Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilizing Constructivist-Based Multimedia Principles in Blended Course Design Supports Greater Learner Autonomy: A Case Study

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

  • 17 Accesses

Abstract

Digital learning has certainly affected modern education, and as the pandemic erupted in 2020, digitally mediated instruction helped preserve academic continuity by moving courses online. This digital learning initiative required faculty’s active participation in cooperation with instructional designers and technologists (IDTs) and other experts in teaching and learning for success. This chapter has been written to exemplify how collaborative work could create transformative learning environments. In this project, the Office of Digital Learning at the University of Notre Dame assisted a faculty member in repurposing his instructional videos to enhance student learning by employing instructional design strategies and multimedia technologies based on a range of learning theories to create a student-centered learning environment. The first attempt for the project was to change students’ sense of control in learning and then targeted their emotions to create autonomy that helped them stay in the zone of proximal development. The learning activities in the synchronous parts of the blended model, structured with scaffolded instructions and assessments, supported students in developing the required knowledge and cognitive skills to construct new knowledge. The preliminary results of a postproject survey indicated three main impacts of the design on student learning: (1) learning assistance, (2) free navigation, and (3) increased motivation and engagement. Aside from achieving the goal of enhancing student learning, this project also offered opportunities for the instructor to gain firsthand information, assistance, and experience in applying theory-driven practices with appropriate technologies into a curriculum and course design. As the faculty member began to understand how digital learning can lead to a positive impact on his work, he would be more likely to use it and share the experience with peer faculty members about these types of digital learning initiatives. In turn, the University can prepare more faculty members to engage with the digital learning trend and build an ecosystem for revolutionizing learning through participating in this kind of cooperative effort. The insights from the project have become the blueprints and inspiration for the continued improvement of these efforts. The ultimate goal is to scale the design framework and its practices for wider application, rather than treating them as isolated strategies applicable to only specific projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, M. W., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Articulate 360. (2020, October 14). Storyline 360: How to design an accessible course. https://articulate.com/support/article/Storyline-360-How-to-Design-an-Accessible-Course

  • Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, K. E., & Hulleman, C. S. (2015). Expectancy-value-cost model of motivation. Psychology, 84, 261–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesta, G. J. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner’s self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caffarella, R. S. (1993). Self-directed learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 57, 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, S. R. (2016). The spark of learning: Energizing the college classroom with the science of emotion. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2014). Ten common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 151–173). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York City, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: Eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, F., & Lang, J. M. (2019). Small teaching online: Applying learning science in online classes. New York City, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–134). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2013). Institutional change and leadership associated with blended learning innovation: Two case studies. The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holley, D., & Oliver, M. (2010). Student engagement and blended learning: Portraits of risk. Computers & Education, 54(3), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Maloney, E. J. (2020). Learning innovation and the future of higher education. Baltimore MD: Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, M. (2015). John Dewey as administrator: The inglorious end of the Laboratory School in Chicago. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(2), 203–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krahenbuhl, K. S. (2016). Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns, and clarity for teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(3), 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1986). Self-directed learning and distance education. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education/Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance, 1(1), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhtar, K., Javed, K., Arooj, M., & Sethi, A. (2020). Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), S27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9457

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80(1), 53–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. (2016). Edtech and student privacy: California law as a model. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 31, 961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2, 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, J. A. (2003). Motivating students towards self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today, 23(8), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–245). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S., & Marx, D. B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance (p. 53). Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smale, M. A., & Regalado, M. (2016). Digital technology as affordance and barrier in higher education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Gale, J. E. (Eds.). (1995). Constructivism in education (p. 159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabata, L. N., & Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). The impact of faculty attitudes toward technology, distance education, and innovation. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 625–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2018). Teacher educators’ competences in fostering student teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S., Ozan, E., Kishore, M., & Tabrizi, M. (2006). Pedagogical characteristics of online and face-to-face classes. In E-Learn: World conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 2422–2429). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Digital Learning at the University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Kuang-Chen Hsu

  2. Purdue University Global, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Judith Lewandowski

Authors
  1. Kuang-Chen Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith Lewandowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kuang-Chen Hsu or Judith Lewandowski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Info, Ste G150, Univ of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Michael J Spector

  2. School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Barbara B Lockee

  3. School of Education, Baker University, Overland Park, KS, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Section Editor information

  1. Organization, Information, and Learning Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Stephanie L. Moore Ph.D.

  2. Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

    Heather Leary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Hsu, KC., Lewandowski, J. (2022). Utilizing Constructivist-Based Multimedia Principles in Blended Course Design Supports Greater Learner Autonomy: A Case Study. In: Spector, M.J., Lockee, B.B., Childress, M.D. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_181-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_181-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation