in selective
and integrative visual attention. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 40, 319-337.
Grabinger, S. R. (1993). Computer screen design: Viewer judgments.
Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(2), 35-73.
Knowlton, J. Q. (1966). On the definition of "picture". AV
Communication Review, 14, 157-183.
Levie, W. H. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In
D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration:
Vol. 1. Basic research (pp. 1-50). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lorch, E. P., & Horn, D. G. (1986). Habituation of attention to
irrelevant stimuli in elementary school children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 184-197.
Miller, L. K. (1978). Development of selective attention during visual
search. Developmental Psychology, 14, 439-440.
Mukherjee, P. & Edmonds, G. S. (1993 ). Screen design: A review of
research. Visual Literacy in the Digital Age: Selected Readings from
the Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association
(pp. 112-118). Rochester, New York.
Nibley, M. (1993). Words and pictures: Scripting and producing the
multimedia educational program. Journal of Interactive Instruction
Development, 6 (2), 10-13.
Rosonke, R. J. (1975). A study of the effectiveness of three visual
attention-directing devices on the recall of relevant information from
line drawings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 4316A.
      Shepp, B. E., Barrett, S. E., & Kolbet, L. (1987). The development of
      selective attention: Holistic perception versus resource allocation.
      Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 43, 159-180.
      Smith, L. B. & Kemler, D. (1977). Developmental trends in free
      classification: Evidence for a new conceptualization of perceptual
      development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 279-298.
      Smith, L. B., Kemler, D.G., & Aronfreed, J. (1975). Developmental
      trends in voluntary selective attention: Differential effects of source
      distinctness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 352-362.
      Tuft, E. (1992). The user interface: The point of competition. Bulletin
      of the American Society for Information Science, 18 (5), 15-17.
Elizabeth Downs is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership, Technology, and Research at Georgia Southern University,
Landrum Box 8143, Statesboro, GA 30460-8143.
Kenneth Clark is an Associate Professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership, Technology, and Research at Georgia Southern University,
Statesboro, GA 30460-8143. E-mail: KCLARK@GSVMS2.CC.GASOU.EDU

   Principles of Effective Graphic Design For Teaching In Distance

                                  Paul Fu
                              Barry University

                           John Ronghua Ouyang
                          Kennesaw State College

As technology is changing and reshaping the world of public school
education, one of the new challenges that teachers face is to teach in a
distance education environment. Teachers are challenged to find and learn
effective ways to teach in distance education at different levels. This paper
will explore and discuss "Graphic Design" as one tool of effective instruction
in a distance learning environment. Beginning with the theoretical
considerations of graphic design, the principles of effective graphic design
will be discussed for different media used in distance education.

Theoretical Foundations of Graphic Design

The theoretical foundations of graphic design for this discussion consist of
three types of instructional graphics, five instructional applications of
graphics, the relationship between graphics and visual cognition, motivation,
and learning.

Three Types of Instructional Graphics

Instructional graphics can be theoretically classified as representational,
analogical, and arbitrary (Alesandrini, 1984). Representational graphics
share a physical resemblance with an object or concept. Representational
visuals range from the highly concrete (photographs) to the highly abstract
(line drawings). Analogical graphics represent either a visual aspect or a
non-aspect of the "real" world and imply a similarity. For example, a water
pump could be used to describe the workings of the human heart. It is
crucial that the graphic is used in such a manner that the learner understand
the analogy. Arbitrary graphics share no physical similarity with the items
they represent, but illustrate a logical conceptual relationships using a
variety of visual and spatial means.

Five Instructional Applications of Graphics

"The effectiveness of instructional graphics largely depends on the nature of
the learning task (as described by the behavior) as it interacts with the
profile (aptitude and interests) of the learner" (Rieber, 1994). The
instructional designer (teacher) should match graphics with the instructional
objectives. The well-known taxonomy of learning domains by Benjamin
Bloom (1956) is still considered the standard to classify learning outcomes.
Robert Gagné (1985), on the other hand, modified and extended Bloom's
taxonomy to include the five domains of learning outcomes as verbal
information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, affective, and
psychomotor. Applying instructional graphics design, Rieber (1994) identified
five instructional applications of graphics to match Gagné's learning
outcomes. Rieber's five instructional applications of graphics are: cosmetic,
motivation, attention-gaining, presentation, and practice.
The first two instructional applications are aimed at enhancing the affective
appeal of a lesson; while the latter three instructional applications are
designed to directly enhance the cognitive abilities of students to learn from
instructional materials.

      Cosmetic Graphics merely add to the polish or decoration of a package
       or to make a program more attractive or aesthetically pleasing. (Levin,
       Anglin, & Carney, 1987)
      Motivational Graphics are those which incorporate images into
       instruction to raise the general motivational level of a lesson.. Using
       graphics to arouse general curiosity and interest is seen by many as a
       very effective way to increase motivation.
      Attention-Gaining Graphics attract and focus the student's attention
       onto the screen. These graphics should be used sparingly as to not
       distract attention from other important and salient lesson features.
      Presentation Graphics are used with or without accompanying text to
       demonstrate or elaborate a lesson concept, rule, or procedure. Well
       designed presentation graphics can help students to (1) interpret
       difficult to understand information, (2) focus their attention on the
       explainable information in the text (Mayer, 1989), (3) form their visual
       mental models of the materials explained by the text (Mayer & Gallini,
       1990), and (4) serve an organizational function to help make
       relationships between ideas more apparent (Levin, Anglin, & Carney,
      Graphics for Practice are used as visual feedback to students as they
       interact with lesson ideas and concepts.

Graphics and Visual Cognition

Pinker (1984) defines visual cognition as all the mental process involved in
the perception of and memory for visual information. Knowledge of visual
cognition will help interested parties in obtaining a better understanding of
the psychological foundations for graphic design.
Visual Perception is the process of selectively attending and scanning a given
stimulus, interpreting significant details or cues, and, finally, precipitating
some general meaning (Levie, 1987). Visual perception is recognizing
shapes and patterns of objects found in the world . Pattern recognition
matches patterns and features in the object to known objects. According to
traditional theories, knowledge about the regularities of the world is used to
limit the number of possible recognizable shapes from which the perceptual
system can choose. Principles of visual perception defined by Gestalt
psychology are still considered relevant to graphic design. These beliefs
consist of the (1) principle of closure, based on the idea that humans
naturally look for meaning, (2) principle of proximity, rooted in the concept
that objects physically closer to one another will be perceived as being
grouped together in some meaningful way, (3) principle of similarity,
indicating that similar objects will be grouped together in a meaningful way,
and (4) principle of continuity designating that the mind looks for a unity in
objects and perceive two line segment as one continuous line.
Visual Memory involves the cognitive processes of storing and recalling
information from stimuli. Sadoski, Paivio, & Goetz (1991) suggest Dual
Coding Theory and Propositional Theory as the popular but contrasting
explanations of the mechanism of visual information storing. Dual Coding
Theory insists that memory consists of two separate and distinct mental
representationsone verbal and one nonverbal; while Propositional Theory
suggests that information can adequately be stored in long-term memory in
semantic or verbal form. Nonetheless, active visualization in short-term
memory is an accepted phenomenon. Retrieving information from long-term
memory to produce internal visual images in short-term memory might be
described as the process of remembering or reasoning about shapes or
objects that are not currently before us but must be retrieved from memory
or constructed from a description (Pinker, 1984). Research indicates that an
individual's recognition memory for a picture is extraordinary
(Shepard,1967; Nickerson, 1965; Standing, Conezio, & Haber, 1970). In
general, a person's capacity to remember pictures is greater than for words.

Graphics and Motivation

Graphics provide the potential to increase the curiosity and challenge of a
learning task, as well as encouraging students to be creative and use their
imaginations. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be related to the
applications of instructional graphics.

Graphics and Learning

While discussing the relationship between graphics and learning, Rieber
(1994) summarizes the reviews of available domain research works as the
following results:

     pictures are superior to words for memory tasks;
     adding pictures (external or internal) to prose learning facilitates
      learning, assuming that the pictures are congruent to the learning
     children up to about the age of 9 or 10 rely more heavily on externally
      provided pictures than do older children; (p. 141)

Principles of Effective Graphic Design

With new technology, distance education may exist in several of the
following forms: (1) using computer telecommunications, (2) via an
educational TV network, (3) through satellite technology, and (4) with fiber
optic technology using two-way video and two-way audio. Instructional
media for graphic presentation in distance education are different but sound
principles of graphic design are important when teachers apply these ideas
and concepts to distance learning.
In summarizing research, Rieber (1994). indicates that there are times when
pictures (1) can aid learning, (2) do not aid learning but do not harm, and
(3) do not aid learning and are distracting. The primary purpose for
designing graphics should be to aid, enhance, or support distance education.
Based on current research reports of cognitive and physiological principles of
effective graphic design and personal distance education experience, the
authors suggest the following basic principles of graphic design for distance
learning. .


The principle of functionalism is focused on the five instructional applications
of graphics. Graphics should be designed to perform an appropriate
instructional function based on the instructional objectives of the task, the
needs of the learner, and the instructional materials actually used. Graphics
should not distract the learner's attention from the lesson goals or
objectives. All different types of media, document presenter/camera, art and
visuals, computer, slides, and liquid chalk boards, should be taken into
account during the design process.

Cosmetic Graphics

      Be cautious in the use of cosmetic graphics in the design of
       instructional materials.
      Make design decisions related to the use of cosmetic graphics early in
       the process and include such graphics in the evaluation of the final

Motivational Graphics

      Use graphics to increase motivation and interest.
      Be careful to avoid effects that are distracting.
      Use graphics to present meaningful contexts for learning.

Attention-Gaining Graphics

      Attention is a highly selective and controllable process (Fleming,
      Attention is naturally drawn to what is novel or different.

Presentation Graphics

      Graphics should be congruent and relevant to the information
       presented in the text.
      Graphics should be prepared to clearly represent the content that is to
       be remembered.
      Students should be cued to process the information contained in a
       graphic in some overt way.
      Graphics are unnecessary when the text alone produces mastery.
      Use graphics to show major points or headings.
      Use illustrations and videos to reinforce your educational materials.
      Graphics are not necessary when the text already prompts the learner
       to spontaneously form internal images.
      All graphics should be done in a 3 to 4 ratio (e.g. 6" by 8"; 9" by 12";
       7 1/2" by 10"). Make visuals landscape, not portrait on screen.
      Leave at least a 10% free area on all sides of your screen. \
      Avoid frilly pattern borders on screen.


The principle of aestheticism includes simplicity, boldness, contrast, and
color. The aesthetic value of graphics should be stressed while designing for
instruction in distance education.


      Reduce message to its essence and represent it in simplest terms.
      Complicated or detailed visuals do not work.
      Avoid busy screens.
      Avoid too many numbers (just show totals).
      Split your information into bite-sized chunks.
      Avoid too many substantive elements.


Boldness, or being daring, can create clarity and recognition. This allows for
an immediate impact and being the most effective method of design

      Be brief, bold, and broad.
      Limit all graphics to 5 - 8 lines.
      All text should be at least 24 point or greater with no more than 25 -
       30 characters per line
      Spacing between lines should be at least 24 point.
      Don't use serif type fonts. Use sans serif type fonts like Helvetica,
       Geneva, Arial, or MS Sans Serif instead.


      Use a contrast technique to create aestheticism: big/small,
       heavy/light, bright/dark, or thick/thin (Vaughan,1993).

Color should be considered as an aesthetic and cognitive design tool during
every stage of the design. Evelyn Wells (1992) summarized the principles of
color in computer graphic design in the following manner.

       Limit the use of different colors. Exercise simplicity, clarity and
       For a colored background, use darker, bold colors.
       For a white background, use a pale pastel, like pink or lilac. This will
        look white, but will eliminate the glare.
       Group categorically related elements with the same color.
       Use similar colors to denote relationships between elements.
       Link color change to dynamic events.
       Use extremely bright and saturated colors only for special purposes.
       Use the brightness of colors to indicate action levels or priorities.
       Use blue for large background areas, but not for text, thin lines, or
        small shapes.
       Avoid adjacent colors that differ only in hue.
       Avoid single-color distinctions.
       Do not use highly saturated, spectrally extreme colors simultaneously.


Graphics are an important and powerful tool for instructional design in
distance learning. Not all graphics automatically enhance distance learning.
Creating effective graphics involves a lot of work and thinking. The purpose
of drawing these principles of effective graphic design in this paper is to give
teachers of distance education some reference or guidance. The next step is
how to apply these principles in designing graphics for different media in
distance learning.


        Alesandrini, K. (1984). Pictures and adult learning. Instructional
        Science, 13, 63-77.
        Bloom, B. (Eds.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives.
        Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Longman.
        LaHatte, G. (1995, February). Graphics and GSAMS. Paper presented
        at the meeting of the Programming & Training Conference, Athens,
        Levie, W. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In D.
        Willows & H. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, volume
        1: Instructional issues. 1-50. New York: Springer-Verlag.
      Levin, J., Anglin, G., & Carney, R. (1987). On empirically validating
      functions of pictures in prose. In D. Willows and H. Houghton (Eds.),
      The psychology of illustration, volume 1: Instructional issues. 51-85.
      New York: Springer-Verlag.
      Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten
      thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
      Nickerson, R. (1965). Short-term memory for complex meaningful
      visual configurations: A demonstration of capacity. Canadian Journal of
      Psychology, 19, 155-160.
      Pinker, S. (1984). Visual cognition: An introduction. Cognition, 18, 1-
      Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, & learning. Madison, WI:
      Wcb Brown & Benchark Publishers.
      Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. (1991). A critique of schema
      theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research
      Quarterly, 26(4), 463-484.
      Shepard, R. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and
      pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156-163.
      Standing, L., Conezio, J., & Haber, R. (1970). Perception and memory
      for pictures: Single trial learning of 2500 visual stimuli. Psychonomic
      Science, 19, 73-74.
      Vaughan, T. (1993). Multimedia: making it work, 149-159 Berkeley,
      CA: Osborne McGraw-Hill.
      Wells, E. (1992). Principles of color use in design. In Rieber, L. P.
      (1994). Computers, graphics, & learning (pp. 199-202). Madison, WI:
      Wcb Brown & Benchark Publishers.
Paul Fu is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Computing and
Technology Department in the School of Education at Barry University,
11300 Northeast Second Ave., Miami Shores, FL 33161. (305) 899-3623.
John Ronghua Ouyang is an Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology
in the School of Education at the Kennesaw State College, 1000 Chastain
Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144. (770) 423-6626.

  Designing a Journal System for Learning from Field Experience in
                         Teacher Education

                             James M. Laffey
                     University of Missouri-Columbia
                               Dale Musser
                     University of Missouri-Columbia

In the past couple years, we have witnessed two fundamental changes to
our conception of the educational process. First, cognitive psychology is
increasingly revealing a picture of learning grounded in active participation,
constructed knowledge and the importance of the situation and context not
only for what is learned, but for how it will be able to be used. The teacher
education program needs to provide support, guidance, and scaffolding as
the student moves from being directed by others to taking responsibility for
constructing meaning and becoming a continuous self-directed learner
(Anderson & Armbruster, 1990; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). The second
fundamental change to education comes from advances in technology and
especially network technologies, in particular the Internet. We now have the
potential to design instruction which is far less bounded by time and distance
and restricted by the limitations of a classroom. Scardamalia and Bereiter
(1994) describe enabling technology for knowledge-building discourse,
discourse which naturally extends beyond the classroom walls. New and
powerful patterns of support and sharing emerge when communication is
effectively mediated by technology (Laffey, 1995; Koschmann, 1994; Levin,
Waugh, Brown, & Clift, 1994; Pea, 1993).
The College of Education (COE), University of Missouri-Columbia seeks to
capitalize on an improved understanding of learning and on new technology
to transform the way we teach and support learning and performance in the
educational community. The College has a commitment to an improved
educational community and to an agenda of teaching and research that is
tightly connected to the real practice of education. Two key initiatives which
spring from this new vision are: (1) a partnership with school districts
engaged in school improvement and professional development, and (2) a
restructured undergraduate teacher preparation program with an emphasis
on field experience. In practice this means that at both the undergraduate
and graduate level teaching and learning at the College will increasingly be
situated in the practice of real schools. This means that students
(practitioners) need to be supported as they take on new challenges, be
connected to colleagues and COE faculty who may be distant, systematically
be encouraged and supported as they reflect and report their actions and
learning outcomes, and be assessed on their achievements in real schools.

The Conceptual Solution

We envision a network infrastructure and interactive instructional software
supporting students, field-based mentors and college faculty as they
collaborate, engage in practice, document their efforts, share their
experiences, and assess outcomes. We plan a suite of tools that utilize the
Internet and work as a system to support collaboration, communication,
knowledge access, and multimedia production. These tools are built to
support the specific roles that facilitate the student in the field experience
(student, faculty, school-based mentor, assessors, and observers) and the
practitioner working on a school improvement project (practitioner, faculty,
mentors, assessors, and observers).
The first version of the journal software will enable preservice teachers to
record their observations and reflections about experiences, maintain these
records on a COE server, and organize the records to meet a variety of
needs. The software also facilitates sharing these records with faculty,
mentor teachers, and other preservice teachers as appropriate. In addition
the software provides access to a variety of resources for enhancing
experiences and solving problems. Among the resource types are on-line
archives of knowledge about teaching and learning, links to other
appropriate on-line archives, references to off-line support material, and
electronic messaging and conferencing with faculty, mentor teachers and
other preservice teachers. A key aspect of the design and development work
will be to implement support for encouraging and improving students
processes of reflection upon their experiences.

The Design Process

Our general approach to the design and development process is to use a
small cohort of collaborators as participant designers from the very
beginning of the project. These collaborators represent the prospective end-
user community and serve to provide insight and review for a rapid
prototyping process. As the project progresses to alpha software we will
target a wider section of practitioners for feedback, and then implement a
beta version into the real curriculum and practitioner experiences.
Winograd (1995) argues that in order to design software that really works
we need to consider the system, the users, and the situation of use all
together as a starting point. Dourish (1995) discusses three areas of
research which are shaping a new view of software design for interactive
systems. The first area is customization which allows a tool to be used in
different application areas by users with different working styles. In what
way will different users need or desire to tailor the software for their work
goals? The second area is the recognition that the software will be
embedded in the context of a social organization. How will the social nature
of the teacher-student interaction and the student-student interaction, as
well as the social milieu of being in school effect the use of the software?
This cannot be predicted through any analysis process, but must come to be
understood as the system is implemented and supported. The third area of
research focuses on coadaptation and draws together elements from the first
two areas. Coadaptation refers to a mutual evolution of software and work
practices. The software enables changes in the work practice, which in turn
create new requirements for the software. Work in the area of coadaptation
points up the need for design to be a continuous part of the implementation
This project began in the winter of 1995 with a proposal which was
developed and funded to build a set of software tools to support learning
from field-based experience. The development team worked during the
summer with a teacher education liaison to articulate key needs and key
opportunities for implementing technology into the new undergraduate
teacher education program. This worked refined the vision and focused our
efforts toward a tool which could enhance and build upon faculty use of
journal techniques within their courses. The faculty value a journal as a
teaching and learning tool and have developed creative approaches to using
journals, but for the most part a journal is too slow, too time intensive,
primarily private, primarily episodic (its hard to build and support continuity
from journal entry to journal entry), and difficult to maintain. Moving to an
electronic environment could enhance continuity across experiences, enable
sharing among students, facilitate faculty in providing guidance and
feedback, and improve the students' ability to be reflective, not just
descriptive of their experiences.


Having formed clear objectives for the support of teaching and learning
during field experiences, the next step was to create scenarios of user
performance. These scenarios serve as low fidelity prototypes to generate
requirements for the systems development. Writing scenarios is somewhat
like writing science fiction. It requires imagining the future software
embedded in a context of use. The goal is to be descriptive of the software
and of the emergent behavior.

