Exploring User Interfaces to Improve Learning Outcomes - CiteSeerX

Exploring User Interfaces to Improve Learning Outcomes John G Hedberg, Barry Harper, Christine Brown and Robert Corderoy University of Wollongong

ABSTRACT The concept of information landscapes has been a constant theme in the development of interactive multimedia packages. For the interface and access to this information to be effective and efficient, consideration must be given to the cognitive load placed on the user. Improvement in learning outcomes can be supported by allowing students to focus on metacognitive processes as a component of performance support built into the interface. The renewed interest in student-centred learning environments and the move to constructivist paradigms place responsibility for learning firmly within the control of the student, but this responsibility can only result in improved learning when appropriate support is available and the necessary skills can be developed with students. This paper examines these issues in the context of the development of a CD-ROM based interactive multimedia package, ‘Investigating Lake Iluka’, and reviews evaluation of the learning outcomes from initial use of the package.

Over the last decade there has been a significant shift in emphasis in curricula generally. Learning basic facts and definitions from textbooks has become less important than the application of knowledge in daily life and the development of higher order thinking skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and decision making. In many countries this shift has been developing in parallel with national programs which are emphasising a move toward a more literate populous. The quality of the learning outcomes of a nation’s education and training systems play a central role in determining the future levels of economic and social development. Many in-house industry training programs have realised that the focus should be on effective performance and problem solving rather the ability to remember facts and repeat theory without real understanding about its applicability Recent curriculum documents in many western countries emphasise the skills of investigation, reflection and analysis to generate or refine knowledge. The appeal of cognitive process training to support this development is obvious, and it seems far more efficient to provide the student with general-purpose problem solving than instruction on specific solutions to specific problems. If the learning outcomes from instruction are to reflect these trends, the learning materials being developed to take advantage of advances in technology must incorporate the latest developments in learning paradigms.

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 2

THE CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW OF L EARNING There has been considerable controversy, which will no doubt continue to simmer, over the clarification of constructivism as opposed to subjectivism (Molenda, 1991). The constructivists argue that learning outcomes depend on: • the learning environment. • the prior knowledge of the learner. • the learner's view of the purpose of the task. • the motivation of the learner. The process of learning involves the construction of meanings by the learner from what is said or demonstrated or experienced. This may not match the meaning intended by the teacher. The role of the teacher is one of facilitating the development of understanding by selecting appropriate experiences and then allowing students to reflect on these experiences. Construction of meaning is a continuous and active process. Inactive learners will not be constructing meaning. Having constructed meanings, learners will then evaluate and consequently accept or reject them. They take final responsibility for their learning. The overarching issue in a constructionist view of learning is that individuals generate their own understanding, therefore students need to have some understanding and control over their learning process. Tasker (1992) has noted that the creative thinking and constructivist views of the late Roger Osborne provided rich insights into the science classroom and into the world of the learner in science (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985). They also provided the substantial platform of knowledge which enabled the elaboration of a 'Generative Learning Model' for science education. Cliff Malcolm (1992) has supported these types of proposals and contends that children from the beginning develop theories and explanations which they revise and rebuild in the light of their experience. This is learning. Research into children's science (eg Osborne and Freyberg, 1985) shows that children's beliefs are often strongly held and resistant to change by simple instruction. To the learner, the constructivist learning experience may not look welcoming (Perkins, 1991). It may seem daunting and complex to those who feel ill-prepared for such creative freedom and choice of direction. Often constructivist learning situations suddenly throw students on their own management resources and many fend poorly in the high cognitive complexity of the learning environment. Cognitive support tools and the explicit acknowledgment of the double agenda of metacognitive self-management and learning can help. The scaffolding and coaching in the cognitive apprenticeship model offer another solution. Evaluation of constructivist learning emphasises higher-order thinking (Jonassen, 1991). It focuses on the process within an authentic task, rather than the product, and hence is assisted by student monitoring of the process. Context driven and dependent, this evaluation accepts the likelihood of multiple perspective’s, the possibility of a range of tasks, and the need to be evaluated by a panel of goal free examiners from a range of backgrounds . David Jonassen (1991) recommends the most effective application of constructivist learning environments is to the stage of advanced knowledge acquisition, where students already have well formed schema

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 3

and knowledge integration. Advanced knowledge must be gained in order to solve complex domain- or context- dependent problems.

