1. LEARNING THEORIES APPLIED TO TEACHING TECHNOLOGY:
CONSTRUCTIVISM VERSUS BEHAVIORAL THEORY FOR INSTRUCTING
MULTIMEDIA SOFTWARE PROGRAMS.
by
Cajah S. Reed
CARLOS CONTRERAS, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
EVAN STRAUB, PhD, Committee Member
KEITH CIANI, PhD, Committee Member
Dean Ginther, PhD, Dean
Harold Abel School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
December 2012
4. Abstract
This study sought to find evidence for a beneficial learning theory to teach computer
software programs. Additionally, software was analyzed for each learning theory’s
applicability to resolve whether certain software requires a specific method of education. The
results are meant to give educators more effective teaching tools, so students ultimately get
the most out of any particular software program. The study’s value comes from additional
significant information added to the established constructivist and instructivist debate, which
is important to psychologists and educators.
The design of the study was a randomized quantitative experiment with an analysis of
covariance design employing four groups, gathered using convenience sampling, in a pretest,
posttest model to analyze multiple independent variables. Further design parameters included
a 2 X 2 Factorial Design, .05 significance, large post hoc Cohen f effect size for learning
theory, and 89% power. The sample was 167 students enrolled in Digital Image
Manipulation, Digital Layout, Digital Illustration, or Digital Typography classes during two
quarters of 2012. The participants were analyzed in their normal classroom environment
using an online test/lesson/test exercise. The instrument was Photoshop CS5 and InDesign
CS5 uCertify Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) exam preparation guides.
Research Question 1 stated: Is constructivist or behavioral learning theory more beneficial
when teaching multimedia software? A significant finding for Research Question 1 indicates
a difference between the learning theories behaviorism and constructivism. The behaviorist
group scored higher than the constructivist group. Research Question 2 stated: Is there a
difference in the effectiveness of learning between Photoshop and InDesign when teaching
5. multimedia software? There was no significant finding for Research Question 2; therefore,
no difference was found between Photoshop and InDesign.
Research Question 3 stated: Are there interactions between learning theory and software with
regards to teaching multimedia software? No interaction was found between learning theory
and software. According to the current study, teachers who instruct their courses through a
problem-based constructivist method should consider a behaviorist approach. A behavioral
learning curriculum is especially important if the class is instructing Adobe software.
6. Dedication
I dedicate my dissertation to my Grandmother. Thank you for pushing me to get a
great education. I will try not to be so smart that I can’t have a normal conversation.
It is also dedicated to my family, who have sacrificed time with me and kept quiet
iii
during nap-time so I could do “homework.”
7. Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I must acknowledge Michael Reed, whose support was
endless. His masterful work on the experiment website was genius. The study would not
have been as successful without his hours spent recreating Photoshop and InDesign. I
want to thank Tommy Sullivan for listening, reading, testing the website, and spending
the time bouncing ideas around. His encouragement helped me to develop and fine-tune
many of the ideas floating in my head. Danielle Sullivan Kelly was instrumental in,
specifically, teaching me grammar. I appreciate the time, patience, and skill needed to
read my work.
Catherine Chauvin deserves acknowledgement for lending me a quiet place to
work, proofreading, driving to DTC, and testing the website. I appreciate the kindness
shown to my children and being an overall great friend. Thank you Logan and Evalyn
Reed; your patience and continual encouragement were vital to the completion of my
degree. I want to thank Susan Branch for testing the website and listening to my
exhaustive talk of school. Acknowledgement should also go to Marie Sullivan for being
so vocally proud of all my accomplishments.
During the course of my dissertation, Don Powers provided excellent statistical
explanations and advice. Matt and Angela Baca watched my children while I conducted
research. Michael Kelly tested the study’s website. Ken, Anne, and Sharon Reed listened
and gave encouragement. The family I developed at Four Mile Historic Park bestowed
unlimited support.
I want to thank the kind administration and faculty at the testing site for allowing
me into their school and classrooms. In particular, I want to thank those who both helped
iv
8. as expert panelists and with the research exercise: Michael Chavez, Sharon DiIorio,
Joshua LeConey, Steve Pierce, Edward Popovitz, and Roger Rios. Thanks to those who
kindly tolerated my class disruption, Todd Debreceni, Daniel Levine, Kim Tempest,
Wesley Price, and John Wilbanks. A special thanks to Jon Kerbaugh and Chris Chen
Mahoney, and Lansford Holness for granting permission to conduct the study and
ensuring I had all the information needed to make it happen.
Thanks to Namrata Gupta, Mark Gupta, and Betsy Rivers for allowing me to use
the great preparation guides created at uCertify.com. A special extra thanks to Mark
Gupta for believing in my research, when I could not get any other company to listen. I
would like to acknowledge Carlos Contreras, Evan Straub, and Keith Ciani for providing
direction through the dissertation process. Finally, to the wonderful hardworking team of
advisors at Capella University, I could not have survived without you. In particular, thank
you Farrah Fossum and Michael Franklin for expert guidance and support.
No matter how large or small the help, your love and support has gotten me to the
v
title of Doctor of Philosophy.
9. Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 2
Statement of the Problem 5
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 8
Definition of Terms 9
Assumptions 11
Limitations 13
Nature of the Study 15
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Theoretical Framework 18
Review of Research on the Topic 22
Review of Methodological Literature 52
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 85
Purpose of the Study 85
Research Design 86
Target Population and Participant Selection 89
vi
10. Procedures 93
Instruments 98
Hypotheses 106
Data Analysis 107
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 108
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119
Discussion of Results 124
Discussion of the Conclusions 128
Limitations 131
Recommendations 135
Conclusion 137
REFERENCES 138
APPENDIX A. PHOTOSHOP EXPERT PANEL HANDOUT 153
APPENDIX B. INDESIGN EXPERT PANEL HANDOUT 158
APPENDIX C. PHOTOSHOP INSTRUMENT 163
APPENDIX D. INDESIGN INSTRUMENT 165
vii
11. List of Tables
Table 1. Research Design 86
Table 2. Results of the Photoshop Expert Panel 104
Table 3. Results of the InDesign Expert Panel 105
Table 4. Frequency of Sample Participants for Each Degree Program 111
Table 5. Software Descriptive Statistics by Class 112
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics 113
Table 7. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances 114
Table 8. Homogeneity of Regression–Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 114
Table 9. Factorial Design Analysis–Tests of Between-Subjects Effects 115
viii
12. List of Figures
Figure 1. Comparing Posttest Means of Software and Noting Theory 116
Figure 2. Comparing Means of Theory and Noting Software 117
ix
13. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
There is a growing list of professions (especially those in design) using multimedia
software, which has brought about an increased prevalence of college courses teaching
computer programs such as Photoshop, InDesign, Flash, and After Effects (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2008). Students of such classes are expected to learn generalities of the programs,
while understanding finer details, so they can apply these skills in the workplace once
training is complete (as shown in the testing site’s online profile for 2009). The type of
learning described requires an instructor well trained in the software and equipped with
adequate teaching methods. This influx of students seeking computer software knowledge, as
well as the need for suitable instruction, gives cause to an exploration of the validity of
specific learning theories (McKenna & Laycock, 2004).
Accredited colleges educating students on computer software recognize the need for
teachers who have constantly updated training on ever-changing programs (Accrediting
Commission for Community and Junior Colleges [ACCJC], 2002; Commission on Colleges
[COC], 2010; Commission on Institutions of Higher Education [CIHE], 2005). Colleges
achieve up-to-date instruction by employing individuals from the technology industry, which
ensures relevant education in the discipline and daily usage of the software. While this
implies the person has knowledge on the software, it does not necessarily translate to
teaching ability. Good instructional skills are imperative; a major effect of nonconstructive
1
14. teaching methods is the failure of information transferring to long-term memory (Kirschner,
Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This is seen in the inability of students to learn, retain, and apply
techniques used within the software. Consequently, it is important to pinpoint adequate
methods of instruction for the students, to aid teachers not formally trained to educate. The
following sections will illustrate this study’s intentions to identify and evaluate particular
learning theories, which may assist multimedia software instructors in their endeavor of
instructing college level students.
Background of the Study
Learning theories have dominated throughout history, as people sought to teach
themselves and others about the world. Within the realm of this study, two learning theories
(constructivism and behavioral learning theory) have been chosen for research because of
their distinct characteristics, and existing prevalence in the education system. The debates
over constructivist, as opposed to behavioral (instructivist) theories, are well published. Some
articles comparing the theories analyze them theoretically, in the context of scheduling,
instructing mathematics, and teacher education (Baylor & Kitsantas, 2009; Boghossian,
2006; Hackmann, 2004; Mvududu, 2005). The articles weigh the options of each
philosophy’s teaching methods, many going beyond conjecture with experimentation, and
most deriving dissimilar results or determinations. While the published information is helpful
in identifying the particulars of each learning theory, it does not pinpoint the essence of this
proposed study.
Reviewing the previously stated studies, it would seem a significant result between
the two learning theories depends highly on what is being studied. This could give great
2
15. comfort, as well as a fair amount of confusion to instructors. There is no absolute right or
wrong answer to the best general learning theory to use. Each learning situation is different,
due to the information taught, and thusly, the most appropriate learning theory may be
distinctive because of this divergence.
The instructivist method of instruction is the traditional manner of teaching
information in a sequential style and a focus on the end goal, which is assessment (Baylor &
Kitsantas, 2009). The behaviorist model is known as a teacher-centered learning
environment. In short, the teacher’s primary mission is to provide knowledge, while the
student must acquire the knowledge (Boghossian, 2006). This approach is successful because
it relies on clearly defined goals, based on rigorous instruction, and subsequent assessment.
The constructivist learning theory is based on a student-centered environment (Baylor
& Kitsantas, 2009). This method uses engaging instruction to provoke higher order thinking,
which facilitates knowledge construction. The approach employs realistic learning
environments, social classrooms that encourage multiple perspectives, and self-awareness of
one’s own learning capabilities. Contrary to behavioral learning theory, the goal of the
constructivist instructor is to provide support, while the student engages in the active process
of constructing knowledge (Boghossian, 2006). This method is successful because it focuses
on the process of learning.
An article that greatly influenced the variable selection used in this study is a
publication by Stephanie Clemons from 2006. Seeking to accommodate the increased
demand of technology, Clemons (2006) constructed a case study designed to modify a
3
16. college Computer Aided Design (CAD) software course. Once properly altered, a single
course instructs twice the number of students previously held in the class.
Prior to Clemon’s (2006) change in curriculum and teaching methodology, per the
case study, the CAD course was taught using behavioral learning theory. The traditional
method utilized demonstrations of CAD techniques, exercises, and weekly assignments.
Conversely, the constructivism-based class was broken into three modules: learning the
software, plotting documents, and three-dimensional drawings. All modules were self-paced,
multi-week learning experiences encouraging each student to seek knowledge based upon
their own learning style.
The results of the case study noted a greater engagement of the student, increased
knowledge of the subject matter found within the three modules, more content learned during
the course, and successful understanding of problem-solving (Clemons, 2006). The results
were based upon an assessment of final projects, which provided an evaluation of CAD
skills. The findings of this study were derived from an immersion of the entire class in a
single specific learning theory.
While the article provides an excellent resource of constructivist learning, a strict
quantitative approach evaluating both constructivism and behavioral learning theories is
warranted (McKenna & Laycock, 2004). A measurable method analyzing the specific
knowledge a student acquires through a particular teaching method will give an accurate look
at the techniques used. In addition, quantitative analysis allows the student’s prior knowledge
to be accounted for in order to sift out inaccurate results (Frederickson, Reed, & Clifford,
2005).
4
17. Statement of the Problem
The research problem explored was the suitability of constructivism versus behavioral
learning theory, regarding teaching multimedia software. Due to the fact multimedia software
encompasses a large variety of computer applications, this study also analyzed whether
differing software packages accounted for any learning differences. For example, Photoshop
and InDesign software may have similar users, but generate completely different documents
made for dissimilar projects. In particular, Photoshop’s primary objective is to edit
photographs and create graphics, whereas InDesign is used for page layout and publishing
(Adobe Systems Incorporated [Adobe], 2009). With this reasoning in mind, the study sought
an answer to the question: since the software itself evokes differing ways of thinking, does it
require a particular learning theory?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to analyze and find evidence for a beneficial learning
theory to teach computer software programs. This included testing students’ knowledge on
particular software before and after a lesson to accurately conclude whether the students
tested higher after a constructivist or behavioral lesson. Furthermore, due to the variety of
software available, establishing a single learning theory’s applicability for a specific program
was beneficial. This could reveal a learning theory’s favorable use across multiple programs,
general detriment to software instruction, or whether certain software requires a particular
method of education.
An example of potential results and meaning would be the behavioral learning theory
producing the highest scores for participants when tested through Photoshop, and
5
18. constructivism demonstrating the most beneficial learning theory when teaching InDesign. In
this case, one could speculate that every software program must be tested to verify the most
advantageous learning theory. Alternately, if the constructivist theory resulted in the highest
scores for both Photoshop and InDesign, then the single learning theory could potentially be
equally beneficial for most types of computer software instruction. Furthermore, the results
will support the use of particular learning theories or demonstrate a need for further research.
With regards to the study’s benefits to education and instructors in general, collegiate
institutions strive for accreditation to demonstrate competency within their organization;
therefore, schools voluntarily take note and abide by accreditation standards (Higher
Learning Commission [HLC], 2010). Regional accreditation is provided, according to
locations, by six associations. Although the accrediting bodies are independent, they work
together to ensure consistency. The purpose of accreditation is to ensure the educational
excellence of students’ learning through continuous improvement of quality, effectiveness,
and accreditation standards compliance (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior
Colleges [ACCJC], 2002; Commission on Colleges [COC], 2010; Commission on
Institutions of Higher Education [CIHE], 2005).
A standard pertinent to the current research problem is faculty qualifications.
Analyzing some of the regional accrediting agencies will reveal a thread of consistency, but
slight differences in approach. The Higher Learning Commission (2010), which gives
regional accreditation to North Central States, asserts that faculty should have at least a
degree higher than they wish to teach, or terminal degree in the case of graduate education. A
considerable amount of the possessed degree should be within the discipline the instructor
6
19. wishes to teach. Other required knowledge includes curriculum design and successful
pedagogy strategies.
The Commission on Colleges (2010) accreditation association of Southern States
places the burden of proof in the hands of the school, requiring justification of each
instructor’s qualifications to acquire accreditation. The assessment criterion for a professor
primarily focuses on his or her earned degree. Additional aspects considered are field
experience, licensure, certification, and teaching accomplishments. The Commission on
Institutions of Higher Education (2005), which accredits North Eastern States, considered
New England and its surrounding areas, briefly affirms the need for schools to take into
account the level and particular field the educator wants to teach to determine qualification.
With this knowledge, appropriate measurements of degree, teaching ability, professional
experience, and other credentials are apparent.
In compliance with faculty standards, colleges with computer related classes will seek
instructors with a background in the discipline they are teaching. Consequently, many
technology software teachers do not have a formal educational background, because it is not
required for accreditation (ACCJC, 2002; COC, 2010; CIHE, 2005; HLC, 2010). These
teachers are often sought after, because of experience within their career in using a range of
software packages, or a distinct focus and background within specific software. For example,
a web designer with extensive knowledge of Flash and ActionScript (Flash scripting
language), may be the perfect candidate for a technology college. Unfortunately, knowledge
within one’s field does not automatically translate into being an effective teacher.
7
20. The outcome of this study should give educators more effective teaching tools, for
students to ultimately get the most out of any particular software program. This was achieved
by researching two widely used learning theories within the realm of natural learning (the
classroom). In narrowing to specific software, the study may identify whether differing
applications of learning theories are required for precise focuses of learning (Lawless &
Pellegrino, 2007). Furthermore, the results found will give instructors of the software
programs a defined and successful teaching direction, while also translating to a wider
understanding for them to build upon. Armed with this study’s results from a real classroom,
the computer software instructor can build his or her class curriculum around the proper
learning theory for the software being taught.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: Is constructivist or behavioral learning theory more beneficial
8
when teaching multimedia software?
Research Question 2: Is there a difference in the effectiveness of learning between
Photoshop and InDesign when teaching multimedia software?
Research Question 3: Are there interactions between learning theory and software
with regards to teaching multimedia software?
Significance of the Study
The value of this study comes from additional significant information added to the
established constructivist and instructivist debate, which is important to psychologists,
educators, national education associations, and governmental groups concerned with
education (Cronjé, 2006, Kozma, 2003; Lunenberg, 1998). While there may never be a
21. definitive answer on whether the constructivist or behavioral theory is better, as seen with the
multitude of conflicting results found in articles, this study intended to find evidence on
whether the discrepancy is due to the variability of subject matter (Baylor & Kitsantas, 2009;
Boghossian, 2006; Hackmann, 2004; Mvududu, 2005; Saljo, 2009). No one learning theory
has been accepted to teach; this may be due to the lack of a single theory’s suitability to teach
all subjects (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Saljo, 2009). While a single theory may not be
blanketed to teach all, this does not rule out a theory’s validity for a specific subject. In
researching several learning theories’ appropriateness for specific use, the general question of
range of applicability will be addressed.
The continued quest for knowledge on specific subjects always calls for a reflection
on previous literature; hence, the research found in this study could provide a jumping-off-point
for further research. Moreover, the blending of learning theories specific to psychology
and educational values with technology makes this study quite relevant to the field of
educational psychology (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Since no study is absolutely free of
errors, the quality features and shortcomings will add information to the existing education
and technology body of literature. Additionally, this study imparts a firm basis for further
research on teaching technology software.
Definition of Terms
The first construct is learning theory. This relates to the broader sense of differing
methods used to turn information into knowledge, but is specifically looked upon as the
informational delivery scheme used by an instructor in a classroom setting (Cooner, 2010;
9
22. Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009; Zhang, 2010). A multitude of variables can fall under the
construct learning theory; therefore, the amount had to be narrowed for the study.
Constructivism and behavioral learning were chosen for learning theory, because of
their seemingly opposing methods of instruction. Constructivism encourages learning by
interacting with the information, since knowledge is individually constructed based on
personal interpretation (McKenna & Laycock, 2004). Alternately, behaviorists believe
knowledge is objective and can efficiently be learned through drill-and-practice exercises.
Manageable units of information can easily be communicated to the learner because
knowledge is seen as independent of the student’s subjective mind.
The construct learning theory will be measured as a choice of constructivism or
behavioral learning. These nominal variables will be assigned according to the random group
placement of the participant.
The second construct is multimedia software. The construct is a broad category of
programs written for specific design operations on the computer (Adobe, 2009). This
construct could have many variables as well, but only two were chosen for this study. A
number of software packages are taught through the selected college, but Photoshop and
InDesign exemplify programs used by many, often in conjunction, but are utilized for very
different purposes (Adobe, 2009). The construct multimedia software will be measured as
either Photoshop or InDesign. These nominal variables will be assigned according to the
random group placement of the participant.
The last construct is knowledge, which is the measurable amount of retained
information on any particular subject matter within one’s knowledge base (Cooner, 2010).
10
23. Knowledge is split into two variables. Post-lesson assessment, the first variable, is the
student’s comprehension of information given through the lesson. The second variable is pre-lesson
assessment, which represents the student’s understanding of the subject prior to taking
11
the lesson.
The construct knowledge was measured using a portion of the uCertify Adobe
Certified Expert exam study guide. The exam, in its entirety, is an industry standard used to
measure an individual’s competency in a particular Adobe software package (Adobe, 2009).
The measurement is scored based upon correctly answered questions and requires an
accuracy of at least 70% for an individual to pass the exam (Adobe Partner Connection
[APC], personal communication, October 28, 2009). The portions of uCertify Photoshop
ACE and uCertify InDesign ACE exam study guides used will specifically measure the
subject’s ability with elements of those computer software programs.
Assumptions
For the first assumption, it is important to understand the interpretation of learning
and the experimental study of learning to comprehend the field of learning (Hill, 2002). This
theoretical assumption directs the belief that lessons and experimentation in the classroom
should lead to a better understanding of the student’s learning as a whole.
A topical assumption for this study is the general materials within the lessons given
via the computer and those in the classroom setting are essentially the same. The difference is
only seen through the application of learning theory, which renders the delivery method
inconsequential. The assumption is made with the knowledge of potential differences, but the
belief that the study’s focus renders the disparity insignificant. This assumption should stand
24. valid because Frederickson, Reed, and Clifford (2005) found the quality of the instruction
outweighs the course delivery.
Due to the varying features, intended uses, and breadth of software currently
available, the assumption that some software may be more demanding to learn is a factor.
Due to this topical assumption, multiple software packages were tested to identify any
differences.
The quantitative methodology dictates any data reported as truth must be void of
researcher subjectivity (Taylor & Kermode, 2006). This methodological assumption,
objectivity absent of human distortion, shaped the research design of the study.
The second methodology assumption is the belief there is a cause to every event,
which is influenced by recognized or unknown conditions (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,
2007). Furthermore, connections between these non-capricious, natural world causes and
conditions can be found and studied. This identification and understanding allows for the
development of scientific laws on what to expect in such an event. The expectation of
determining cause and event influenced this study’s research design.
The last methodology assumption is reliable knowledge as the result of experience
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). In the realm of science, this experience is interpreted as
empirical evidence for a theory or hypothesis. Empirical evidence is derived by research,
classification, quantification, relationship discovery, and the approximation of truth. The last
assumption guided the research design choices within quantitative research and
experimentation.
12
25. Limitations
The first limitation of this study was the use of non-probability sampling. In order to
test the subjects in their normal classroom environment and ensure as little disruption to the
class as possible, convenience sampling was utilized. The sampling procedure tested multiple
sections of Digital Image Manipulation, which was the introductory Photoshop course.
Additionally, various sections of the Digital Layout (InDesign), Digital Illustration or Digital
Typography (Illustrator) classes were employed. Digital Illustration and Digital Typography
were used as additional classes since they were prerequisites for Digital Layout. Utilizing the
students from the Illustrator class ensured the study achieved the required amount of subjects.
Non-probability sampling is a limitation because it affects the study’s external
validity. To ensure generalizability, it is important for relationships among variables to
remain robust (Hultsch, MacDonald, Hunter, Maitland, & Dixon, 2002). Typically, a suitable
representation is accomplished by using randomized sampling, which yields a broad
illustration of the population. Since this study is not using random sampling, it is difficult to
determine whether the chosen sample actually represents the population as a whole.
Using computer mediated instruction for lessons and quizzes may also be seen as an
additional limitation. An argument might be made that instruction given via computer has a
closer resemblance to online learning than traditional classroom learning. This opens a
debate with the intention of proving the instructional delivery methods may not be
comparable. The question over online versus traditional learning is well established and
conclusions run the gamut. Some authors report in favor of traditional, whereas those in
opposition support online learning, while others dispute any difference between the two
13
26. (Edmonds, 2006; Poirier & Feldman, 2004; Waschull, 2001). An assumption, stated earlier,
was made to account for this particular limitation, which notes the only difference in learning
as the application of learning theory (Frederickson, Reed, & Clifford, 2005).
The next limitation this study may have faced was learners with a non-computer
oriented focus might have greater difficulty learning the software due to inexperience. A
student with very little knowledge of computers might face a dramatic learning curve by
simply learning the operating system, without the additional mental effort needed to learn in-depth
software. This is due to the amount of errors experienced by novice computer users
versus more computer-literate students (Kay, 2007). Errors are found to disrupt learning;
therefore, the more errors that occur, the harder it is to learn the software.
The last limitation found was the use of the same testing method for all groups. It
could be argued the assessment, modified uCertify Adobe Certified Expert (ACE) study
guide exam, was conducive to the instructivist views of teaching and testing, but
counterintuitive for constructivist beliefs (McKenna & Laycock, 2004). The appropriate
assessment format for the constructivist instruction would be authentic testing, applicable to
the information taught. To apply the assumption, a behaviorist exam would be used to test
the behaviorist lesson and constructivist exam for the constructivist lesson. Regrettably,
employing tests with a contradictory basis brings about the questions: Is the difference in
scores caused by the variables or a divergence in the tests? Are the tests actually equal? Is
there a way to make such dissimilar tests equivalent?
The ACE assessment was used to ensure consistency in testing by implementing an
industry standard exam. This exam was not available in a constructivist relevant format.
14
27. Furthermore, the decision to utilize the ACE exam would stand no matter its basis, since it
was the only accepted exam on the market for gauging Adobe software knowledge.
Ultimately, this was the test all students would take for certification in the design field.
Regardless of the method of gaining knowledge, the Adobe Certified Expert exam was the
standard design certification employers expected to see on a resume.
Nature of the Study
The study of learning follows a belief, which denotes understanding and meaning are
derived from the structure, organization, and delivery of information (Fardanesh, 2002).
While learning theories are resources that can guide an individual to an area of solutions,
these theories cannot determine the actual solution. Accordingly, the experimental study of
learning was born of necessity to assess theoretical learning systems, and derive appropriate
applications to deal with those theories (Hill, 2002). The interpretation of how individuals
learn and experiments concerning the study of learning are a necessary pair for the
understanding of learning.
Learning theories include a myriad of philosophies that individually highlight a
particular process of learning (Hill, 2002). Remaining mindful of the specific theory,
experiments, as well as the larger picture as a whole, the researcher will have a better
understanding of learning conditions and possible solutions to learning problems. The
comprehensive definition over the many facets of learning theories and experimentation
drives the conceptual framework of this study. Thus, the particular structure and basis of
research, which connects the concept of this inquiry, is a learning theory framework.
15
28. CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
No matter the subject, theme, or method of delivering information, educators are at
the heart of learning (Merriam, 2008). The transcendence across setting and student
population leads to a determination to understand the act of learning. The more the
educational community understands how students learn, the better each instructor becomes at
structuring learning activities to facilitate knowledge. Popular beliefs understand learning in
a myriad of different ways. Some theorists consider learning a purely cognitive process,
where the mind takes in information and converts it to knowledge. This knowledge can then
be observed as a behavioral change. In opposition, learning is seen as a widespread endeavor,
including the individual’s mind, body, and emotions.
Theories on the act of learning have seen fluctuations of favor as the modern world
and educational system have changed (Aguilera & Lahoz, 2008). Teaching techniques have
evolved in adaptation of newer resources and learning environments. Technological advances
have created new tools for teaching and learning to the extent that government agencies
heavily invested monetarily to encourage the use of technology in schools (Lawless &
Pellegrino, 2007). This overt encouragement is also a response to the enormous movement of
technology in the workforce.
The weight of an ever-changing world is felt by all who have an association with
education (Aguilera & Lahoz, 2008). In response, researchers have conducted studies
implementing various learning strategies. Unfortunately, it becomes apparent when analyzing
each study’s results that no single inquiry has the breadth to adequately reflect an
16
29. instructional approach to handle all subjects, situations, and students (Lawless & Pellegrino,
2007). As a result, the current study focused on particular applicable theories with relevance
to actual teaching situations. Accordingly, the examination of two specific learning theories’
appropriateness for teaching distinct multimedia programs was conducted within a college
environment.
The literature review chapter will give a look into the study’s structure, theoretical
framework, as well as constructs to be analyzed. The constructs include learning theory,
multimedia software, and knowledge. Furthermore, a review of relevant literature
contributing to the discussion of methodological choices will be discussed. This involves
common and alternative methodological approaches to research on the topic, as well as the
current study’s approach. Additionally, instructional delivery and assessment will be
examined.