Process Representation

Following the development and review of several scenarios, we generated a
set of functions and processes which could be implemented as an iteration of
the journal tool. This decision making was based on finding a set of functions
which would yield a sufficient set of support for the key teaching and
learning objectives and yet be able to be programmed by our development
team by January 1996, which was our first opportunity for a course-based
field test. Following this specification of requirements and getting our
software developers on task, we then generated a HyperCard representation
of the interface and processes to engage in focus group discussion with our
teacher education faculty. Nine faculty, with varying responsibility for
implementing the new teacher education program, participated in the focus
group sessions. The sessions included a presentation of the screens and
processes of the journal tool and an opportunity to discuss issues about
usability, fit with instructional approaches, and support for collaboration and
reflection. These discussions lead to a refinement of the software processes,
making them a better fit for the teaching and learning process we want to
support. The discussions also lead to user education, so that the faculty now
are able to think more creatively about what an electronic support
environment for reflection might entail. This is leading to changes in their
view of assignments and objectives for field experiences. The outcomes of
the process representation to the focus group are discussed in the Results

Vision Representation

The software version for January represents an exciting electronic support
tool but also represents only a part of the vision for supporting field
experiences. One key aspect in this version is that the students represent
their thoughts and experiences with text and graphics, but eventually we will
enable them to use audio and video media and perhaps other forms of
media, such as simulation. To better understand the potential of richer
media for enabling better communication and reflection, we are working with
four students from a reading class. These students are being supported in
capturing media of their field experiences and then in building an electronic
representation of these experiences and their process of reflection and

    Figure 1. Initial Screen Showing Key Resource Types of the Journal.
This process will teach us about design issues for a next version of the

Field Test

In January, a class of preservice teachers will begin to use the software as a
shared journal system. We will field test the usability of the software as well
as learn about how well it supports our higher order goals of improving
reflection and increasing learning from field experience.
The field test version of the journal system will utilize personal computer
clients and Silicon Graphics Indy servers. The first round of software
development effort will focus on developing client software for the Macintosh
platform. The clients and servers will communicate over the Internet using
TCP/IP connections. Anyone who has access to the Internet via a direct
connection or a SLIP or PPP connection will be able to participate. The
software will also support the creation and editing of journal entries off-line
for later upload when a connection is available.
In addition to the features and functions that are supplied by the journal
system client connection with the journal system server, the software
integrates both web-browsing and e-mail for a full-functioned environment
that supports communication and collaboration with the central mechanism
being the shared journal. The following categories of functions and features
are being implemented in the journal system:

      the creation and editing of multimedia journal entries. In the first
       version text, images, and web links will be supported. In the following
       version audio and video will be supported.
      the sharing of journal entries with other members of the community.
      the ability to add comments and feedback to a journal entry.
      the designation of tasks that a member of the community is to
       complete. For example, a mentor at the university may ask a pre-
       service teacher to make observations of a class and write pre-
       observation, observation, and post-observation journal entries.
      access to informative and instructional resources: web pages,
       documents, and software.
      access to e-mail within the journal client.
      access to a web-browser within the journal client.
      a multi-way text chat facility for real-time interaction from the journal
      access to news and information that is important to the community of

Each member of the community will use the client to build and maintain a
journal and a user profile. The user profile lets the members of the
community communicate information about themselves. The journal editor is
designed to support and promote reflection; reflection is a key attribute of
the journal writing activity. They will also use the client to view other
members journal entries and to access information that is relevant to the


All nine of the teacher education faculty were enthusiastic in their willingness
to use the journal tool in their courses or in their recognition that it could be
useful in parts of the new teacher education program. The three most
strongly felt advantages of the application were:

   1. A simple and straightforward layout. Many of the faculty are quite
      novice with technology and several made the comment, "I could do
      that!" The need for ease of use and good design for the work
      processes that need to happen are key goals for the tool from the
   2. The recognition that it could enable new forms of communication
      across gulfs of distance and time, and that these new forms could
      benefit the level of discourse and learning. The ability of faculty and
      fellow students to annotate each others entries, as well as the ability
      to create links from a journal entry to a resource location on the web
      are viewed as strong tools for improving communication, sharing, and
   3. The system has features to customize to the needs of the individual
      faculty and course. The system has the notion of groups, so that
      sharing can be targeted. The faculty saw the need to flexibly and
      fluidly change groups as important to building discourse and sharing.
      Faculty also saw the potential to add specific tools or processes that fit
      with their model of learning and reflection. For example, one member
      of the science faculty saw the potential to add a concept mapping tool
      to the set of reflection tools. This potential for customization to a
      faculty or disciplinary way of working is important for the journal tool
      to be accepted.

The issue which raised the biggest concern for faculty is that of security or
confidentiality. Can things which should be private be kept private? One
aspect of this concern was a consideration for the author who might not be
ready to share his or her reflections on a topic. While the goal of the system
is to encourage learning through reflection and sharing, we also understand
that the student must first develop a sense of trust in order to take risks.
The ability to share journal entries within restricted groups may relieve some
concern, but it is likely that we will need to continue to examine this issue
and look for strategies both within the tool and across the undergraduate
program which support building trust. A second confidentiality concern arises
from the potential of a student to say something which might compromise
someone else's confidentiality. For example, a preservice teacher might be
writing in the journal about an elementary student with a particular learning
disability and use the students name or be talking about a particular
teacher's practice. The faculty feared that these journals, because they are
in an electronic networked environment, could potentially have a more open
access than is intended (e.g., seen by parents, other elementary students,
board members, etc.).
Another significant concern of faculty is that students must have time and
access to the journal tools in a way which fits with the process of learning
from experience and reflection. We need a technology environment which is
not dependent upon students coming to a computer lab to sit and record
experiences and engage in reflection. The faculty could see that the
networking strategy of the tool will enable students to work from their school
site, from home, from the faculty members office, or anywhere they find
convenient. One part of this strategy is to implement the system as a
network aware tool which uses the Internet for transporting messages. A
second part of the strategy allows students to save their work to their local
PowerBook and connect to a network at a later time for sending entries to
the journal server.
The focus group efforts served to educate, prepare, and build enthusiasm
among the faculty. It also raised issues and sensitized the design team to
concerns which are important to the success of the journal tool. Another
result of the focus group effort is to renew the enthusiasm and commitment
of the design and development team. Seeing the enthusiasm and hearing of
the needs of the faculty builds commitment to making a product which will
make a difference in the real lives of teachers and students.


Lessons learned from the scenarios, the process representation, the vision
representation, and the field test contribute to design goals for the second
generation of the software. We anticipate that the software developed in this
project will lead to two results. The first is a community of educators and
preservice educators at the University of Missouri who will use the software
to improve learning through field experiences. To this extent, the software
and technology infrastructure will need to grow and evolve with the
community. We expect that in some ways the software will push the
community to new opportunities and in other ways the community will pull
the software with new sets of requirements which make it a better fit for
their work and learning. Evidence for this premise is provided in the results
of the focus group. Faculty see the potential of the tool to support their
goals, and see the opportunity to augment their instruction because the tool
enables new and different patterns of interaction. The second result is a set
of software and architecture for sharing and learning from experiences which
can be generalized to other settings. We expect that the core server and
client functions for data storage and retrieval, and the mechanisms and
protocols we develop for sharing and reflection can also serve engineering
students on their senior design project, as well as other field based
experiences in professional schools.


     Anderson, R. C. & Armbruster, B. B. (1990). Some maxims for
     learning and instruction. Teachers College Record, 91 (3), 396-408.
     Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, p. (1989). Situated cognition and
     the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-41.
     Dourish, P. (1995). Developing a reflective model of collaborative
     systems. acm Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(1), 40-
     Koschmann, T. D. (1994). Toward a theory of computer support for
     collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 219-
     Laffey, J. (1995). Dynamism in electronic performance support
     systems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(1), 31-46.
     Levin, J., Waugh, M., Brown, D, & Clift, R. (1994). Teaching
     Teleapprenticeships: A new organizational framework for improving
     teacher education using electronic networks. Machine-mediated
     Learning, 4(2 & 3), 149-161.
     Pea, R. D. (1993). The collaborative visualization project.
     Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 60-63.
     Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for
     knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
     3(3), 265-283.
     Winograd, T. (1995). From programming environments to
     environments for designing. Communications of the ACM, 38(6), 65-
James M. Laffey is with the Center for Technology Innovations in Education,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 212 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.
Dale Musser is with the Center for Technology Innovations in Education,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 212 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO 65211.
         Producing Laserdiscs for Teaching Math and Science

                            David W. Forman
                           Georgetown College

In an article called "Short Story Science", Linda Roach and James
Wandersee (1993) noted that while science is a process of constructing and
applying knowledge, science students often treat it as if it were a mountain
of decontextualized information to be memorized. For these students,
science is a boring, "encyclopedic and fixed body of fact, rather than a
continuous, dynamic process of humans searching for answers" (p. 18). The
best teachers understand that what students need to know and what they
will learn about a subject is much more than what the teacher already knows
and can teach in a linear fashion. One of the tools that can help teachers
bring "real world phenomena" into the classroom to provide multiple stimuli
for learning is the video laserdisc.

The Problem

This paper provides an introduction to a laserdisc produced at Georgetown
as result of two grants from the Eisenhower Program for the improvement of
teaching Math and Science, and to the process that led to developing such a
resource. The disc called Math and Science in the `Real World': The Lilley
Cornett Woods Video Disc, was produced by an education department faculty
member using only a variety of general experiences and skills which might
be common to such professionals.
From the personal productivity perspective, this project involved a variety of
different kinds of technologymany of which were not known to me before
starting the grants. In fact, I had never actually used a laserdisc, but had a
vision of what could be done at a workshop at the local school district. On a
project of this nature, many new ideas can be discovered by putting
together pieces of what is known and then learning what is needed to fill in
the gaps.
There are at least three basics which lead people to try technology in
teaching and lead me to risk attempting an unusual combination of ideas
expressed by this grant project. The first is summarized by a favorite Calvin
and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin points out that a marvelous snowflake, "an
utterly unique and exquisite crystal", turns into an ordinary boring molecule
of water when you bring it into the classroom (Watterson, 1993).
Technology is one way to bring the real world closer to the world of school.
Second is a belief that what students learn will always be different from what
has been "taught". Knowledge is not delivered but is constructed by the
learner, based on a wide variety of stimuli. The third concept is the
understanding that what seems like really complicated information, is often
a collection of fairly simple, familiar parts that we do know, can do, and
already understand. Anybody can accomplish a technology project if one is
willing to start and get help when it's needed.
These basics came together in two separate, but important aims of this
project - a process and a product. The process was guided research by
students into a "real" question they generated themselves in a "real" setting
outside their schools that led to changes in attitudes of the students and
their teachers.. The primary product was a Constant Angular Velocity (CAV)
video laserdisc depicting the "real" question in the "real" setting. Through
this product, we hoped to communicate that different perspectives can
provide a multi-media resource for teachers to use in leading students
through the process for themselves
The starting point was two particular settings in Kentucky; Lilley Cornett
Woods in Letcher County, and the Toyota Motor Manufacturing plant in
Georgetown. While both are "special kinds of places", they are prototype
settings that exist everywhere, would be available to any school, and are
natural places to study math and sciences.
The natural setting, Lilley Cornett Woods, was possibly the most significant
in a pedagogical sense. Lots of students study the rain forest in school, but
not nearly as many realize that our own version of the rain forest, or climax
vegetation, is the "old growth forest" and that's not the same as what we
may know as "the woods". One of the things we wanted to do with this disc
was to introduce students to this concept, and to give them an experience
with the settings which would go beyond a textual, photographic or even
linear video presentation.

Why Laserdiscs?

For educational purposes, a laserdisc has some real advantages over VHS
tapes, and over digitized media of current CD-ROM technology. The most
obvious differ ence is quality of image, as attested to by movie buffs who
seek movies on laserdisc for the best possible video quality available today.
But there are other advantages too. Laserdiscs offer a much wider variety of
program types. These variations range from programs which are essentially
just video on a random access disc, to interactive Level III applications in
which the computer is used to search, access, and control the video based
program. This range can be best be seen by viewing the following examples:
Insects: The Little Things that run the World (1989) in The Smithsonian
series, with chapters that truly stand alone and include some information in
single frames, such as Coronet's Atmospheric Science (1991) series; to level
III applications such as Investigating History: Treasures from the Deep

The Product
In conceiving the project and laying out the kind of resources to be included,
we first considered the following: 1) organization can be in short chapters
which can stand alone and be accessed randomly and individually; 2)
program stops can be built in at certain points where emphasis is desired or
where time is needed to study the frame of information (data tables for
example); and 3) the user can replay at varying speeds and can stop on a
given frame and leave it continuously replaying as long as desired.
Individual frames can be used to provide a variety of information such as
text, pictures, data tables, and graphics. Although data collection is an
important overall consideration, we found the practical limits of the project
to be the time necessary to edit the video master program on tape. Most
stills had been recorded with a regular video camera and, to be sure, we had
captured at least one good frame of each still. Nevertheless, we ended up
inserting two to three still frames at a time. In retrospect, it may have been
possible to do the same thing with a still video camera, but questions of
quality of image and the fact that the equipment recording the master still
had to start up, record and stop; all of which makes it difficult to record a
single frame.
When planning still frames, the following technical aspects were considered:
1) awareness of the aspect ratio of video in comparison to other media
(video aspect ratio is 3:4 which is very different from most other media), 2)
how different colors behave in video (color and color saturation can cause
problems), and 3) consideration of the complexity of the graphic to be
copied (graphics should result in a "simple and crisp" image or as
uncluttered as possible).
In deciding the stills and program stops to incorporate, we considered the
possibility they might be used for reference, for performance event prompts
or materials, and for writing prompts for portfolios, etc. We also intended to
provide information for students to use in generating their own new data
from the information provided in various tables.

                                  Figure 1.
We also wanted to make the disc useful for modeling students doing
research and the use of the scientific method. While most chapters were
heavily organized around the voice of a narrator reading a written script, one
chapter was done entirely from the student presentations using the student
on camera or in voice over video.
Originally, we planned a Level III application, with two groups of middle
school students doing HyperCard stacks to access the disc. Unfortunately
that hasn't been fully realized yet. While the student groups produced
related stacks, they had not developed to the point of accessing a video disc
with a stack and consequently didn't comprehend what we were seeking
there. With a little more attention to this part of the idea, I believe middle
and high school students could easily produce software that would allow this
disc to be used in a more interactive way.