MULTIMEDIA DESIGN IN A CONSTRUCTIVIST FRAMEWORK A number of multimedia design models have been developed which illustrate the combination of complex learning environments and which also give students their own real control over their learning environment. Our model (Figure 1) is based on a more organic and iterative approach than traditional instructional systems design and attempts to frame the design process in a constructivist framework. User/Designer View Complete Design Brief

Outputs include screen designs integrated knowledge and instructional strategies, user interface prescriptions and scenarios for users to interact with the proposed materials and learning tasks

Screens—nodes and links

Interaction Analysis View Initial Design Brief Visual representations of project space 1

Instructional Strategy Analysis

3

2 4

Description of the design metaphors employed, cognitive processes and feedback links proposed, initial navigational links, performance outcomes and interactivity requirements

View Summary of all information needs and requirements Needs

Learners Tasks

Project Space Definition

Description in terms of learners current knowledge and expected outcomes, the needs of the project in terms of learner performance, a knowledge analysis in terms of the task and information structure

Figure 1: The design process used as the basis for interactive multimedia package development. (Hedberg, 1993) Phase one takes the basic information derived from a needs assessment and converts it into a description of the Project space—the information which is to be included in the materials, how it is structured, what the target audience understands about the information and how it might be structured for the audience. A possible structuring

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 4

device might a concept map of the ideas and links that are to be included in the project. The second phase reviews the basic description and seeks to link the elements through an appropriate instructional or presentation strategy. It also seeks to identify metaphors which help both the design team and the final presentation of the information structure. The outcome of the second phase would be a formal description such as a design brief. The detail would enable the reader to understand the underlying knowledge structures and the ways it is proposed to link them conceptually and intuitively. The third phase is a third pass at the same material, this time with the express goal of linking the design ideas into a potential interaction structure. One output of this phase would be an interactive mock-up of the interactive materials using such tools as HyperCard or Toolbook to illustrate not only static display of information but also the graphical and visual metaphors used to create understandable links. The information included in this prototype may include visual, motion, static graphics, sound and data landscapes as appropriate to the concept under development. Each interaction consists of a node point which forms the basis of the interaction, a set of options which provide links to other nodes or additional information attached to the current node. One of the links must relate to earlier travelled or preferred paths through the materials, and each choice must inform the user about what is likely to occur as a result of a choice. These can translate into the traditional concept of results (correct or incorrect) or information feedback choice, but should also include simple feedback elements such as confirmation of choice (feedback that a button has been selected) or performance support enhancement such as suggested hints, or revision of the underlying concept/principle which might be employed to make the choice. Depending on the instructional strategy chosen another element might include the concept of duration, either time or the limit of options based upon previous choices or paths taken. What constitutes each of these functions and what they create in terms of cognitive skill development for the user are determined by their physical manifestation in terms of navigation options.

USING THE DESIGN MODEL- INVESTIGATING L AKE ILUKA The potential of both the technology and learning strategies to incorporate the recent constructivist initiatives in science education have lead to the development, production and evaluation of a particular interactive multimedia CD-ROM based package called Investigating Lake Iluka. The package has been designed, using the design model described above, to facilitate access to the information landscape through the learner’s choices by: • supplying accessible and useable tools to allow access to the scope of supporting interactive multimedia resources ( eg. video and graphic representations of concepts) • providing an adaptive navigation system and coherent information metaphor which requires little or no explanation. Investigating Lake Iluka has been based around an ecology simulation and employs a number of different interface metaphors in presenting the materials to the user. The

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 5

package is based on the concept of an information landscape that incorporates the biological, chemical and physical components of a range of ecosystems that make up a coastal lake environment. The user is given some problem solving strategies to investigate this information in a variety of ways using the range of physical tools provided. They can collect biological, physical or chemical data using the tools in Figure 2, as well as media information and ‘construct’ their own understanding of the basic ecology concepts embedded in the package.

Physical Tools

Chemical Tools

Biological Tools Figure 2: The physical, chemical and biological tool kits allow access to the simulated ecosystem data embedded in the images for each ecosystem. This facility has the potential to increase student understanding and control of their learning through control of their learning environment. Inquiry and problem-solving techniques have been embedded in the package through case studies of ecological scenarios presented to the user via media reports of problems posed directly to the user. Each scenario can be investigated using the package tools. It is expected that users will develop a broad array of scientific investigation skills using this realistic simulation. One of the unique features of this package is the facility for users to generate their own customised report which can be refined and presented independently of the package. The notebook has proved to be a valuable learning support tool, and a concept that is missing in many similar packages. The notebook gives the user easy access to the content to enable them to reconstruct the information in their own form. By way of extension, another recently released package “Red Shift” allows the user to capture their “view” of the universe and store the result in a QuickTime moviethis is a logical extension of the current argument.

