Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM]. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Pedagogical strategies in a multimedia
learning environment: Constructing
understanding of animal classification
Wing-Mui Winnie SOa, Mei ZHONGb, Cherie LOc, Man-Tung Tony CHIMd
a
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
b
The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong
Education Bureau, Hong Kong
Hong Kong Education City, Hong Kong
wiso@ied.edu.hk
Abstract: This research aims to study how pedagogical strategies in multimedia learning
environment helps primary students develop better understanding of animal classification.
Research methodology includes lesson observation, interviews and analysis of student
worksheets, to examine the pedagogical strategies employed by different teachers in 5
primary classes. The findings indicated that integrated use of multimedia resources,
teacher scaffolding and provocative questions focusing on classification criteria, as well as
students’ collaborative learning have impacted on students’ learning. The paper suggested
that practical pedagogical strategies in a multimedia learning environment could enhance
students’ understanding of animal classification
Keywords: pedagogical strategies, multimedia learning environment, animal classification
1.
Multimedia Learning Environment and Pedagogical strategies
The study of the conception of animal classification with Taiwan primary school children
[2] found that students’ learning was affected by the enlarged pictures and students tended
to ignored small animal pictures in their textbooks. It was also found that the use of
printed resources (with line-drawings and colourful photos of animals) in learning of
animals was ineffective and tedious [12]. These research findings addressed the problem
that science learning of many natural processes and some objects were difficult to be
observed and examined through the use of printed resources [1].
Nowadays, the Internet, as an information hub or “global library”, is the most
promising medium for deploying educational content [3] and the Internet has opened up
access to various up-to-the-minute, state-of-the-art scientific images and digital resources.
Hill and Hannafin (2001) suggested that the potentials of integrating multiple resources
into a coherent learning environment for instruction and learning were considerable [5].
This would enable teachers and learners to work on tasks with supporting mechanisms that
help them locate, analyze, interpret, and adapt information from extensive resources. So
and Kong’s (2008) research provided evidence that a resource-based learning environment
have helped primary school students develop better science understanding [13].
Research on technology-enhanced inquiry environments suggested that although
computer-based tools offer considerable potential, technology per se was unlikely to
support students’ inquiry processes [7]. This implied the importance of pedagogical design
of multimedia materials and the ways of implementing them in instruction and in
935
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM]. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
classrooms. Besides, Fantuzzo, King and Heller (1992) suggested that collaborative
learning strategies were ideal in circumstances where there was a need to maximize
classroom resources and promote effective and dynamic learning experiences [4].
Moreover, Jang (2007) found that talking and writing in a collaborative group have
mutually facilitated students’ understandings of science concepts and helped them
generate their explanations [6].
2.
The Study
2.1 Design of the study
The multimedia learning environment on animal classification included the following
tasks: 1) My classification of animals; 2) Classifying aquatic animals; 3) Classifying
terrestrial animals; and 4) Classifying animals living in the sky. Selected animals for the
classification exercises were supplemented with videos and photos for students’ better
observation of animals’ behaviour. Relevant text information was included for students to
better understand the characteristics of animals. For example, supplementary information
provided for “seahorse” was “moist skin”, “having scales”, “movement of fin help with
activities” and “using gills to breathe”.
The multimedia learning environment was designed with considerations of
collaborative learning to facilitate students’ thinking during the classification tasks: (1)
Exchanging partners – one member of the group share views with a member of the other
group on the similarities and differences of how the classification is done and what the
criteria is used; (2) Unstructured classification- students decide on the criteria in
classifying the animals; (3) Number heads together - each member in a group has a
number, the one call by the teacher has to respond to teacher’s question.
The multimedia learning environment required students to identify animals’
characteristics and behaviour from the multimedia resources. Scaffolds of guides and
questions were provided in the worksheets to help students identify common
characteristics and behaviour among animals as the criteria of classification. Spaces were
provided in the worksheets for students to record their work.
2.2 Participants in the Study
The multimedia learning environment of animal classification was implemented in five
classes in a local primary school. The five classes involved had a total of 175 primary
students with ages between 11 and 12. The students were originally assigned to different
classes based on their academic performance in the previous years: two classes of higher
performing students, one class of average performing students and two classes of lower
performing students.
2.3 Data Sources and Analysis
The five teachers were video-taped and observed for at least one lesson to identify their
use of pedagogical strategies in implementing the multimedia learning environment. They
are renamed in this paper as Calvin (teacher of Class 6A with higher performing students),
Wendy (teacher of Class 6B with average performing students), Wilson (teacher of Class
936
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM]. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
6C with lower performing students), Kelvin (teacher of 6D with lower performing students,
and Charlie (teacher of Class 6E with higher performing students).
