Running Head: MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 1

Development and Integration of Multimedia in Cognitive Constructivist Learning Environments

Richard Jones
Boise State University















MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 2

Abstract
A recent trend has emerged in field of education that emphasizes the use of constructivist
learning principles in educational settings. This has resulted in a call for student-centered
instruction that involves critical thinking, problems-solving, and the ability for students to
construct individual meaning and knowledge. This movement toward constructivist learning
also comes at a time when some schools are attempting to achieve a 1:1 ratio between students
and computers. The shift toward constructivist learning along with the movement to increase
computer availability for students will have a dramatic impact on the design and integration of
multimedia in the classroom. This paper is meant to provide background information on the
development of cognitive constructivism while discussing the guiding principles that should be
considered in the development and integration of multimedia in cognitive constructivist learning
environments. The paper will also discuss the potential impacts these efforts can have on student
learning outcomes and perceptions of multimedia use in constructivist environments.
Keywords: multimedia, behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, cognitive
constructivism








MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 3

Introduction
As the implementation of Common Core State Standards approaches, there is a growing
movement toward designing educational environments based on cognitive constructivist learning
theory. This comes at a time when schools are increasingly attempting to implement a 1:1
computer-to-student ratio in an effort to provide students with more access to technology
(Dunleavy, Dextert, & Heinecket, 2007). This shift in instructional approach and growth in
computer accessibility will impact the nature of multimedia development and its integration in
the classroom. An examination of this shift is essential because multimedia holds the potential to
assist with the promotion of cognitive constructivist learning in the hope that it will improve
student learning outcomes and knowledge construction. This paper will trace the emergence of
cognitive constructivism, define multimedia, describe the elements that must be considered when
developing multimedia or integrating multimedia in cognitive constructionist learning
environments, and examine the impact of integrating multimedia in constructivist environments.
Emergence of Cognitive Constructivism
Over the past two centuries, psychologists, biologists, educational theorists, and other
social scientists have all attempted to describe the process of human learning. The results of
these efforts can be seen in the emergence of a number of learning theories that attempt to
explain how humans learn. The three major categories of learning theory include behaviorism,
cognitivism, and constructivism (Lin & Overbaugh, 2007). While these theories share a lineage,
they each possess distinct explanations for describing how learning occurs. This section of the
paper is dedicated to describing the emergence of constructivism as a learning theory and
detailing the characteristics of cognitive constructivism.

MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 4

Behaviorism
Behaviorism and cognitivism were the first learning theories to rise to prominence from
these three major learning theories. Behaviorism and cognitivism focus on the transmission of
knowledge as the basis for learning (Herrington & Standen, 2000). Behaviorists believe learning
occurs as a result of positive and negative reinforcement to outside stimuli. Therefore, learning
can be observed through changes in behavior. Despite its early popularity, behaviorism lost a
great deal of support because it failed to explain why and how individuals make sense of and
process information (Yilmaz, 2011, p. 205). It was this failure that gave rise to cognitivism.
Cognitivism
Cognitivism is much more focused on the inner-workings of the human brain in
describing how and why learning occurs. Cognitivists view the brain as the center for
information processing and memory storage. According to Ertmer and Newby (2013),
[l]earning is equated with discrete changes between states of knowledge rather than with
changes in the probability of response (p. 51). In other words, the changes in behavior are a
result of human thinking rather than a simple response to outside stimulus. The goal of
education, then, was to communicate or transfer knowledge to the learners in the most efficient,
effective manner through simplification and standardization (Leung, 2003, p. 503). This would
likely require highly-structured, teacher-centered instruction. Nevertheless, the focus on
knowledge transfer left theorists looking for a more active and learner-centric model of learning,
thus paving the way for the emergence of constructivism.
Constructivism
Although constructivism is sometimes thought of as an emerging leaning theory due to its
relatively recent rise in popularity among educators, the roots of this learning theory actually
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 5