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 6

Figure 3: Investigating Lake Iluka where the user is presented with a problem and a set of suggestions to help them solve a problem not simply choose an answer to prepared multiple choice questions. (Program from Interactive Multimedia Pty Ltd, Old Parliament House, Canberra)

METACOGNITIVE SUPPORT IN INVESTIGATING L AKE ILUKA Paris & Winograd (1990) have defined metacognition as knowledge about cognitive states and abilities that can be shared among individuals, including the affective and motivational aspects of thinking. Cognitive strategies can be addressed directly in the structure of an information landscape. The affective and motivational aspects of metacognition are embedded in the interface. The problem solving nature of Investigating Lake Iluka lends itself to metacognitive support through a number of means: • cognitive self-management: Students should form good plans, use a variety of strategies and monitor and revise ongoing performance. The notebook within Investigating Lake Iluka allows the student to collect and manage information from a variety of sources. Transcripts are not provided for video and audio material as this is not consistent with how students would process material in these media outside the package. They must organise and edit what is potentially an overload of information, within the broad constraints of an open-ended problem. The role of the teacher is vital to the editing process at this stage. Students need to be encouraged to be critical in appraising the relevance and credibility of

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 7

material. They also need to be guided through the development of a report on the problem posed. • provision of prompts: Hints accompany the problems posed within each ecosystem. Students choose to access these hints, which guide them to explore various areas of the landscape or measure certain physical, chemical or biological characteristics with the toolkits provided. The role of the teacher is to ensure students record data collected in a systematic and scientific way. • experience of experts: the reference book and a number of media reports give the student the chance to gain from the experience of those who specialise in ecology. The role of the teacher is to help students evaluate issues of hidden agenda, conflict among experts, alternate sources of information and timing of information release. You need specific and accessible knowledge to solve problems. An information landscape such as Investigating Lake Iluka provides the knowledge base and the knowledge schemas of experts in association with a mechanism for the student to collect, analyse, assimilate and synthesise responses to problems. The ability to see a bigger picture is facilitated by rapid information access and retrieval. Embedded content independent strategies are general learning strategies incorporated within available content. They support local learning but emphasise strategy transfer as well (Osman & Hannafin, 1992) . A well structured information landscape will provide a template for a range of content. The strategies used in Investigating Lake Iluka could well apply to other tools and other problems.

DETERMINING E FFECTIVENESS FOR THIS APPROACH The evaluation of this package involved three main approaches. Expert review of the package, one–on–one testing of the prototype materials via video observation and interviews and in-depth case studies, including the verification of the methods for data analysis of complex multi–path data This type of data collection varies from subject to subject and requires the development of special techniques for its analysis and interpretation. Examination of the contents of the incorporated notebook provided some indication of the pattern of student use of both physical and metacognitive tools in the package. This formative aspect of the evaluation was used to guide decisions on debugging and enhancing the package. A further evaluation strategy was employed with classroom groups of students, who were set learning tasks individually in the multi–media environment, and tracking data collected for analysis. Analysis of the collected data provides the group with an interesting opportunity for the continued development of techniques to extract the maximum amount of information for feedback to developers and those who commission interactive materials. Simple statistics such as how many users have used the system and the lengths of time they used it are relatively simple to extract, but more sophisticated analyses of how a particular interactive package is actually being used (what sections are being used, to what extent, what is not being accessed, where users exit the