The strategy used to gather data for this study primarily rested with a review of
published journal articles, but also utilized books to fill in gaps of information. Individual
resources were also acquired by consulting relevant articles’ references. The Denver Public
Library system was used to access books, which includes Prospector and WorldCat
interlibrary loans. The articles were derived from multiple electronic databases: Academic
Search Premier, Business Source Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, Health and Psychosocial
Instruments, Library Information Science & Technology, psycARTICLES, psycBOOKS,
psycINFO, Regional Business News, socINDEX, and Mental Measurements Yearbook with
tests in print. Additional databases include: ABI/INFORM Global, Dissertations and Theses,
17
30. ProQuest Educational Journals, ProQuest Medical Library, and ProQuest Psychology
Journals.
The search criteria used to explore the databases can be categorized by theoretical
framework and constructs. The search phrases used to find information about the learning
theory framework was: learning, education, instruction, teachers, instructional systems,
instructional technology, pedagogy, instructional design, learning sciences, teach, and
learning theory framework. For the construct learning theory the following words were
searched: behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, cognitive theory, cognitive science,
construct, learning theory, objectivism, direct instruction, and instructivism. The construct
multimedia software employed: software, computer, technology, Flash, Adobe, computer
software, software packages, Photoshop, InDesign, design software, computer programs,
computer software industry, e-learning software, and computer systems. These search
statements were additionally used within the multimedia software category: multimedia,
multimedia materials, multimedia instruction, media programs education, multimedia
software, multimedia systems in education, computer-aided design, informed design,
communication systems, multimedia systems. Lastly, the following phrases were used for the
construct knowledge: theory of knowledge, knowledge, prior knowledge, thought and
thinking. All searches explored the given expressions by using both the title and subject
filters.
Theoretical Framework
Theories within a field can be as important as the discipline itself, since models and
frameworks resulting from them are vital for the area to remain viable and credible (Gorsky
18
31. & Caspi, 2005). If results are not grounded in theory, they are simply data gathered around a
particular subject matter. The theoretical framework explains events, structures questions,
and allows researchers to test their study empirically. Consequently, to understand the human
behavior and practice associated with education, one must turn to a learning theory
framework. Accordingly, the theoretical framework will be discussed, as well as the pertinent
definition of learning for this study.
Learning Theory Framework
In a society consumed with acquiring knowledge, learning has become quite visible
(Saljo, 2009). With this apparent visibility, many individuals across disciplines and traditions
of research have come forth, each offering their own opinions and insights. The multitude of
learning concepts also means a large amount of potential ways to analyze each model. The
unit of analysis and level of inquiry ranges from the molecular examination of neuroscience
and surveys in social science, to the complex testing instruments of psychology.
Moving briefly away from technical studies of learning, it is also important to note
the concept is quite common in day-to-day language. Learning is frequently used to describe
an individual’s experiences (Saljo, 2009). Any student may be casually overheard saying
they learned a lot from their lesson of the day. The student’s statement can be taken as a
report of their experience, and recognition that learning is important within the role of human
speech. This is significant because the beliefs a person holds about learning and educational
settings plays a part in how the person approaches actual learning tasks (Loyens, Rikers, &
Schmidt, 2007a; Saljo, 2009).
19
32. Bringing traditional and researchers’ perspectives together shows the concept of
learning is used in many practices, contexts, and language exchanges (Saljo, 2009).
Identifying these facts and examining them within the realm of human practices leads to a
more complete picture of learning itself. Developing this understanding allows researchers to
see what qualifies as learning within their theoretical perspective and ultimately reveals what
is occurring and why.
There are two essential elements at the focal point of the learning theory framework,
teaching methods and the focus of learning, which is the student. Teaching methods are
largely personal to the instructor. Each set of methodology is composed of the teacher’s
beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge of learning and instruction (Young, 2008). These
conceptions are developed through learning experiences, interactions, and studies; thus, an
educator’s perception can shape views and facilitate the creation of his or her approach. To
encourage growth within teaching methods, the instructor must be shown the validity of a
particular method, as well as commit to consideration and integration of the new technique.
The individual learner is distinguished by many variables, which includes the ability
to learn, prior knowledge, goals, and motivation (Gorsky, & Caspi, 2005). These attributes
are important in determining the effectiveness and quality of learning occurring within the
student. The highly unique process each student engages as purposeful learning must be
taken into account when assessing whether learning has actually occurred (Gorsky & Caspi,
2005; Saljo, 2009). This structured manner of looking at learning provides the organizational
dynamics with which to research teaching methods used in an educational environment
(Young, 2008).
20
33. 21
Learning Defined
Theoretical perspectives on learning are fragmented due to the immense diversity
within education (Saljo, 2009). While some see the dissimilar views as detrimental,
recognizing these differences gives researchers a frame of reference for significant
epistemological traditions of knowing and learning. Various contexts are required to
understand the many needs and priorities in a learning environment. Consequently, the
definition of learning is elusive and often conflicting. Settling on a particular definition
involves sorting through the variety of notions ranging from simple acts of observation to
complex explorations of language, memory, and comprehension.
Research within scholarly texts reveals many explanations of learning based upon a
change of behavior. Whether the modification of behavior is determined by the potential,
stable, or enduring form of change, the definition distinctly states it as purposeful, as opposed
to accidental learning (Saljo, 2009). This stance of learning works on a cycle where
information is internalized, then behavior is externalized to show the change in knowledge
(Conradi, 2000). Alternate explanations note learning as making sense of information. The
act of creating meaning requires learners to assimilate experiences into existing knowledge
(Fox, 2001). The view of learning as understanding takes into account the structure of an
individual’s knowledge.
Beliefs on learning have been oversimplified in such a way as to explain it as
memorization or understanding (Fox, 2001). The simple views can be slightly expanded upon
to include acquiring practical skills or the understanding of a particular topic, but it stands to
argue that remembering the learned concept is also important. Furthermore, it should not be
34. seen in categories of learning, such as driving, language, brickwork, or alphabetizing files.
Learning involves the transformation of an individual and activity (Saljo, 2009). As a result,
learning is defined as a person’s ability to advance his or her results based upon newly
acquired knowledge (Conradi, 2000).
Review of Research on the Topic
22
Learning Theory
For at least a century, learning has been a major element of psychology, which
involved varying presentations and outcomes of education (Valsiner, 2009). When studying
learning, the processes must be analyzed within the many fields of research (Saljo, 2009).
These traditions of research have complex relationships with each other; therefore, bridging
them is often impossible. This is due to the immense variation of what is believed to be
learned within a particular learning theory (Zito & Schout, 2009). Some theories focus on
simple changes in the individual, while others look for a complex or expressive
transformation.
A learning theory simply for theory’s sake is pointless, but theories with sound
theoretical foundations, which improve curriculum and evaluation, are invaluable (Hean,
Craddock, & O’Halloran, 2009). Learning about useful theories requires research into their
assumptions, epistemologies, and nature of existence to understand the compatibility to
specific aspects of education (Saljo, 2009). Many theories of learning have influenced and
enriched psychology’s study of education, but two of the most recognizable are behavioral
learning and constructivism (Hean et al., 2009; Zito & Schout, 2009). This section will
analyze these important learning theories.
35. Constructivism. The educational community has seen a fluctuation in popularity for
many learning theories, but none so much as the enormous growth in the status of
constructivism over the last few decades (Al-Weher, 2004; Colburn, 2000). The
constructivist point of view spreads throughout a student’s school life to influence standards,
values, and practices (Al-Weher, 2004). Additionally, learning, knowledge, and teaching are
also distinctive within the realm of constructivist thinking. Knowledge is personal to the
learner. Consequently, what one person perceives as reality, may not be what another sees as
true (Al-Weher, 2004; Colburn, 2000). In order to construct a new idea, the student must
actively transform information by creating hypotheses and making decisions (Connolly,
Stansfield, & Hainey, 2007).
In constructivist learning environments, it is important for the instructor to mediate
the student through the process of learning (Al-Weher, 2004; Mvududu, 2005). This structure
is relevant for any activity or social setting, and takes into account the student’s prior
knowledge, what can be accomplished, as well as how a state of knowing can be achieved
(Mvududu, 2005). Furthermore, constructivism is a theory with many facets. The current
study allows many different views of the theory, while distinctly turning away from any
social learning aspect of constructivism to use a more cognitive approach. This allows for an
even comparison with behavioral learning, which is a theory focused on the individual. By no
means does this limit the study’s use of constructivism, since it is a vast theory centered on
knowledge that is distinctive to the learner. The sections within this heading will explain the
principles of constructivist learning theory in further detail.
23
36. Personal construction of reality. At the root of constructivist beliefs is the vastly
intricate human mind. Within the mind is knowledge, which is developmental, internally
constructed, and nonobjective (Herring, 2004). Accordingly, knowledge cannot be passively
absorbed; the individual must actively construct his or her own knowledge (Lunenberg,
1998). Students cannot be information recorders. Instead, they must build structures of
knowledge. As a result, students are responsible for learning within an educational
environment.
Students in constructivist educational atmospheres are young scientists, actively
testing and exploring the world around them to develop understanding (Edwards, 2005).
These active participants are playing the part of the knower in the spectator theory (Phillips,
1995). An example of the spectator theory is learning ballet. The spectator seeks to learn
ballet movements by watching a performance from the seats in a theatre. Alternately, the
knower dons ballet shoes and learns while performing. The dynamic interaction with the
process of movements makes the student an organic part of learning.
The actual construction of knowledge is an intellectual transformation, which occurs
in a unique process within each individual (Gordon, 2009). The student must interpret any
new information by relating it to previously held knowledge on the subject (Loyens et al.,
2007a). This significant process of elaboration reconciles instructional encounters with
existing knowledge (Gordon, 2009; Loyens et al, 2007a). It is this struggle between current
personal models and new insights that causes the meaning–making endeavor to be distinctive
for each person (Cooner, 2005; Herring, 2004). An individual uses his or her own unique
24
37. mental structures, previous experiences, and beliefs to construct a personal understanding
(Clemons, 2006; Herring, 2004). This, in turn, creates an individual reality.
A person’s truth created through experiences, learning, and understanding can only be
viewed as his or her current reality (Henry, 2002). As a result, it is important for educators to
realize the marked change that must occur to accommodate learning. The constructivist
perspective of knowledge alters a student’s pursuit of objective truth to a search for the
consensus of valid perspectives (Cooner, 2005).
Teacher and student roles. Constructivist learners create meaning from their own
experiences. Each person’s subjective experiences are equally as valid as other’s encounters,
which gives no single person a privileged viewpoint (Boghossian, 2006). This idea is
changing traditional rules in the classroom to reflect that the knowledge one person possesses
might not be the same as what someone else holds true. The roles held in a constructivist
classroom both by the teacher and student are quite altered as compared to traditional
classroom responsibilities (Dalgarno, 2001; Sutinen, 2008).
In order to learn, the constructivist student must build on his or her prior experiences,
which is different from all other previous experiences of learners in the class. To facilitate an
opportunity for all students to relate to their own experiences, the students should be in
charge of what they are learning, account for differing learning styles, and the information
given within a context the students can easily relate (Dalgarno, 2001). Since the process of
learning is active, the focus should veer away from formal instruction to student’s activity.
The student-centered learning environment predominant among constructivist
classrooms develops meaningful learning, which promotes higher order thinking. This type
25
38. of setting is achieved by providing multiple perspectives and modes of representing
information, immersing the student in realistic learning situations, and encouraging self-awareness
and ownership of the learning within the knowledge construction process (Baylor
and Kitsantas, 2005). These independent students actively participate in learning by
exploring knowledge, problem solving, discussion, as well as designing and executing
projects (Al-Weher, 2004). In addition, it is important for learners to respect others’ views
even though they are different from their own.
The optimal student produced from a constructivist environment is a self-regulated
learner (Loyens et al., 2007a; Loyens, Rikers, & Schmidt, 2007b). Self-regulating one’s own
learning is successful for future knowledge in and out of school. This type of inner directive
is typified by setting and achieving goals, as well as taking responsibility for assessing,
observing, and reinforcing your own learning (Loyens et al., 2007b). Additionally, the
individual must understand which learning strategies are the most appropriate for what he or
she is studying (Loyens et al., 2007a). The self-regulation must permeate all areas of
educational activities including the underlying beliefs, cognitions, and intentions to reach the
full potential of achievement (Loyens et al., 2007b).
Students in a traditional classroom are not accustomed to real-world learning
activities or self-regulation; instead, the teacher controls the direction of class interest and
learning in general with an emphasis on achieving the correct answers (Mvududu, 2005).
Conversely, primary sources serve as a conduit in constructivist learning, which provide raw
materials for the student to relate to in his or her own way (Henry, 2002). Traditional
instructors present students with predigested information from a point of view based on their
26
39. experiences. On the other hand, primary sources supply the authenticity needed for a true
understanding of the materials.
A constructivist teacher does not hold the key to knowledge. Alternately, the
instructor becomes the facilitator as he or she supports the construction of knowledge, and
provides experiences with which students’ develop critical thinking and problem solving
skills (Neo & Neo, 2010). Instead of providing ready-made results, the teachers encourage
the students to orient their own path of exploration and resolution to knowledge construction
(Mvududu, 2005; Simpson, 2002). In the role as a facilitator, instructors must be prepared to
allow their students to expend energy struggling with problems, which may or may not have
right solutions (Mvududu, 2005). The students’ temporary state of confusion leads to the
confidence needed to achieve understanding. The mental experimentation learners engage
allows them to experience new ideas, interpret, reason and reflect on the encounters, as well
as the process of reasoning itself (Gholson & Craig, 2006).
As a facilitator, the teacher must be mindful of students’ growth and learning needs.
As such, authentic learning situations should be provided in a non-threatening environment,
which encourages free thought without hesitation (Al-Weher, 2004; Sutinen, 2008). Lastly,
instructors should also reflect on their own learning approaches to thoroughly implement
constructivist teaching and learning (Al-Weher, 2004).
Thinking and experience. Constructivism began as a human development theory, but
has been integrated into education and the nature of learning itself (Clemons, 2006). When
concepts and information are presented in a constructivist learning environment, the student
is responsible for evaluating the information and directing the process of inquiry. The unique
27
40. stance on knowledge is also worth noting, which is viewed as a working hypothesis since
knowledge is formed from within, as opposed to information forced from outside the
individual. Accordingly, the transmission of information from an instructor to student is
inadequate (Al-Weher, 2004). More appropriately, the student maneuvers through a process
of interpretation allowing information to be compared and integrated with prior knowledge.
Thinking is the result of a perceived incomplete event within a situation (Sutinen,
2008). The unfinished occurrence incites the process of inquiry, thinking. Once a problem
emerges, the person must interpret it according to his or her previous experiences. Next,
problem analysis begins, and a personal hypothesis is formed. Lastly, the hypothesis is
tested, which produces the problem’s solution. Essentially, thinking is the process of deriving
significance from doubt and uncertainty.
Thinking is not mechanistic; instead, it is a creative activity enabling an individual to
produce multiple solutions for a myriad of problems with the integration of ideas (Sutinen,
2008). The final outcome of each person’s recurrent functional experiments, also called
thinking, is often never the person’s original intention. The new line of cognitive activity
then reinserts itself into the mind as an experience. An experience, which can be a passive or
active element, is the connection between the person and the outside world.
We experience the world around us by acting upon things and enduring the
subsequent consequences (Sutinen, 2008). As a result, all experiences are distinctive to each
individual. People learn from these experiences, but an additional factor is needed to achieve
understanding. Memory keeps each encounter stored, so past experiences continually direct
the person’s actions towards the future. Ultimately, knowledge is gained from imperfect
28
41. events, causing the individual to think and subsequently acquire a new experience (Al-
Weher, 2004; Sutinen, 2008).
Problem-based learning. Learning and achievement within the constructivist
movement is the product of knowledge construction and self-regulation (Loyens et al.,
2007b). In order to encourage these qualities, the information must first be meaningful to the
student (Fyrenius, Bergdahl, & Silen, 2005). This awareness comes from the student’s belief
that data is related to previously acknowledged phenomenon. These criteria give context and
motivation for a new relevant experience. Reality based scenarios provides the relevance
needed to push the learner to become active in the learning process, which leads to the
integration of meaningful knowledge.
The goal of problem-based learning (PBL) is to connect learning, which occurs in the
school, with problems rising in the real world (Al-Weher, 2004). The authentic situation used
within PBL naturally integrates problem solving, inquiry, and action research. Additionally,
these situations encourage the wait time needed to produce multiple answers. This type of
learning environment uses real tasks and specific objectives to support meaningful learning
and build problem solving skills (Fyrenius, Bergdahl, & Silen, 2005; Loyens et al., 2007b;
Neo & Neo, 2010).
The authentic challenges found in PBL are ill-structured problems used to facilitate
learning (Loyens et al., 2007a). These circumstances mimic those found in professional
situations, essentially confronting students with problems potentially found in their own
future professions (Loyens et al., 2007a; Loyens et al., 2007b). Problem solving builds
reasoning, while the students develop a better understanding of the subject as a whole. This
29
42. type of learning is also seen when experienced people in a given field generate and utilize
gained knowledge (Loyens et al., 2007b).
As the constructivist discourse has grown strong, the educational community has seen
a powerful model emerge for producing meaningful knowledge, as well as explain how
students learn (Gordon, 2009). Since knowledge does not merely exist from a constructivist
standpoint, each angle a phenomenon is viewed changes the values a researcher considers
important. Consequently, each individual’s viewpoint coupled with his or her previous
knowledge has the potential for countless results. Eloquently stated, reflections of nature can
be seen in simple ideas, but only the human mind can construct complex ideas (Phillips,
1995).
Behavioral learning. The main principle of behavioral psychology is all changes
occurring within a person manifest themselves through their behavior (Mvududu, 2005). For
this reason, learning is a change in observable behavior due to reinforcement of a person’s
reaction to stimuli within an environment. Behavioral learning theory is a teacher-directed
approach, where students seek to accumulate knowledge, and instructors aim to convey
knowledge. It is the teacher’s responsibility to fill the empty vessels, which are their students.
The reliable knowledge found in the world must be translated by instructors, which is
then replicated and structured in the mind of the learner (Mvududu, 2005). This type of
structured instruction has been invaluable in improving the education of disadvantaged and
disabled people (Kozioff, LaNunziata, Cowardin, & Bessellieu, 2001). Since behavioral
learning works where other learning theories have failed, it is thought the theory is only
appropriate for those populations. On the contrary, behavioral learning has been field tested
30
43. and found effective with a myriad of populations, which includes average, challenged, and
exceptional students. The remainder of the behavioral learning sections will discuss
important concepts surrounding this philosophy.