Teachers were interviewed after the implementation of the multimedia learning
environment. Teachers were asked whether they liked it; what and how the pedagogical
strategies were used and whether it has facilitated students’ understanding of animal
classification or not; and which multimedia resources were more effective. Teachers were
also asked to identify whether students’ performance in the multimedia learning
environment was any different compare to their usual performance and whether the
guidance and questions of the scaffolds could provoke thinking.
30 students (six students selected randomly from each class) were interviewed
(before and after the lessons) and students’ worksheets were collected for analysis to
capture changes in students’ understanding of animal classification.
3.
Findings and Discussion
3.1 Integrated use of multimedia resources
Multimedia learning environment was used because it helps teaching and learning to
become more efficient and effective, but how teacher interrogate the value of it and
manipulate it in the classroom depends on their pedagogy [14]. From the analysis of data
in lesson observation, interview and worksheets, it is found that the use of teaching
materials could be generally classified into two approaches in the present study:
systematic use and disorganized use of multimedia resources.
Two teachers, Calvin and Wendy, guided students with systematized use of the
multimedia resources. This comprised of the teachers consciously integrating the
multimedia resources of text information, videos and pictures with reference to the guide
and questions provided in the worksheet to facilitate students’ identification of animals’
characteristics and behaviour. For example, in the task “Classifying aquatic animals”,
Wendy of Class 6B asked the students to read the text information to identify the common
characteristic of animals and to watch pictures and video clips to get more detail
information about the animals. She further elaborated an example in the interview how an
integrated use of multimedia resources is important to enhance learning in the task
“Classifying terrestrial animals” that “How students know about bats are mammals but not
birds? There is video showing the process of bats giving birth to babies, so that student
will understand why bats are not birds. Photos and text will be helpful to illustrate the
process in detail”. Calvin of Class 6A also gave students clear instructions of where to
look for information from the multimedia learning environment throughout all the tasks.
Disorganized use of multimedia resources was found in the lessons of Wilson, Kelvin
and Charlie. For example, we observed that these teachers did not seem to provide
students with any direction in how to use the multimedia resources. Students of these
classes used the resources in their own ways. As a result, some of the students just
randomly looked at the video clip, without making reference to the resources of text
information or paying attention to the questions and guide in the worksheet.
3.2 Teacher scaffolding and provocative questions focusing on classification criteria
Olkinrora, Mikkila-Erdmann and Nurmi (2004), as well as Kim, Hannafin and Bryan
(2007) argued that the use of multimedia materials alone do not guarantee or produce
high-quality learning because they do not magically benefit all learners equally[9][7].
937
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM]. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Instead, the quality of the pedagogical design of the multimedia materials and the way in
which instruction is implemented are the most important, not the technology that is
applied in the multimedia materials themselves.
Teacher of Class 6A, Calvin reported in the interview that, at the beginning of the
class, students did not seem to have any idea of classifying animals. It was observed from
the lesson that when students were asked to classify the given 12 animals into three
categories in the first task, the criteria a group of students used were “animal without legs
and with legs”, “animals living in water and not living in water”, “animals which are
oviparous or viviparous”. Calvin discovered students’ confused ideas about animal
classification and conducted a discussion with students to point out that a common
criterion should be used to classify animals. Calvin’s scaffolding helped students do the
classification with reference to common characteristics (the habitats of animals - living in
water, land and sky) identified from the different multimedia resources. This group of
students was found to acquire the skill of using common characteristics in their subsequent
classification task to classify 6 animals living in the sky into “birds” and “insects”.
However, Kelvin, teacher of class 6D in the task “My classification of animals”, did not
point out and correct students’ confused ideas in using three different criteria (small legs,
living in water, by crawling) in classifying the 12 animals into three categories. Teacher
scaffolding was not found in these classes for clarification of students’ inappropriate way
in animal classification.
Besides, Calvin was observed to ask provocative questions during the lessons, for
example, when he found that different groups of students were using different criteria to
classify the 8 terrestrial animals in task3, he asked students to identify which group has the
better way of classification and why. These intrigued active group discussion assisted
students to rethink what they have done in comparison with the other groups. Eventually
students realized that there was no one single way but better way in choosing the criteria.