date back several decades. In the 1930s, John Dewey believed that knowledge emerges only
from situations in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences
(Wangpipatwong & Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This placed a greater emphasis on experiences
than was accounted for in cognitivism. In the 1960s, Jean Piaget added to this line of thought by
proposing the idea that learners are active and constructive in making sense of their
environment (Wangpipatwong & Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This contribution will be critical to
the definition of cognitive constructivism that is provided later in this paper. Finally, Lev
Vygotsky contributed to this history by suggesting that knowledge was constructed through
social collaboration (Powell & Kalina, 2009). These ideas, along with those from other
contributors, formed the basis of constructivism.
In reality, there are a number of different subcategories of constructivism, making it
somewhat difficult to provide a singular definition to describe this learning theory. At its most
basic element, constructivist learning theory is based on the belief that knowledge is constructed
by a learner and requires interpretation of the concept in the mind of the learner (Wild &
Quinn, 1998, p. 77). This means that knowledge is not simply mapped onto learners minds by
an instructor; rather, it is personalized by the individual. Another common characteristic is that
they all focus on activities and environments rather than on learning objects (Wangpipatwong &
Papasratorn, 2007, p. 22). This requires active participation on the part of the learner. While
these characteristics provide a general overview of constructivism, further examination is needed
before discussing its relationship to multimedia integration.
Cognitive constructivism is a branch of constructivist learning that stems from the belief
that knowledge is constructed by the individual learner. Its origins are usually credited to the
work of Jean Piaget. Piagets theory of cognitive development proposes that humans cannot be
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 6

given information, which they immediately understand and use; instead, humans must construct
their own knowledge (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 242). This involves the mixing of prior
knowledge and new information, using cognitive processing to create new mental
representations. Cognitive constructivism also requires learners to be given authentic problems
within authentic environments for learning: environments that correspond to the real world
(Leung, 2003, p. 503). This focus on active learning, authentic contexts, problem-solving, and
learner construction will be critical in discussing the integration of multimedia in cognitive
constructivism learning environments.
Multimedia Defined
This paper is not meant to provide a list of multimedia products that could be used in a
cognitive constructivist learning environment because the programs change continually. Instead,
teachers and instructional designers would be better served by understanding the definition and
characteristics of multimedia when attempting to identify or create programs. That said, there
are an endless number of definitions one could construct for multimedia depending on the
context in which the term will be used. Mayer, Moreno, Boire, and Vagge (1999) define
multimedia as communications that are presented in more than one form, such as when
information is presented in a verbal format and in a visual format (p. 638). This ambiguity
allows for a great deal of interpretation as to what constitutes verbal and visual formats.
Bornman and Solms (1993) offer a more explicit definition for multimedia stating that it
involves the combining of different media types such as sound, animation, text, graphics and
video for the presentation of information by making use of computers (as cited in Gngren,
2013, p. 14). While this definition is closely aligned to the one expressed by Mayer et al., it goes
slightly further by providing specific examples of visual and verbal formats as well as the
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 7

requirement that multimedia products be computer-based. A combination of these two
definitions will be utilized in the following discussion about multimedia products and their
integration in a cognitive constructivist environment.
Multimedia Integration in Cognitive Constructivist Environments
Before one can have a discussion about the development and integration of multimedia
programs for cognitive constructivist learning environments, he or she must first understand the
principles that should be considered in such efforts. This is somewhat difficult given the fact
that there is no universally-accepted list of principles within the educational technology
community. The principles that will be examined in this paper represent a combination of
suggestions from experts in this area of research. These principles include authentic context,
authentic activities, access to experts, student reflection, and collaboration. Before going into the
specifics of each of the individual principles, one must first understand how multimedia
communications foster cognitive constructivist learning in general.
How Multimedia Fosters Cognitive Constructivist Learning
According to Mayer et al. (1999), multimedia learning occurs because of a dual-channel
processing of visual and verbal information. This is commonly known as the cognitive theory of
multimedia learning. This theory also involves the belief that each of these channels has a
limited capacity and that learning occurs when individuals select relevant information and build
coherent connections (Mayer et al., 1999, p. 639). While the cognitive theory of multimedia
could be applied to other learning theories, the authors discuss its direct relationship to
constructivist environments. Mayer et al. (1999) argue that multimedia allows learners to build
referential connections between corresponding aspects of the visual and verbal representations
(p. 639). In other words, multimedia provides the visual and verbal clues that allow learners to
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 8