The Process

At least equally as important as the product was the process. This included
teachers helping students actually use the scientific method in an authentic
project and expanded to the general concept of inquiry based teaching as we
developed the research ideas together. The students worked in teams with
the following simple directions: Learn more about this setting, develop a
question of your own involving how math or science is used here, and,
finally, design and do a study to answer that question.
This lack of structure turned out to be the most frightening part for teachers
and students, yet perhaps the most educationally valuable. Once the groups
began, they went far beyond what I might have asked. Every team taught
me things I didn't know.

The Project Results

There have been a variety of benefits resulting from this project; not the
least of which was change in the attitudes of teachers and students involved.
Attitudes changed in how they thought about research, how they thought
about scientists, and how they thought about science. Perhaps this concept
was verbalized best in a letter from one of the participating teachers:
Many students, especially in Eastern Kentucky, think of scientists as men
with IQ's of 200, wearing white coats, and locked in a lab 24 hours a day. As
a result, few would even consider pursuing a science degree. However, their
opinions would change if they could see scientists who spend their days
hiking through a woods to take soil samples, or who are working for a major
factory like Toyota to help cut costs and insure safety. Now that I know
more about these careers, I hope I can take some of what I learned and
bring it into my classrooms for my students. For me, the ideas on how to
combine science, math, and the "real world" were the most valuable part of
the experience. (Cain, 1993)
                                    Figure 2.
Eighty-seven percent of the teachers in the project reported it had an impact
on their teaching plans and methods. They noted greater confidence in the
ability of students as well as more confidence in their own ability to become
"research teachers". Most of these teachers also indicated more confidence
in requesting members of local industry to work with them!
For students, characteristic statements in their evaluations of the project
included a new realization that science was fun and more wide ranging than
expected. One student noted that participation in this project had made him
respect mathematics and the sciences more completely. Another confirmed,
"I realized how interesting math and science can be. I thought they were
just required subjects. Now, I think differently."
As a group, students learned that having a "topic" is not the same as having
a question. They learned how to generate and refine a question, how to use
the resources that are available in a community, especially the people, and
what it is like to pursue a question with an adult (teacher) where the answer
isn't already known to either. The result emphasized that often it is the
unexpected results that are most exciting and they are acceptable when
things don't turn out as you expect.


Combining telecommunications, video production, animation, presentation
software programs, WORM laserdisc production, and mass produced was a
somewhat steep learning curve as well as an exciting process. Taking this
product to another level of usefulness will require different skills and new
experiences. The suggestions of colleagues and others will be helpful in
deciding what steps would be most helpful to accomplish next and
appropriate toward providing a tool for math and science teachers in a
format which can be quickly and easily integrated into their teaching plans.


      Cain, B. (1993). Letter to the author. 25 Sept. 1993.
      Forman, D. W. (1994). Math and Science in the `Real World': The
      Lilley Cornett Woods Video Disc [Videodisc]. Georgetown, KY:
      Georgetown College.
      Myatt, A. (Producer/Director). (1989). Insects: The little things that
      run the world [Videodisc]. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Laserdisc
      The Discovery Channel. (1991). Investigating History: Treasures from
      the deep [Videodisc]. Northbrook, IL: Coronet/MTI Film and Video.
      Roach, L. E. & Wandersee, J. H. (1993). Short story science. The
      Science Teacher, 60:6, 18-21.
      Watterson, B. (1993, February 4). Calvin and Hobbes [Cartoon].
      Lexington Herald-Leader, p. 15.
      ______. (1991). Atmospheric Science [Videodisc]. Northbrook, IL:
      Coronet Film and Video.
David W. Forman is an Associate Professor of Education at Georgetown
College in Georgetown, Kentucky, 400 East College St., Georgetown, KY

        A Case of Multimedia Instruction and Program Design

                             Brian L. Millhoff
                            University of Guam

The design or building of computer applications has long been seen as the
domain of trained programmers, computer scientists, and mathematicians.
But as micro-computer technology enters its fourth decade, we see the
control of the technology slipping from scientific based academic
environment into the realm of the liberal arts.
As the director of the University of Guam's Instructional Media department, I
regularly work across disciplines and colleges. In fact, my interest in media
communication has lead me to obtain degrees in
Photojournalism/Advertising, Instructional Design/Technology, and
Computer Science/Education. Thus, it did not seem strange when I was
approached by the University's Honors Program director to design a cross
discipline Honors course in Multimedia Production.

Course Design

The question was how to design a course that compliments the technical
based sciences, the creativity driven liberal arts, together with promoting
the new "emerging values and behaviors" of the 21st century. In essence,
an attempt to recreate a modern renaissance man/woman.
Given that a computer based multimedia production would define much of
the technical aspect of the course, and pre-supposing that the students
would generate the "creative" aspect of the class, I felt the primary
challenges would be to define the "emerging values and behaviors" that I
wanted the course to promote. The first step was to interview professors in
Art, Computer Science, English, Instructional Technology, Journalism,
Literature, Video Production, and Vocational Education to determine their
definitions of future academic and work behavior. While a formal
questionnaire or detailed documentation on the interviews was not
established, itemized notes were maintained.
A list of "emerging values and behaviors'" were organized into the following

Teacher/Learner Behaviors

Learning, the majority of interviewed faculty believed, was a lifelong pursuit.
They felt that academic institutions had a responsibility for preparing the
student to know how to learn and to orient the student toward obtaining
knowledge and skills. Schools could not and should not consider the
graduate a final product nor transmit that idea to students. They believed
that education will and must be interwoven and interspersed with work.
Thus, the academic institution should mirror this changing reality.
The role of the instructor needs to change from the fact-giver, rule-maker,
result-evaluator to the facilitator of information obtaining, knowledge
exploration, and self-assessment. In this new role, we need to teach
students to use the new global-electronic tools, which offers access to
information and details beyond the scope of any instructor. As faculty
members we need to transition from instructors to mentors.

Group Member Behaviors

The faculty felt that the era of individualism has passed. As we enter the
future. we need to acknowledge and prepare students for their participation
in and the operation of groups. Group participation requires the recognition
and acceptance of the interdependence of individuals, systems, and goal
achievement. The belief in the principle of inclusion versus exclusion was
expressed. This is a belief that all participants have qualities and
understandings that can benefit the group.