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 8

system, by what method, and so on) were examined and the results used to provide feedback on the future specifications for new versions and added features. EXPERT REVIEW The naive expert tester for this review had an educational background in Mathematics and Computers. He was asked to review the program and to verbalise his actions and thoughts. He had not been introduced to the program before. His commentary was observed and recorded, and comments and observations were added later. The naive expert’s responses were about two main issues: interface conventions and the conceptual structure and functionality of the package. Interface Conventions • Text transfer to the Notebook: he wanted to cut and paste. He tried to “Drag” across the text as a method of ‘select all’, and felt that a click was not a standard method to cut and paste. “If I click on there (the text) I get the whole the lot. I can’t just pull a sentence off”. He found the process of editing a little confusing, but realised this was necessary otherwise text could be corrupted by the novice user. • The recording of measurements in the Notebook: he was confused as to what the pencil was used for. He felt once the hand symbol moved into his notes it should automatically turn into an "I" beam so he could write. The naive Expert wanted to use the pencil to activate this. "I was looking for a tool to turn the hand curser to an "I" bar. Conceptual Structure and Functionality Early in the testing process, he realised that he needed the help screens to fully understand how to use the program. After the introduction finished he worked through all of the Help screens. “I now feel that I have an understanding of that”. Within an ecosystem, the naive Expert selected a problem and used the Notebook to review the question and hints. He kept losing the question which was not at the top of the notebook ( he had other data in there), as the scroll bar jumped back to the top each time the notebook was opened and closed. This was subsequently rectified by putting the heading "PROBLEM" and a blank line before the problem in the notebook, so it was more easily located. He found measurement from the image of the ecosystem a wonderful idea, and set himself a problem of investigating wind speed in different areas. It took some trial and error getting measurements into the Notebook as the pencil was turned off and also hidden by the toolkit. The naive Expert expressed the desire to establish a transect for measurements to make a set of multiple readings. Within the media room, the naive Expert noted the video titles didn't give an idea of content and expressed a desire to see these indexed. He opened the notebook while a video was playing and began typing. “That is really good, that you can play the video and enter data.” Having used the program once, the naive Expert felt confident about its use and moved through the media room easily on his second visit while solving a different

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 9

scenario problem. He was still confused about the pencil, but with trial and error was able to record measurements. The naive Expert was impressed with the full screen presentation of down loaded notebook contents for editing in a word processor. The main outcome of this evaluation can be summarised as a series of guides to facilitators: • Work through the Help screens early in the introduction of the program to students. • The Teacher’s manual should emphasise that editing capacity is only on the blue pages of the Notebook and is activated by clicking within the notes. • There should be a demonstration early in the presentation of the program so students know to turn the pencil on to begin recording measurements. USER EVALUATION (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS) Evaluation of the package by teachers and students in the early stages of completion resulted in a number of insights into the design features of the application and also helped to focus the package objectives. One of the package reviews as achieved by introducing it to two classes of year 11 students studying the topic of ecology. Extensive observations were made of the student use of the package, as well as their response to the perceived outcomes of its use. The information landscape structure of the program relies heavily on teachers understanding of the processes that can be practised and the nature of the problems posed in the problem section of the program. The performance support tools, such as the Notebook, are an integral part of the investigative design, but they do rely on good direction by teachers. As an example of this issue one of the inbuilt problems in the Mangrove Ecosystem was posed by one of the teachers in these initial trials—”What types of animals are adapted to this environment?” After setting up small groups, demonstration of the navigation process and a brief practice with the use of the Notebook, the class was given the opportunity to use the package over a number of class sessions. The expectation from the teacher was that students would read or collate the relevant information from the package. They would analyse the information and present a synthesised statement of the key characteristics of the animals of the mangrove ecosystem. The students had no difficulty collecting the information via the notebook cut and paste facility, but for the majority of groups, the teacher received a complete print out of the "Animal and Plants Book" information for every animal that lived in the mangroves. Thus they hand not attempted to analyse the pertinent information and remove sections which did not answer the question. Two groups did attempt some synthesis of the information, but again tended to include rather than exclude irrelevant information. Interviews with the students and teachers revealed that they did have skills to synthesise such data, and had previously demonstrated these skills, but the students admitted that the power of being able to extract, in electronic form, every bit of information on individual animals from the package compared with the usual practice for such tasks of having to type in their response, or write it out by hand proved to be too attractive not to include all that could be collected. Even after a class discussion of the type of report the teacher was expecting the importance of