construct their own knowledge. This is an essential component of constructivism. Nevertheless,
this only addresses part of the equation that makes up the integration of multimedia and
cognitive constructivist environments. The other part involves the principles that should shape
multimedia development and the structure of the learning environment itself.
Authentic Context
According to Herrington and Standen (2000), authentic context refers to the ability of a
multimedia program to encompass a physical environment which reflected the way the
knowledge would ultimately be used (p. 199). Multimedia allows educators to create a virtual
setting that goes beyond the classroom itself. In their study, Herrington and Standen (2000)
created a program that simulated employment in a research company. In this case, the
multimedia program contained an authentic setting within the product itself. The other option
would have been for an instructor to structure a course based on a simulation where learners
were seen as employees in a similar fictitious setting. In this case, a multimedia product used in
the course would not have to include a physical setting within the product itself because the
context is provided in a different fashion. Thus, whether through a simulated context within a
multimedia program or through the use of a multimedia product within a classroom structured
around an authentic simulation, context has been provided where students can construct their
knowledge. This is only one issue of authenticity that must be considered when attempting this
integration.
Authentic Activities
The use of authentic activities is essential if one is to integrate multimedia in cognitive
constructivist environments. Herrington and Standen (2000) define authentic activities as
activities that have real-world relevance, and which present a single complex task to be
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 9

completed over a sustained period of time (p. 199). An example might be a task that requires
economics students to calculate their income taxes based on real wages, taxes, and deductions.
In this case, a computer-based multimedia program could be created that allows learners to
complete these calculations as part of a virtual setting. If a program could not be developed, an
educator could build an instructional multimedia video that discusses this same process, but
students would be asked to complete the calculations using another medium. In either case,
students would partake in authentic, real-world tasks that involve the use of a multimedia
product. The multimedia product would allow learners to access and process information, giving
them a medium from which they can begin to construct their individual knowledge.
Access to Experts
In cognitive constructivist environments, it is important for students to have access to
experts as they construct their own knowledge. According to Herrington and Standen (2000),
experts are able to model their thinking and describe the mental processes they use in solving
authentic problems. This is important for learners who lack a complete understanding as to how
one might go about addressing the problems that have been proposed by the instructor.
Multimedia provides an excellent method for instructors to develop a direct connection between
experts and students. This could be in the form of a video or through an interactive multimedia
program that had expert commentary built directly in the program. It is true that access to
experts is possible without multimedia, but multimedia allows for additional resources when
establishing such connections. This connection to others will also be necessary in cognitive
constructivist environments when it comes to student collaboration.


MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 10

Student Collaboration
Student collaboration is essential when promoting cognitive constructivist learning. Wild
and Quinn (1998) address this point in the context of displaying student work samples for other
students to see. Wild and Quinn (1998) argue that interactive multimedia provides a medium
through which learners can display their visual models and interact with other students, thus
allowing them to reconsider their own interpretations of the same information. In other words,
students are able to assess their own knowledge construction by comparing it to the works of
others who participated in the same activity. One could even argue that this ventures into the
realm of social constructivism. Nevertheless, this individual construction of knowledge is one of
the key components of cognitive constructivism and can be achieved through the use of various
multimedia programs that promote collaboration.
Reflection
Reflection is another important component of cognitive constructivist learning. Students
must be given an opportunity to reflect on the progress they have made and the knowledge they
have constructed. Wangpipatwong and Papasratorn (2007) argue that reflection improves the
knowledge creating potential of all students (p. 24). Herrington and Standen (2000) offer
additional insight for those using interactive multimedia products suggesting the programs need
to allow for non-linear navigation to enable [the learner] to return to any element of the
program (p. 199). Multimedia allows for a variety of methods for reflection including blogs,
vlogs, e-journals, or other products that involve visual and verbal communications. Educators
must work to ensure that regular opportunities exist for student to reflect on their learning.


MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 11

Impact of Multimedia Integration in Cognitive Constructivist Environments
This section will examine the impact on student learning outcomes and changes to
student perceptions when multimedia is integrated in cognitive constructivist environments. This
examination of student outcomes is important because it addresses the validity of integrating
multimedia as discussed in this paper. While the evidence presented in this paper is limited, the
results clearly support attempts to integrate multimedia with this type of learning environment.
Student Learning Outcomes
The integration of multimedia in cognitive constructivist environments has the potential
to improve student learning outcomes. Ali (2013) completed a study that compared the
difference in achievement results between students who used either an objectivist multimedia
program or one based on constructivist principles. This study was conducted on 66 high school
students in Malaysia of which 32 used the objectivist courseware and 34 used the one based on
constructivist principles. The achievement results were based on the difference between pre-test
and post-test scores for each group. This study concluded that students who used constructivist-
based multimedia courseware demonstrated a significant difference in their achievement score
compared to the students who [used] the Objectivist Learning Environment courseware (Ali,
2013, p. 43). Ali (2013) found that learners who used the constructivist multimedia program also
demonstrated significantly more on-task computer use compared to those who used the
objectivist courseware. This is not the only study that found the potential benefits of designing
multimedia programs for use in constructivist environments.
Mayer et al. (1990) found similar benefits to using multimedia in constructivist
environments; however, their finding was predicated on the ability for the program to limit the
amount of cognitive demand being placed on the learner. This study tested two groups of 60
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 12