Human Interaction
A primary belief held by those interviewed is that the application of
technology will actually increase human interaction and that this interaction
needs new guidelines for achieving group creativity. The guidelines of the
past were based on me/them relationships, winners/losers, individuals over
the group where the new guidelines need to promote a we/us relationships.
Underlying the new art of communication lays consultation the positive
sharing and integration of ideas. Consultation as opposed to debate will
result in a group consensus, which is superior and enhances inclusiveness
more than the majority dominance.
Based on the "emerging values and behaviors" found, a course was designed
to integrate academic disciplines while developing individual student skills in
small group participation and interaction. The course content reflected the
elements of communication theory, learning theory, instructional design,
graphics and image design, human interface design, algorithm development,
technical details related to digital art, digitized audio and video, computer
based multimedia production, and those factors associated with computer
systems analysis and design. In addition, the course included consultation
skills, conflict resolution skills, and group leadership and participation skills.
This massive amount of information could not help but strengthen the
interdependence and inclusiveness of group members into a production
team. The proposed class was designed to attract students with majors in
Fine Arts, Communications, Computer Science, and Education. As a
proposed Honors Course, it was expected to draw only the most dedicated
and talented students.
The first step was to propose the course to both the University's Council for
Academic Affairs and the University's Honors Program in Spring 1994 for
offering Fall 1994 (Table 1). The approval by the University's College of
Education and the College of Arts and Sciences' divisions of Fine Arts and of
Communication for upper divisional elective credits was quickly received.
However, a major problem was created when the CAS's division of
Mathematics and Computer Science would not approve the course as upper
divisional elective credits. This meant that upper division Computer Science
majors could only use the course as a general elective (few juniors and
seniors had these credits to fill). Notwithstanding, after Fall pre-registration
the class was finally approved as Honors- AR494 (art), CO494 (comm.), and
ED494 (educ.).
Funds were also provided to purchase hardware and software for the class.
The hardware consisted of a Macintosh 660 AV with 16MB RAM/500MB HD, a
Macintosh 840 AV with 32MB RAM/1GB HD, and a Pentium-90 with 64MB
RAM/1 GB HD. A second PC was planned but a budget crunch prevented its
purchase. Production software included: (MAC) Morph, Illustrator,
Photoshop, Premiere, Persuasion, and Director; and for the (Windows-PC)
Morph, Corel4, HiJaak, Photoshop, and PowerPoint.
The Class

When the class began, it had one art and two communication majors. This
was obviously too few students to accomplish all the academic goals set for
the course. The first two classes were dedicated to discussing goal, plans,
visions and consultation skills to be practiced during the class (Table 2). The
class spent four weeks covering theoretical materials, each presented by a
student who then took the lead in discussing its significance as related to our
goals (Table 3). During the next three weeks, presentations were made by
the instructor on various computer software and application techniques.
Independent planning sessions were held by the students for project design.
The instructor did not attend these sessions, thus preventing his design
influence to affect project design. However, plans were discussed at a report
session in which guidance and suggestions were made. The remainder of the
semester (6 weeks) was devoted to the students' developed productions.


About mid-term, the art student dropped the class, complaining it was
demanding too much work and affecting her other classes. The instructor
agreed to carry her load of the planned production; but only as a technician.
The class completed three short group projects: two using Persuasion, one
of which included digitized video; and one using Director with animation and
film production techniques. Student logs showed about 30 hours was put
into each production, however probably another 120 hours was dedicated to
student experimentation. Students and the instructor held two 12 hour per
day work-sessions beyond assigned class and lab times.
The remaining students exhibited a very high degree of comradeship and a
close personal relationship with the instructor. Course written student
evaluations for the Honors Program were vivid in their reaction:

      "Being a producer of knowledge is exciting"
      "This was the most pragmatic class I have taken at UOG."
      "Self-reliance and self-motivation is the key factors for this type of
      "In non-honors classes, the student is more dependent upon the
       instructor for gathering and producing knowledge. This type of class
       offers just the opposite. This honor's course loosens the bonds and
       allows creativity to flow from the mind instead of from the class

The course achieved some exciting goals and the instructor found this course
to be one of the most exciting classes he had ever taught. But the class was
not without problems.
      The class size made the workload too great. It also reduced the ability
       to exercise our group interaction/planning skills.
      There was a need for better organized and accessible instructional
       materials on the use of multimedia application software.
      The usual problems with computer hardware plagued the class. In
       general, there was not enough memory, too little hard drive space,
       poorly written instruction manuals, and products which were too big to
       port from one computer to another. The Macintosh 660AV was
       adequate for playback, but not production. The 840AV worked well for
       production, but its hard drive crashed mid-way through final
      Instead of student generated projects, the projects' topics were
       instructor generated. Therefore, it is difficult to determine students'
       commitment toward project completion.