Behavioral learning history. Behaviorism had many important contributors, which
helped shape the theory; one being a completely separate philosophy and the other was
influential theorists within behaviorism itself. Firstly, the philosophical movement positivism
had a strong impact (Boghossian, 2006). Positivists only acknowledge natural occurrences
and characteristics of knowable phenomena, as well as the conformity and orderly sequence
of empirical truth. They also believed experimentation and observations were the only true
methods of determining relationships. If only externally viewed phenomena can be accepted,
then any subjective ways of ascertaining understanding is discredited.
Early behaviorists also shaped the theory with a firm stance on what can be learned
from the behavior of humans and animals. Two of the most popular theorists were John
Watson and B. F. Skinner (Overskeid, 2008). Watson (1913) took psychology from the study
of consciousness and analysis of mental states, to the deconstruction of complex states into
simple elements. Furthermore, he believed the straightforward factors, an organism’s
stimulus and response, should be analyzed. Shaking off the strongly held need felt by other
psychologists to examine consciousness, Watson realized habit formations and integrations
were the means of adjustment to an environment. This indicated a particular stimulus led to a
certain response because of hereditary and habits, which changed the viewpoint of
psychology to see the science of behavior could stand as independent.
31
44. Skinner furthered Watson’s legacy by moving beyond prediction and controlling
behavior to integrating understanding as the goal (Overskeid, 2008). He made headway in the
field of behaviorism with operant conditioning, which is associative learning where the
response is contingent on the appearance of the reinforcement (Costall, 2004). The
relationship between a behavior and the environment is important to determining the
meaning behind the behavior (Overskeid, 2008). No matter the particular contributor to
behavioral learning theory, the consensus remains within the field that private motives for an
organism’s actions is speculation compared to observable empirical research.
Behavior defined. B.F. Skinner thought of himself in the same way as those he
studied (Skinner, 1983). He further noted his behavior was nothing more than the result of
his genetics, personal history, and current setting (Boghossian, 2006; Skinner, 1983).
Behavior is simply what a person is doing (Costall, 2004). In particular, behavior is the part
of a person, which is engaging, acting upon, or communing with the world.
Sensory input, which motivates, shapes, or brings forth behavior, is comprised of
reinforcement and stimuli (Overskeid, 2008). While the input guides a person’s actions, it is
first changed and expanded before incorporating into a behavior. The possibility of what will
happen as a result of the reinforcement is often equally as important as the actual sensory
input. This is due to individuals’ response to feedback, which allows for problem solving and
in extreme circumstances, survival.
A person’s behavior is constantly evolving (Magliaro, Lockee, & Burton, 2005).
Useful behaviors are strengthened by subsequent consequences; because differing
consequences are found in different environments, even with the same behavior, they must
32
45. be expected only within the particular context in which it occurred. It is only the consequence
restricted to context, not the reason the behavior was initiated. For example, deep cavernous
termite hills are not the cause of an anteater’s long tongue. Conversely, the evolution of the
animal’s tongue has enabled it to reach termites in deeper burrows.
In a learning environment, there are two categories of behavior, which are lower
order and higher order. Lower levels of behavior involve memorization or rote learning of
basic concepts; whereas, reflection and problem solving is considered higher order behavior
(Kozioff et al., 2001). Everyday learning activities involve both types of behavior (Kozioff et
al., 2001; Magliaro et al., 2005). For instance, multiple levels of behavior are seen in a
chemistry class where students must learn the periodic table abbreviations (memorization)
and be able to set up a scientific station (rote), before creating an experiment (problem
solving) and determining limitations after the study is completed (reflection). Instructors of
all subjects in each grade level must begin teaching basic skills before students can move on
to higher levels of learning (Magliaro et al., 2005).
Teacher’s role. Learning is a perceived change in an individual’s behavior as a result
of interaction with the environment (Kozioff et al., 2001). Accordingly, teachers must
understand generalities on how people learn to properly develop appropriate curricula and
instruction. The teacher is responsible for delivering well-organized knowledge in the form
of instruction (Wang, 2007). In this traditional form of instruction, the teacher is seen as the
authority figure by which students are expected to obey. It is anticipated all students will
succeed, and when this does not occur, it is assumed there is an instructional problem
33
46. (Kozioff et al., 2001). This belief is derived from the fact that students are capable of
learning; thusly, there are no faulty children, merely defective instructional methods.
Changes in behavior related to learning should be documented to track proficiency
within the educational environment (Kozioff et al., 2001). Identifying mistakes must be the
instructor’s highest priority because learned errors take a tremendous amount of time and
effort to correct. The timely correction of errors encourages students to examine and improve
their own behavior. In turn, the exercise builds persistence, confidence, and patience.
Instructors often teach by modeling behaviors, which is more effective than trial and
error, since it avoids unnecessary mistakes (Chen & Shaw, 2006). Modeling trains students to
learn a new behavior by evaluating their own actions in favor of the instructor’s and properly
implementing the newly learned behavior. This is accomplished by attention, retention,
physical or mental imitation, and motivation combined with reinforcement.
Achievement is gained by using organized, supervised, and responsive teaching
methods (Ryder, Burton, & Silberg, 2006). This is implemented by directing the students’
instruction, pacing lessons, as well as emphasizing and supervising seatwork. Additionally, a
routine should be constructed, which utilizes a review of previously learned material,
presentation of new information, practice, feedback, and an incorporation of weekly
assessments. Ultimately, it is important for the teacher to learn the format of instruction
(Kozioff et al., 2001). By committing to the educational design, it is easier for each teacher to
make it his or her own. Once this has occurred, the teacher is more apt to express creativity
within the lessons.
34
47. Organization of information. One of western history’s greatest accomplishments has
been the organization of the world’s knowledge rationally structured by subject and
independent of any learner (Boghossian, 2006). In order to adequately educate students, the
teacher’s task is to clearly deliver the structured knowledge with little additional
accommodation. This instruction begins with the goal of a specific behavior, which is then
split into smaller, more manageable tasks (Ryder et al., 2006). The target behavior
components are then taught by modeling, providing practice, feedback, and reinforcement, as
well as assessment (Magliaro et al., 2005; Ryder et al., 2006).
Behavioral learning instructional practices are analytical and dogmatic, advocating
delivery of chunked information and immediate practice, all within a framework of goals and
tasks (Hackmann, 2004). The activities are structured so the students can achieve mastery of
the practices and transfer knowledge to more advanced learning techniques (Hackmann,
2004; Magliaro et al., 2005). Each lesson, which is formed of precise presentations and
examples, is designed for the most logical communication (Kozioff et al., 2001). The
faultless transfer of information encourages generalizations and distinctions, so the concepts
may be used properly.
The sequential manner in which information is taught and frequently practiced is a
systematic approach purposefully guiding students to their goals (Baylor and Kitsantas,
2005). This approach should not be seen as mindless drill, but practice designed to improve
skills and confidence (Kozioff et al., 2001). The usefulness of repetitive performance can be
seen in a myriad of professions, such as dancers, writers, athletes, and cooks; thus, useful
practice enhances accuracy and retention. Furthermore, academic achievement improves
35
48. student’s confidence, self-esteem, and increases motivation for further learning (Magliaro et
al., 2005). This follows the notion success begets more success. Consequently, the
opportunity for practice allows students to connect with the knowledge and feel as sense of
accomplishment.
Opposing views. There is an ongoing debate in education on the utilization of
behavioral learning theory and constructivist practices. The support for each learning theory
is on a pendulum that swings back and forth, favoring one then the other (Cronje, 2006). The
theories in question are plotted on opposite ends and described as extremes on the continuum
of internal to external reality. By accepting one learning theory model, it is understood the
other is rejected, since their underlying assumptions appear to contradict each other. The
main points of contention between the learning theories will be discussed as the opposing
views are analyzed.
Science of inquiry. Many fields of education have become dominated by the
constructivist view of learning (Fox, 2001; Kozioff et al., 2001). Outside the circle of
constructivists, the theory is often considered a guiding myth or general idea, instead of a set
of clearly stated practices (Fox, 2001). Frequently, constructivism is only articulated as the
opposite of behaviorism. Unfortunately, the educational viewpoint has been integrated into
curricula for mathematics, English, teacher education, and early childhood education
(Kozioff et al., 2001). Consequently, a decrease in students’ proficiency of writing, reading,
and math occurs, as well as achievement discrepancies between affluent and minority
learners.
36
49. Educators are rediscovering that understanding of behavior is important for efficient
interactions within the classroom (Overskeid, 2008). Behavioral learning theory offers
significant facts and theories on daily operations of learning, as well as long term
applications. Conversely, with regards to instruction, constructivism seems vague at best; it
explains internal processes, not teaching practices (Cronje, 2006). The theory of
constructivism asserts only active construction can lead to knowledge, which is incomplete
and misleading (Fox, 2001). Due to the unclear nature of the theory, it can be skewed in
differing ways, becoming a detriment to others.
There is a distinct difference between learning and practicing a learning theory, which
becomes confused when using the discipline as inquiry. The disparity is among the utilization
of the theory’s research processes as the starting point for curricula design and using the
research processes as instructional methods for learning (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006).
The procedures used within a discipline may be fine for the researcher’s methods, but are
inappropriate for novice students new to a subject. To gain critical knowledge of a topic,
scientific inquiry uses methodical investigative abilities through formal instructional
methods. This process cannot be equated with constructivist methods of self-instruction or
open ended instruction, which is considered a misuse of inquiry.
Those who stand in alliance with constructivism see it as a learning theory that can be
enacted, an explanation of learning, and a useful set of instructional practices (Colburn,
2000). Furthermore, a specific philosophical position does not have to be executed, because
different settings and learning tasks may require differing perspectives and applications of
instruction. An explanation of learning should morph according to time, culture, place, and
37
50. subject matter. Accordingly, constructivist teaching models are generally suggested instead
of giving specific authoritative guidelines and processes (Hackman, 2004).
Prior to entering a classroom, students have accumulated many unique experiences,
which are transformed into beliefs and knowledge of the world (Colburn, 2000). Some of
these viewpoints are in line with the scientific community and others are not. These students,
who are not empty vessels, may have current knowledge that can be hard to change.
Constructivist teaching methods help students understand why some generally accepted ideas
better predict and explain occurrences than a student’s own beliefs. This is achieved by
encouraging a deep understanding of material, instead of giving students superficially
predigested information (Hackman, 2004). While admittedly the move from theory of
practice to widespread effective approaches has been slow to emerge within the educational
realm of constructivism, successful constructivist-inspired learning strategies and principles
are abundant (Hannafin, 2006).
Unguided versus guided. An instructor’s guidance during instruction is a hot topic in
education, and this is especially seen with both constructivists and behavioral learning
theorists. Constructivists believe students learn most efficiently through a minimally or
unguided learning situation. In this learning environment, a student discovers and constructs
his or her own information (Kirschner et al., 2006). In opposition, behaviorists provide direct
guidance during instruction, so students are not left perplexed in navigating information by
themselves.
In constructivist education, students are placed within a context of learning and
allowed to discover their own knowledge by engaging in activities as a professional
38
51. researcher (Kirschner et al., 2006). This heavy reliance on the discovery of important
concepts fails to impart a strong proficiency in a broad array of competencies (Kozioff,
2001). Moreover, it favors well prepared affluent children, which worsens the divide of
knowledge from the underprivileged. Additionally, constructivism shifts away from teaching
a body of knowledge, to students only accumulating the information they can experience
themselves (Kirschner et al., 2006). While instruction through practical application and
problem-solving skills can be helpful, it is unreasonable to think teaching should only use
these methods.
An expert working within his or her field is quite dissimilar to classroom learning
(Kirschner et al., 2006). Seasoned workers develop their skills over time and through
experience within their line of work. Giving the great responsibility of learning without
guidance does not create little scientists, but causes confusion, anxiety, uncertainty, and leads
to misconceptions (Kirschner et al., 2006; Loyens et al., 2007b). Furthermore, it can make
students doubt they have the capacity to learn (Loyens et al., 2007b). Conversely, when a
student is given adequate information, most have no difficulty assembling knowledge
(Kirchner et al., 2006). When a complete representation is given, accurate knowledge is
easily gained.
Constructivists argue learning is based on context, as well as the student’s attitudes
and beliefs (Mvududu, 2005). When an instructor attempts to teach students, the teacher may
be inadvertently working against the students’ expectations and susceptibility to effectively
integrate the information. In essence, guided instruction interferes with the learner’s natural
process of constructing newly situated information based on prior experiences (Kirschner et
39
52. al., 2006). While guidance might produce an acceptable imitation during immediate practice,
it hinders performance when the student attempts to reconnect the information at a later time.
What’s more, the acceptance of one’s responsibility of learning builds great confidence when
moving forward through further education (Al-Weher, 2004).
Teachers who embrace constructivist teaching methods may not fully understand the
learning theory, or its proper applications (Gordon, 2009). Facilitating learning experiences is
only part of employing constructivist learning; an instructor must also understand why active
learning is important and how the implementation is different from traditional learning.
Without understanding key principles, the teacher cannot effectively associate objectives
with the appropriate activity or assessment. Teaching in a constructivist environment is
complex and unpredictable, which means the instructor must concentrate on embracing more
academic responsibilities, than a teacher who simply assigns seatwork.
Active versus passive. A constructivist view of learning accepts communication as a
complex process; therefore, an instructor cannot simply deliver information to learners with
the expectation of understanding (Phillips, 1995). When communicating concepts, the
instructor should present a model within context and assist with a restructuring of views, so
they are logical to the student, as well as the teacher. The emphasis on the constructive
process allows constructions to be modified through reflection and action. Using activity
methods in the classroom for potential masterminds is a stark contrast to the view of passive
receptacles, students, waiting to be filled with knowledge. The distinction is also seen in the
chosen environment for learning. While constructivists encourage experimentation,
communal projects, outdoor research, libraries, and laboratories, behaviorists require an
40
53. ordinary classroom with crowded geometric rows of desks and bare walls only made for
listening (Dewey, 1899; Phillips, 1995).
Constructivist students confront and create understandings by taking into account
what is revealed in a learning situation (Mvududu, 2005). If the encounter conflicts with prior
knowledge, the understanding can be altered to accommodate the new experience. Through
the active process a learner can modify knowledge based on judgment. Constructivist
learning does not imply students are always actively constructing and reflecting, there must
also be time for experiencing, learning by listening, practice, and thinking. These activities
encourage the construction of many kinds of knowledge.
The act of building on students’ current thinking is the key to helping them
understand new information (Mvududu, 2005). Even if a student’s ideas seem unproductive,
it is the beginning of the knowledge construction process. Each student may see a different
pathway to a solution, but the goal is to make sense of the result within the community of
accepted explanations. When this is accomplished, all efforts can be reflected upon, while
remaining aware some answers are superior to others.
Behavioral learning theorists oppose the constructivist view of relic teachers of the
past, with bored students assembled in neat rows of seats (Simpson, 2002). Students do learn
by acting upon their environment, but are also reactive once acted upon (Fox, 2001).
Behaviorism accounts for the whole child by looking at distinct behaviors and reinforcement
contingencies (Strand, Barnes-Holmes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2003).
The physical activity required for constructivist learning doesn’t always translate to
mental activity (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Furthermore, there are many cases where activity
41
54. hinders learning or viewing is simply more effective. Firstly, applicable modeled examples
are more accurate than a student’s uninformed attempts. Next, lectures are equally as
effective, if not more, as a collaborative discussion, because lectures provide the whole
picture of a subject. Lastly, still graphics provided by an author are more preferable than
graphics created by students or animations, which can be distracting.
While active learning is quite popular as a new tool in education, demonstrating its
superiority has been difficult (Michel, Cater, & Varela, 2009). Due to the non-unified
practice of constructivism, a range of activities are classified as active learning; therefore,
accurate quantitative comparisons of effectiveness are difficult to achieve. Conversely, the
traditional approach of imparting knowledge to students is a well documented method of
instruction (Fox, 2001).
Knowledge as independent or subjective. In a constructivist learning environment,
students learn by interacting with their surroundings. This interaction leads to the
construction, interpretation, and modification of previously held knowledge (Sutinen, 2008).
The construction of one’s own understanding is an internal process that cannot be influenced
by outside elements. The students are placed at the center of knowledge, instead of an
instructor (Boghossian, 2006). This gives the students’ experiences and perceptions a unique
meaning and educational value. The constructivist view of individually constructed
knowledge implies there are multiple realities, since each person’s own reality is constructed
in his or her own mind.
Knowledge is not a reflection of an independent reality; therefore, there is no shared
reality (Boghossian, 2006; Fox, 2001). Each reality is unique and only lives in the mind of
42
55. the individual (Cronje, 2006). The God’s eye view behaviorists hold that truth is objective,
does not exist (Fox, 2001). Knowledge is perceived from a historical and sociocultural
context and is the result of the human mind. Although conceptual viewpoints may be limited,
constructivists do not believe the existence of concepts or things should be cast aside. It is
impractical to think each individual can know all, so people adapt to accepted explanations
within the population (Fox, 2001; Mvududu, 2005).
Behavioral learning theory dictates learning can be seen as an external observation;
more specifically, learning is achieved through the interaction between discernible stimuli
and the subsequent response (Boghossian, 2006). Knowledge is readily observable and
mental states are just another visible behavior. Moreover, most modern psychologists base
evidence on empirical testing and viewable behavior (Costall, 2004). These researchers
meticulously detail outside stimuli and a person’s response, as well as consider only impartial
supported evidence as scientific. If we only recognize truth in this way, we are behaviorists.
Moreover, people from all walks of life have tried to understand reality and gained shared
knowledge by organizing it into systems such as, science, history, mathematics, and literature
(Kozioff et al., 2001).
If individuals only accept the existence of their own mental states as true, they can be
reduced to thinking their own mind is the entire world (Fox, 2001). This seems to dispute any
other person’s existence or the reality of the natural world itself, which leaves the individual
in isolation. This ideology is irrational and calls its soundness into question (Kozioff et al.,
2001). Due to the constraints of a person’s surroundings, knowledge may result from our
own perceptions, but there is also feedback obtained from that world (Fox, 2001).
43
56. 44
Multimedia Software
Today’s classrooms are typically equipped with computers, general programs, and
multimedia software (Deal, 2004). Technology labs are standardized with specialized
software like, graphic design, desktop publishing, computer aided design (CAD), computer
numerical control (CNC), or video editing. Additionally, multimedia packages are used for
instructional support, which provides learning activities, informational content, as well as
hardware and software training. This section will discuss computers in the classroom, define
multimedia, history of software, and the specific software company utilized in this study,
which is Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Technology and multimedia. A problem in America’s schools is ensuring all
children’s potential by enabling them to effectively learn and carry the ability to ascertain
information into the future; this is marked by change, growth, and constantly evolving
technologies (Peng, Su, Chou, & Tsai, 2009). This is brought about by the significant
increase in the educational use of computers, which now guides instructional methods and
the technology itself (Peng et al., 2009; Winn, 1999). The ever-present machines are
powerful tools providing learning opportunities for all students in terms of communication,
work, learning, and life (Peng et al., 2009). The rapid change and frequent updates seen in
hardware and software requires expanded knowledge of computer skills to adapt to new
technology, synthesize creative solutions, and work effectively with others (Mbarika et al.,
2010). This ability to readily adjust is the product of academic achievement, retention, self-esteem,
and social ability.
57. The frequent evolution of software also provides a challenge for teachers as well. It
becomes a cycle of updating software to gain new features and having to modernize
hardware to accommodate the software (Clemons, 2006; Hill, 2004). Furthermore, teaching
materials and curriculum must be brought up to date, even though textbooks are often a step
behind (Clemons, 2006). It is also important for instructors to continue to renew their own
knowledge on technology; this prevents students from entering the classroom more computer
literate than their teachers (Clemons, 2006; Hill, 2004).
Technology has affected the manner in which students’ are taught, the setting it takes
place, as well as what they learn (Wang, 2009). Computers, internet, and multimedia
capabilities have brought about the dramatic change in education (Buckley & Smith, 2007;
Wang, 2009). Multimedia is the presentation of information through more than one process
(Buckley & Smith, 2007). For example, any combination of audio, animation, text, graphics,
or video used together in an application would be considered multimedia (Buckley & Smith,
2007; Mandernach, 2009). The integration of more than one media type makes materials
dynamic and more efficient. Consequently, this format has been found to have positive
effects on students by maintaining their interest and more thoroughly meet their specific
learning needs (Buckley & Smith, 2007).
Software. In the early success of commercial computers, software was developed by
individuals within a business who understood their company’s software needs (Damsgaard &
Karlsbjerg, 2010). Software manufacturing was formed several decades later as the creation
of specialized software was outsourced. In the beginning, the software industry had very little
standardization and each software package was designed as a unique system for specific
45
58. businesses. This was later changed as software companies began holding exclusive rights to
the software they produced and distributed to multiple customers. Proprietary systems that
were once able to stronghold companies into a single producer were released to publicly
available software. Standardization lowered the cost of purchase, increased functionality, and
gave consumers more variety in choosing programs.
The influx of new resources encouraged software producers to generalize the purpose
of an application by increasing the amount of features a product could perform, which led to
packaged software (Damsgaard & Karlsbjerg, 2010). Packaged software is a type of
application possessing common functionalities for all who use it. A package is standard
because all core components are the same across installations, although it can be configured
to fit a customer or organization’s requirements. Software used as initially installed are often
referred to as off-the-shelf packages; these need limited adjustment before using.
Customization is achieved by changing program parameters, purchasing add-on components,
or connecting with compatible software systems.
Multimedia software is versatile applications used to develop static or dynamic
creations including multiple text, video, graphics, or audio elements (Mandernach, 2009).
Certain types of multimedia software are used to create specific products. Examples of work
generated with this software are: websites, animations, computer training, print materials,
kiosks, and graphic design (Buckley & Smith, 2007). Software companies currently
producing multimedia software include Microsoft, Adobe, and TechSmith.
Adobe. Adobe Systems Incorporated is a leader in setting the standard for interaction,
collaboration, and the exchange of ideas through technology (Adobe, 2010). This impact can
46
59. be felt working, socializing, or transacting online, as Adobe has utilized its technology to
increase creativity, reduce paper, secure information, improve online learning, and streamline
work procedures. The socially responsible company began with a mission to solve the
problem of accurately translating text and images from the computer to print, which was
accomplished with Adobe PostScript. Continuing the role of solving technology problems,
Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop were created to perfect the quality of images used in
print, video, and the internet. The trend persisted with the creation of Portable Document
Format (PDF), as well as the acquisition of Dreamweaver, Flash, and several other software
applications.
Customers of Adobe range from individuals and small businesses to industries and
global brands like, The New York Times, eBay, and Sony (Adobe, 2010). These customers
have the shared experience of adapting to the technological needs of working within and
outside of the organization or communicating with others. The once impersonal tool called
the computer is now imperative for work, playing, and staying connected. This can be seen in
daily life as Adobe products are used to create billboards, television shows, movies,
magazines, multimedia presentations, and websites.
InDesign. The first version of InDesign went on sale in 1999 and was advertised as
professional design software with a creative environment to work with layouts, typography,
and graphics (Adobe, 2010). The software was meant to update the old concept of single
textual columns into flexible layouts and sophisticated digital design (Dabbs, Concepcion,
McMahon, & Martin, 2005). InDesign is a technology supporting multi-line organization,
OpenType, Unicode, PDF exportation, and scripting support (Kvern & Blatner, 2006).
47
60. Furthermore, the standalone multiplatform program is also offered within Adobe’s Create
Suite, which is a myriad of programs bundled for the creation of print and Web designs
(Johnson, 2008).
In digital publishing history, Adobe PostScript was the first printing language to
provide graphics and text, not using traditional paste-up (McClelland, Futato, & Futato,
2008). Using this language and new functions like transparency and Portable Document
Format (PDF), Adobe’s freeform program PageMaker became the most popular publishing
software (Gruman, 2009; McClelland et al., 2008). Two years later, QuarkXPress appeared
on the publishing market with great success (McClelland et al., 2008). Its achievement was
due to the program’s what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) structure and easily
adjustable functionality (Gruman, 2009). With the appearance of InDesign came the ability to
choose a manual layout or guided approach, as seen with the previous publishing programs,
in one software application.
InDesign’s workflow and integrated tools give the user an efficient publishing tool to
create digital, print, or online documents (Adobe, 2010). As a page layout program for print,
InDesign can be used to produce large items such as books, magazines, and newspapers or
smaller pieces like flyers and newsletters (Gruman, 2009; Johnson, 2008). Alternately, the
electronic publishing side of the application allows for documents to be sent directly to print,
or electronically distributed using PDFs (Gruman, 2009). In addition, an InDesign file can
also be exported for use in Adobe Flash or Adobe Dreamweaver to be converted into a
website (Johnson, 2008). For a single designer or a publishing team, InDesign simplifies
48
61. page layering, which makes the delivery of error-free appealing documents easy to achieve
(Adobe, 2010).
Photoshop. The complex software, Adobe Photoshop, offers a straightforward
interface, sophisticated filtering, and image editing features, which draws many different
types of users for differing applications (Cole & William, 2010). This industry-standard
image manipulation program is used by photographers, graphic designers, artists, web
designers, and many other professionals for film, video, architecture, science, product
design, and medicine (Adobe, 2010; Cole & William, 2010). Introduced to the public in 1990
Photoshop was originally used to edit photography (Adobe, 2010; Perkins, 2009). The
software, which can be used on Macintosh or Windows platform, is a stand-alone program
that can also be purchased through Adobe’s Creative Suite (Johnson, 2010).
Photoshop’s creative uses include image compositing, special effects, illustration, and
text-formatting (Johnson, 2010; McClelland, 2010). Additionally, it can surpass simple
image editing to construct digital artwork from nothing more than a blank document. There
are thousands of manipulations that can be made with Photoshop including color correction,
removing dust or scratches from a scanned photograph, as well as eliminating or adding
entire elements, like taking out a tree or placing a person in the image (Johnson, 2010). This
is why at least 90% of design professionals use Adobe Photoshop (Adobe, 2010).
Knowledge
For a person to become educated, the individual must learn a body of knowledge,
principles, and skills to become competent enough to contribute to society and develop his or
her potential (Kozioff et al., 2001). To accomplish this, educators must provide an abundance
49
62. of pertinent information and learning opportunities, so the student can move from a
beginning reasoning state to understanding a knowledge domain (Derry, 2008). This
knowledge is different from everyday learned experiences because the deeper knowledge is
not seen in daily life, although it is important for its normal existence. Knowledge acquired
through education requires purposeful and conscious involvement on the part of teachers and
learners.
How do students come to know information? If a person’s knowledge is discovered,
the knowledge is preset and independent of the individual (Simpson, 2002). This theory
accepts objectively correct knowledge that should be consistently held by all (Dalgarno,
2001). Alternately, if a person’s knowledge is made, then this creation occurs within the
human mind by way of experiences and beliefs (Simpson, 2002). The belief of many equally
valid knowledge representations results from the contradictory theory (Dalgarno, 2001).
Moving past knowledge acquisition is the actual knowledge itself, which will be discussed in
this section.
What is knowledge? Central to educational psychology is developing a science of
instruction to understand how individuals learn and improve the process (Mayer, 2008).
Instruction is comprised of the manipulations an instructor uses to modify the student’s
knowledge. Consequently, the matter of interest is how to present information in such a way
to achieve the expected cognitive processing. Furthermore, the learning taking place is a
change in knowledge, which can be attributed to experience.
Knowledge is the combined learned principles, facts, and truths gained from an
educational setting, research, or analysis functioning for the individual (Conradi, 2000).
50