undergraduate students at the University of California, Santa Barbara. There was an attempt to
measure the students levels of retention and knowledge transfer based upon the amount of
information provided within a multimedia program. The groups were not tested against each
other; rather, they were established to run the test twice using two different subject matters.
Mayer et al. (1990) concluded that multimedia use is maximized when learners are able to build
referential connections between corresponding visual and verbal representations when both are
held in working memory simultaneously (p. 643). This building of referential connections
along with the ability to process them with prior knowledge is important in the individual
construction of knowledge.
Student Perceptions
The use of multimedia in cognitive constructivist environments can also impact students
perceptions of such learning environments. A study was conducted in 1999 by Neo and Neo that
measured student perceptions of a project that integrated multimedia use in a constructivist
environment. It was conducted on 53 college students who were enrolled in a multimedia design
course. The purpose of their study was to determine the perceptions of this approach by students
who were initially unfamiliar with constructivist approaches to learning. The study found that
students had very positive attitudes towards the project and their use of multimedia technology
in this learning environment (Neo & Neo, 1999, p. 260). Moreover, Neo and Neo (1999)
concluded that the approach enhanced their confidence levels in their newly acquired skills,
knowing that they [could] use the same skills in their future undertakings (p. 264). Thus, not
only can the integration of multimedia in constructivist learning environments increase student
learning outcomes, but it can improve their perceptions of this approach to learning and their
confidence levels for future applications of this knowledge.
MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 13

Conclusion
As momentum continues to build in favor of constructivist learning, educators and
instructional designers will need to examine the role of multimedia in such environments. This
shift toward student-centered instruction comes at a time when many states are attempting to
implement the Common Core State Standards. Like constructivist learning, these standards
emphasize critical thinking, problem-solving and knowledge construction on the part of the
student as opposed to an approach that relies on direct instruction and other teacher-centered
activities. Multimedia holds the potential to assist with this transformation so long as products
are developed based on principles of cognitive constructivism, and multimedia is integrated in
learning environments based on the same criteria. The research reviewed here suggests that
developers and educators should design environments based on authentic contexts, authentic
activities, access to experts, and student reflection and collaboration to maximize the benefits for
learners. As additional research is completed on this front, it is likely that instructional
philosophies and practices will continue to change. Nevertheless, these efforts are essential if we
are to better understand the nature of learning and the instructional practices that can reach all
learners.







MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 14

References
Ali, M. Z. S. (2013). From objectivism to constructivism: The effect of a multimedia
constructivist learning environment on form four students achievement in science & its
impact on computer usage in learning. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in
Education, 2(4), 32-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.9790/7388-0243251
Bornman, H., & Solms, S. H. (1993). Hypermedia, multimedia and hypertext: Definitions and
overview. Electronic Library, 11(4/5), 259 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb045243
Dunleavy, M., Dextert, F., & Heinecket, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to
laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23, 440-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing
critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 2(2), 43-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Gngren, . C. (2013). Authentic learning in multimedia. The Online Journal of Distance
Education and e-Learning, 1(3), 14-19. Retrieved from
www.tojdel.net/pdf/v01i03/v01i03-02.pdf
Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia
learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9, 195-205.
Leung, A. C. K. (2003). Contextual issues in the construction of computer-based learning
programs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 501-516.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00053.x


MULTIMEDIA AND COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIVISM 15

Lin, S. Y., & Overbaugh R. C. (2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format
on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 39, 399-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.10782489
Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning
from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 91, 638-643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.638
Neo, M., & Neo, T.-K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist
learning - Students perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2),
254-266. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_2/18.pdf
Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for
an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.
Wangpipatwong, T., & Papasratorn, B. (2007). The influence of constructivist e-learning system
on student learning outcomes. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, 3(4), 21-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2007100103
Wild, M., & Quinn, C. (1998). Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional
multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 73-82.
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and
implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84, 204-212.