Students were encouraged by the provocative questions for a higher level thinking in the
learning process. As suggested by Sharma and Hannafin (2007) in their discussion of the
role of scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments, that scaffolds may
provide opportunities for students to deepen their understanding by externalizing and
comparing their knowledge and beliefs with those of peers and experts [11].
3.3 Students collaborative learning in understanding animal classification
The use of provocative questions to extend students’ thinking can be pursued later through
discussion at group or whole-class level [10]. The collaborative group provided
opportunity for discussion and feedback and students could keep their mind open to the
others as well as building up their science concepts [6]. From the lesson observation and
teachers’ interview records; we can see that Wendy and Calvin were particularly
supportive of the use of collaborative learning. They reported that students were more
involved in the learning process and they acquired more understanding about what
classification is and how to do classification.
For example, Wendy found that when students could not think of a way to deal with
the question on the worksheet, the collaborative learning design of “Changing partners”
facilitated the group members to share among themselves what they have found from the
website. Calvin also found that the collaborative learning design of “Changing partners”
allowed students to have the first attempt or make their own suggestions based on one’s
conception or understanding, therefore helped teachers identify students’ misconception
on animal classification. Last but not least, Wendy recognized that students who used to
be passive in the class were more involved in the collaborative learning of “Number heads
together”.
938
Kong, S.C., Ogata, H., Arnseth, H.C., Chan, C.K.K., Hirashima, T., Klett, F., Lee, J.H.M., Liu, C.C., Looi, C.K., Milrad, M., Mitrovic,
A., Nakabayashi, K., Wong, S.L., Yang, S.J.H. (eds.) (2009). Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computers in
Education [CDROM]. Hong Kong: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
4.
Conclusion
The open-ended structure of the matching, sorting, categorizing and interpreting during
classification activities involves not just content knowledge, but the process of
classification [8]. This study found that the pedagogical strategies of integrated use of
multimedia resources, teacher scaffolding, teacher provocative questions and the design of
collaborative learning were particular helpful for students to develop understanding of
animal classification. Integrated use of videos, photos, information text and worksheets
supported students learning with sufficient information for choosing appropriate criteria in
classification. Scaffolding monitored students’ learning processes to clarify students’
confused ideas in classification and provided students better direction in learning.
Provocative questions challenged students’ thinking and motivated students to rethink
their way of choosing criteria in classification. Design of collaborative learning enhanced
students sharing of initial thinking and compare of selected criteria in animal
classification.
The research outcome based on empirical evidence in the present study could help to
improve the design and pedagogical strategies in the multimedia learning environment.
Knowledge discovered from this research is of significant value to educators who are
either too pessimistic or optimistic with the abundant online resources, and is useful to
direct future teacher development initiatives.
References
[1] Bell, R. L., & Toti, D. (2004). Digital images in the science classroom. Learning & Leading with
Technology, 31(8), 26-28.
[2] Chuang, C. Y., & Su, Y. J. (1999). A study of the perception selection and conception of animal
classification in primary school children. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 135–156.
[3] Ferdig, R. E., Mishra, P., & Zhao, Y. (2004). Component architectures and web based learning
environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 75-90.
[4] Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A. & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics
and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 331-339.
[5] Hill, J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of
resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37-52.
[6] Jang, S. J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: talk and writing in a
collaborative group, Educational Research, 49(1), 65-81.
[7] Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science
education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6),
1010-1030.
[8] Novakowski, J. (2009). Classifying classification. Science and Children, 46(7), 25-29.
[9] Olkinrora, E., Mikkila-Erdmann, M., & Nurmi, S. (2004). Evaluating the pedagogical value of
multimedia learning materials: An experimental study in primary school. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra
(Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp.
331-352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[10] Serret, N. (2006). Developing children’s thinking in primary science. In W. Harlen (Ed.), ASE guide to
primary science education (pp.191-197). Hatfield [England]: Association for Science Education.
[11] Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments.
Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46. [12] So, W. M. W., & Cheng, M. H. M. (2008).
Accelerating Science Thinking: The Infusion of Cognitive Conflict Strategies into Primary Science
Education. Paper presented at the APERA Conference 2008, 26-28 November, Singapore.
[13] So, W. M. W., & Kong, S. C. (2008). Interaction of student’s academic background and support levels
in a resource-based learning environment on Earth’s movement. Interactive learning Environment,
1-23.
[14] Way, J. & Webb, C. (2009). Pedagogy, Innovation and e-learning in primary schools. Retrieved June 20,
2009, from Common Wealth Bank Web site http://www.commbank.com.au/foundation/
939