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 10

synthesising information to produce a concise answer, the final reports by students were much longer than the teacher would normally receive, if written resources were supplied to the students. After using the complete package, the skills required together with the necessity to edit and tighten reports was seen as an important learning point for students. It was seen as a new skill which up to the availability of this technology had not been an issue. Observation of the use of the navigation facilities indicated that the students had little difficulty in finding information in the package that they sought. The "Help" facilities were only used occasionally. It is important to note that the help was provided in three ways. Help on how the package worked and how to use the measuring tools was provided by animated movies of the screens with accompanying explanation. Help on how the package was organised conceptually was provided through a stack map which was always available and also allow navigational “jumping” between sections. the third form of help was provided through the use of hints and suggestions about where to look for solutions and what might be important concepts, this last form was highly context specific and provided specific ideas related to the learning task. OTHER TEACHER EVALUATIONS Information was collected on teachers response to the use of the package with their class and also through use of the package in workshops at local conferences. A number of key issues arose from this trialling. Some of the recommendations were incorporated in the release version, and others will be incorporated in future developments of the package. Most of the key issues raised by teachers were not to do with the internal workings of the package, but to do with the teaching process and organisation of their classes. The teachers involved in the initial class testing of the program were particularly excited about their students use of the notebook concept and were surprised at the ease with which their students used this inbuilt tool. However, they did find that students took notes and saved their notes effectively at the end of each session, but had difficulty determining what data they had previously collected when they started a new session. Teachers proposed that previously saved notes should be able to be read back into the package so that students could more easily continue their investigation. This feature has not been incorporated into the current version. There was also a general consensus amongst the teachers that the package had a much wider application than ecology education. Many teachers envisaged application to Geography and especially English, in the form of media studies. One interesting aspect of the evaluation involved discussion of student access to the video and audio scripts in textual form. The design team had intended to incorporate this feature, but teachers disagreed. They proposed that it was necessary for students to develop skills in summarise information from such media sources and if the students had access to a textual form, this would negate development of an essential skill for students. Teachers evaluating the package were particularly supportive of a number of features of the package that they saw strongly supporting the teaching and learning process. The features of the package noted in this context were:-

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

•

the level of interactivity

•

the measuring tools

•

the notebook facility

•

the video and audio resources.

Page 11

Their main concern was that teaching support ideas should be available with the package so that they could maximum advantage from the student experience.

E XTENSIONS TO THE PACKAGE On the basis of this initial work we have been encouraged that the package does in fact require the user to take control of their learning. The metacognitive structures within the package do work well to provide a comprehensible structure and support for problem solving. The main drawback has been the reluctance of the students to edit out redundant or unnecessary text in their reports. As a result of the expert and teacher reviews and the observed student use, it has been proposed that future versions of the software incorporate: Prompts or advice on report format either though expert opinion or structure This is not something that can be addressed easily within the package and is seen more as an issue for teacher support. Development of the analysis skills necessary to take information and reform it as an answer to a question, solution to a problem or as the component of an agued point of view is one of the key goals of the educational process. Extensive skills in this area are not likely to be achieved through us of a package like Investigating Lake Iluka, but techniques to support development of these skills are now being investigated with a view to incorporating them into the next version of the package. This is in many ways like the supportive structures embodied in recent releases of some software packages, cf. Microsoft Excel with its “wizards”. Expert scientists as Guides, how an expert would solve the problem There are a few research studies available on the use of guides or agents in instructional materials. The simulation of this process was well illustrated in Apple Computer’s futuristic "Knowledge Navigator", and there are a few simple examples that have been developed (Oren et.al., 1990) that make use of guides to support the users learning. Without an understanding of the implications for the instructional process, it is not clear how this support will be incorporated. Report generation facilities incorporating other media. The notebook within Investigating Lake Iluka has proved to be a valuable learning support tool, and a concept that is missing in many similar packages. The notebook gives the user easy access to the content to enable them to reconstruct the information in their own form. The limitation of not being able to read the notes back into the package when starting a new session will be addressed. The other limitation of the notebook is that it is only text based. This has been not only an issue because of

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 12

the storage capacity of the media forms available to students, but also a copyright issue, in that giving students access to the images, for example, would require new copyright agreements to be negotiated with the copyright owners. Simulation of ecological processes. Computer based simulations are programs in which the computer acts as an exploratory tool (Bliss & Ogborn 1989), supporting a real world activity while facilitating user understanding of the processes involved in complex and dynamic systems which may otherwise be inaccessible. The current level of sophistication of interactive multimedia applications provides an incentive for designers to produce software which fully utilises the capabilities of such applications. This is particularly evident in many of the more recent simulation packages, which exhibit a tendency to move away from the earlier simulation format of a pre-set model which provided a very simple approximation of the real world that it was trying to mimic. The exact nature of what constitutes a true simulation is not agreed upon amongst researchers or designers alike, but commonly the goal of the simulation is to provide experiences which approach the real world situation. There is a considerable volume of literature on the value and nature of simulations. They may be defined as the dynamic execution or manipulation of a model of an object system for some purpose (Martin 1988). Crookall et al.. (1987) consider a simulation as “ a special kind of model representing a ‘real world’ system, governed by a set of rules”. During the use of such models, the user often comes to see the simulation itself as a ‘real world’ in its own right. Such models represent systems as either an “in-place of” or a “bring to life” format. The question posed by some as to whether the terms ‘model’ and ‘simulation’ have similar meanings in this context may prove a pivotal point around which a better understanding of the cognitive outcomes for the users may be achieved. The ‘in-place of’ interpretation of representation applies to the ‘standard’ notion of a model while, as suggested by Crookall et al. (1987), both the “in-place of” and “bring to life” representations may be applied to simulations. It is the contention of the authors that many of the earlier simulation packages were little more than “in-place of” mathematical models, presenting the user with limited options in terms of control and outcomes. The overriding purpose for simulation and modelling systems remains; to provide a substitute experience and the ultimate aim of the developer must be to meet such essential design criteria as: • Producing a simulation that emulates as closely as possible the ‘real world’ experience • Design decisions are based on some appropriate educational paradigm. • Design decisions are made which are based on a sound knowledge of cognitive science theory. The interactivity inherent in many of the hypermedia based simulations currently being produced provide simulation models which not only enable the user to experience some otherwise inaccessible system, but to “bring it to life” in the sense that the user may interact with, obtain immediate feedback from, and perhaps even alter the underlying model. Interactive multimedia technologies have that added