"Failure to reach critical mass" best describes the result of UOG's first class
in multimedia production. The synthesis of disciplines was never achieved.
The group interaction within such a small group lead to domination by a
vocal few.
The student participants created significant projects, covered a significant
amount of information, achieved functional levels of competency in
multimedia, but they suffered extreme frustration, anxiety, and were
strained beyond acceptable levels. The lack of Computer Science majors
resulted in more participation in project development by the instructor than
planned. The need for more concise reference material was obvious and was
the source of much of the student frustration. I think the class has strong
potential but needs a larger enrollment to be successfully executed.
Table 1
University of Guam - Preliminary Honors Course Proposal (Edited)
Course Title: Computer Based Multimedia Instructional Systems and
Credit Hours: 3 Date of Final Approval Semester Offered: _Fall_
Course Counts as: upper-level HONORS OFFERINGS
A course that integrates experience in instructional design, graphic/art
production, computer operation/programming and project/development
group management. Participants will combine multi-discipline talents for the
design, development, and production of computer based multimedia
instructional material. Students with backgrounds in art, education,
communications, computer science, and/or media production are
encouraged to enroll.
The course is a studio/production course design to nurture skills in group
operation and problem solving, instructional analysis and design, graphic
presentation of instruction and multimedia programming.
The course is design to promote the integration of academic disciplines,
while developing individual student skills in small group participation and
The proposed honors course meets the `Tier Two,' upper-level course
offering description presented in the Honors Course Proposal publication
(Robert Burns- 11/29/93).
The proposed type of project will also give students an opportunity to enrich
their capabilities with technology, while developing material for their
presentation portfolios.
Class Format
The group project development is a standard in the "island cultures" and a
growing trend in corporate environments. By providing a project oriented
course we can best simulate the "real world" environment while providing
important instruction.
The role of the instructor is that of mentor, counselor, or resource person.
The participants will each take turns presenting topics for consideration and
consultation as to their relationship to the proposed project. The instructor
will regularly provide direction, demonstrations or instruction, and, as
appropriate, invitation to outside participants to assist the group. The design
and development of a group project will be the learning outcome.
Students who complete this course will:
a. develop skills in small group consultation/interaction
1. promote universal participation
2. value each individual's participation while promoting non-ownership of
ideas or agendas
3. work to maintain group unity
4. know how to organize a consultation session
5. endeavor to build consensus
b. develop skills in system instructional design and understand applicable
principles of media design
1. plan learning outcomes
-identifying learning outcomes by task performance
2. promote cognitive processes and learning
-designing learning events
-connecting instructional events with learning outcomes
3. integrate learning strategies into courseware
-understanding basic elements of learning theory
-applying of instructional methodology
4. provide the learner with meaningful feedback
-understanding of role of learning feedback
-using research to appropriate feedback
c. able to program a multimedia computer application
1. operate both the PC and Macintosh based computer systems to program a
multimedia presentation
2. create and manipulate images or screen design with available graphic
software for the design of learning events
Table 2
Destructive Group Behavior
Attacking Personality - Redirect the members focus to performance issues or
problems and away from personal attributes. Example: John is Lazy/Not
carrying his load - Rather: John we need you to participate more, assist with
more of the jobs.
Criticizing - Warranted or unwarranted - leads to hard feelings and disunity.
Value others opinions, agree to disagree when you must, but do not belittle
or criticize others in a group setting. If you think you have a valid criticism of
an individual, take it up with that individual in private.
Interrupting - It should not be acceptable behavior, established as a ground
rule, and enforced by the chair.
Agreeing with Everything - Doesn't provide for any group interaction, it is
from conflicting opinion that "the germ of truth is discovered".
Failing to Agree with Anything - Generally, this type of behavior is attached
to ownership of ideas, if it is not "my idea" or if it is "that person idea".
Discussion of conflicting ideas is important, but remember discussion must
move towards resolution.
Binding Others Behavior - Beginning or opening remarks which attempt to
pre-sell opinions. "Your going to love this idea" or "This comes straight from
above" or "We must". Allow the group to discover the value of an opinion.
Changing subjects - Unless the group decides to table a topic under
discussion it is the `chair's' obligation and group member's responsibility to
allow closure of consultation. If new ideas occur make a suggestion that they
be put on the agenda for later.
Chatting - Is distracting, disruptive, showing signs of the lack of
consideration at best.
Displaying Anger - Prevents communication, if it occurs during consultation -
stop the process, acknowledge the anger, ask its source and using
"constructive discussion" reduce or remove the causes.
Displaying superiority/dominating - Recognize the value of all member's
input, move toward a unity of participation - it is the responsibility of the
chair to draw-out all participants and prevent singular domination.
Engaging in distractions - Any activity which reduces your participation fully
in the consultation. It is a sign of superiority and lack of consideration for
your fellow participants.
Escaping or Absenteeism - It is a sign of superiority and lack of consideration
for your fellow participants. The chair might try to re-arrange scheduling, if
Glossing Over Group Problems - Solving problems in consultation will
generally lead to more effective consultation.
Hairsplitting - Nit-picking generally does not benefit consultation, it is the
chairs responsibility to help provide closure for the group.
Failure Completing Assigned Task on Time or Not Doing the Job Effectively -
This wastes everybody's time and is a sign that you don't value the group or
its activity. If a member is assigned a task and realizes `for what ever
reason' that they will not be able to accomplish it on time they should turn
to other members for assistance. The other members, must remember they
are working on a "team"' activity - "we all sink or swim together".
Seeking Sympathy - Be a responsible "team" member, if you need tangible
support from members ask for it.
Withdrawal - All members have a responsibility to participate, it is the chair's
job to assert everyone's full participation.
Positive Group Behavior
Willingness to participate, contribute ideas, and set goals.
Willingness to share and value different ideas.
Willingness to consider other viewpoints.
Willingness to delay judgments, until all have presented opinions.
Willingness to tolerate confusion and "different behavior".
Willingness to seek alternatives to which all can agree.
Willingness to support and implement the team's decisions.
Willingness to take on personal responsibility.
Critical Behaviors That Group Members Must Exhibit
Learning to speak up in groups.
Taking responsibility for one's own thoughts/actions.
Sharing responsibility.
Learning to state an opinion.
Receiving and expressing both positive and negative feelings.
Saying NO, when it is responsible.
Receiving criticism.
Asking for assistance.
Prioritizing based on team goals.
Table 3
Text Reading List
I. Required Text
Instructional Design for Microcomputer Courseware - Jonassen, David H.,
1988, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. ISBN:0-89859-813-3
II. Recommended Text Readings
The Design Development and Evaluation of Instructional Software - Hannafin
and Peck, 1988, Macmillian Publishing Company. ISBN: 0-02-349990-7
Computer-Aided Instruction: A Guide for Authors - Price, Robert V., 1991,
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
ISBN: 0-534-13710-5
Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer
Interaction - Shneiderman, Ben , 1992, Addison-Wesley Publishing
ISBN: 0-201-57286-9
III. Software References
Adobe Illustrator 5.0, Adobe Photoshop 3.0, Adobe Premiere 3.0, Aldus
Persuasion 3.0, Corel 4 (for PC), Director 4.0, Morph, and Power Point -
Software manuals
Articles for Multimedia Reading List
Reprints from Syllabus for Macintosh, PUBLIX of Palo Alto, CA, Sponsored by
Apple Computer
Technologies for Education: An overview of the leading technologies that
support education, NOV/DEC 90 #14, p. 2-8; Focus on Collaboration.
JAN/FEB 91 #15, p. 2-6Collaboration on Campus. JAN/FEB 91 #15, p. 7-13;
An Introduction to Multimedia in Education. MAR/APL 91 #16, p. 2-3; Major
Campus Multimedia Projects. MAR/APL 91 #16, p. 4-8; A Sampling of
Multimedia Facilities. MAR/APL 91 #16, p. 9-11; Using Technology to Teach.
FEB/MAR 92 #21, p. 2-4; Using Computers in Instruction. FEB/MAR 92 #21,
p. 4-7Teaching with Multimedia. APRIL/MAY 92 #22, p. 2-5; Multimedia
Products. APRIL/MAY 92 #22, p. 6-7; Video and the Computer. APRIL/MAY
92 #22, p. 8-11.
Reprints from Syllabus, PUBLIX of Sunnyvale, CA
Digital Video: A Primer. ARCH/APRIL 93 #27, p. 8-10; Making Your Own CD-
ROMs. NOV/DEC 93 #30, p. 9-11
Reprints from HEPC Syllabus, PUBLIX of Sunnyvale, CA
Desktop Multimedia. . MAY/JUNE 94, V.3,#6, p. 10-13; Presenting
Multimedia: An Update on the Latest Multimedia Authoring Tools. MAY/JUNE
94, V.3,#6, p. 14-18; Creating Multimedia Presentations: It Takes More than
Computer Savvy. MAY/JUNE 94, V.3,#6, p. 24; Multimedia in the Classroom:
Profiles of five campuses that are integrating multimedia into instruction.
MAY/JUNE 94, V.3,#6, p. 28-30/35.


     Design the User Interface: A Look at Input-Output Devices. Computer
     Science Syllabus Winter 93 #30, p. 2-5.
     Interactive Media Enlivens Learning: Teaching with Multimedia, Lynch,
     Patrick J.. Higher Education Product Companion, MAR/APL 93, V.2,#3,
     p. 8-11.
Brian L. Millhoff is the Media Coordinator for the Instructional Media-RFK
Library at the University of Guam, Mangilao, GU 96923. E-mail:

To top