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 13

advantage of being able to present visual interpretations of the modelling or simulation process. Such possibilities provide a means of achieving a deeper understanding of the complex interactions and relationships involved in a ‘real world’ system which may otherwise be beyond their resources as well as developing higher-order cognitive skills, the type of objective so common in recent curriculum reforms. The simulation components being developed within the context of Investigating Lake Iluka are taking two forms- one which will be a central feature of a tertiary version of the package and a second which will be an extension to the current package and will be based on the users manipulation of environmental values, both inbuilt as well as user measured from a real environment. Simulation of an Ecological Investigation. One of the shortcomings of training ecologists is that it is difficult to have them do the sort of ecological investigations that they would be asked to do on the job. This simulation will incorporate an interactive survey design for investigating environmental problems. This component would allow students to develop a survey plan to investigate a problem and then simulate the application of the plan. It would also include statistical analysis tools for the collected information. Simulation of an Ecological Process. The initial simulation to be incorporated into the package will be of algal bloom .The limiting factors which play a role in the development of an algal bloom in a lake are numerous. Some of these include, water quality (turbidity, particulates and the like), temperature, salinity, light levels nutrients, substrate conditions, and the presence of toxins and pathogens. The details of the simulation have been outlined by Corderoy et. al.(1993) and include set scenarios as well as complete user control over all of the factors associated with algal bloom.

CONCLUSION Through this discussion, we have tried to indicate a more grounded approach to the development of an interface which will still allow the user to achieve what they choose and yet make the process as easy and straightforward as possible. Using a design model, which emphasised constraining the cognitive load asked of the user, and also attempted to match the learning task with appropriate strategy tools, has facilitated the achievement of efficient learning outcomes. The resulting interface to a complex information structure has been streamlined and this has reduced the processing impost on the user.

REFERENCES Bliss,J., & Ogborn,J.(1989). Tools for exploratory learning. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning. 5., 37-50. Corderoy, R. M. , Harper, B. M., Hedberg, J. G., (1993) Simulating Algal Bloom in a lake: An interactive multimedia implementation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 115-129. Crookall,D., Oxford,R., Saunders,D. (1987). Towards a Reconceptualization Of Simulation: From Representation To Reality. Simulation/Games For Learning. 17(4).

Hedberg, Harper & Brown

Page 14

Hedberg, J.G. (1993). Design for interactive multimedia. Audivisual International, 1(6), September, 11-14. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33. Malcolm,C., (1992) Science and personal development, Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(1), 8-14 Martin, A.(1988). Out of the screen: Computers and simulation. Simulation/Games For Learning. 8(1). Molenda, M. (1991). A philosophical critique of the claims of "constructivism". Educational Technology, 31(9), 44-48. Oren, T., Salomon, G., Kreitman, D. & Don, A. (1990). Guides: Characterizing the interface. In B Laurel, (Ed.) The art of human–computer interface design. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison–Wesley, pp 367–381. Osborne,R. & Freyberg, P., (1985), Learning in Science. Auckland:Heinemann Osman, M. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(2), 83-99. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 15-51. Perkins, D. N. (1991). What constructivism demands of the learner. Educational Technology, 31(9), 19-21. Tasker, R. (1992) Effecitive Teaching. What can a constructivist view of learning offer?, Australian Science Teachers Journal, 38(1), 25-34