International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

Constructivist pedagogies of interactivity on a CD-ROM to enhance academic learning at a tertiary institution 

- Juliette D. G. Goldman, Griffith University
- Geraldine Torrisi-Steele, Griffith University

Abstract

Many tertiary institutions are encompassing a greater use of technology in their subjects than ever before. All academic teachers are earnestly encouraged to reconceptualise their subjects and incorporate multimedia of some sort whether on CD-ROM or Web-based. This paper focuses on a CD-ROM written by two academics for three subjects in the Bachelor of Education at an Australian university. Based on the principles on constructivist theory of learning, three examples of appropriate interactivity and their pedagogies are examined here to indicate the variety, relevance, pedagogical principles and interest that can be generated to enhance students’ academic learning using multimedia.  It is suggested that the application of Constructivist principles may assist educational developers in designing pedagogical interactivities that are productive and effective.

Introduction

Multimedia technologies such as CD-ROMs and websites probably offer the greatest potential, to date, for enhancing learning.  It is the interactive nature of these media that offers the greatest pedagogical promise.  Boling and Kirkley, (1995, p. 1) note that;

“Multimedia is experiential ... Although every medium has experiential elements, multimedia frequently offers multiple elements simultaneously, or in rapid succession (text and animation and video and sound and hyperlinks and so on). At the same time the user of the multimedia program is usually invited to interact with it; in fact, most instructional programs won't do much of anything unless the user does interact with them.”

At the simplest level, many multimedia educational products are nothing more than electronic page turners.  Interaction is limited to the ability of the student to ‘turn the pages’ by scrolling or clicking a button.  However, the essential value of interactive multimedia technologies is that they can be used effectively to empower students to take a more pro-active role in acquiring, analysing and synthesising information. It is the potential of multimedia to foster this higher level of interactivity that distinguishes it from older technologies such as projectors, radio and television.  That is, multimedia is an active form of learning, whereas projectors, radio and television are passive forms.  The focus on interactivity being of special value in facilitating learning, stems from the constructivist view that learners learn best when they are actively constructing their own knowledge based on their own experiences and their own information (Biggs, 1999; Torrisi and Davis, 2000).

The focus on interactivity to maximise the pedagogical potential of multimedia emerges from the adoption of constructivism as the guiding theoretical basis for the design of many multimedia materials including the three examples examined later.  The constructivist view of teaching and learning is commonly accepted as a framework for developing teaching and learning strategies for designing multimedia learning environments in ways which will promote the reshaping of teaching practice towards student-centred learning environments (Torrisi-Steele and Davis, 2000).  As Strommen (1999, p. 2) says,

 ‘...simply thinking up clever ways to use computers in traditional courses [relegates] technology to a secondary, supplemental role that fails to capitalise on its most potent strengths.  What is needed is a guiding philosophy that suggests principled changes in the curriculum, and effective uses of technology as part of these changes.  We think that this philosophy must be constructivism.’

Constructivism theory of learning

Constructivism is a philosophical theory of learning and understanding based on three primary propositions (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.1), namely;

1. Understanding is in our interactions with the environment. That is,“…what we understand is a function of the content, the context, the activity of the learner, and perhaps, most importantly, the goals of the learner” (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.1).

2. Cognitive conflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning and determines the organisation and nature of what is learned. That is, the goal of the learning is “… a primary factor in determining what the learner attends to, what prior experience the learner brings to bear in constructing an understanding, and, basically what understanding is eventually constructed.” (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.1).

 3. Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.2). That is, “…concepts that we call knowledge … are simply the most viable interpretation of our experiential world” and that “all views, or all constructions, are not equally viable” (Savery and Duffy, 1996, p.2).

The constructivist philosophy, by contrast to the instructivist philosophy, espouses a view of learners as actively constructing knowledge on what they already know and understand, rather than as passive recipients of knowledge (Biggs, 1999).  Thus, “…meaning is not imposed or transmitted by direct instruction, but is created by the students’ learning activities, [by] their ‘approaches to learning…’ ” (Biggs,1999, p.12).

In doing so, learners become part of the learning process at a deeper level, feel actively involved in the process, and take on ownership for their own learning (See Biggs, 1999). Similarly, Dewey (1916), more than 100 years ago, referred to the “…disposition to penetrate to deeper levels of meaning – to go below the surface and find out the connections of any event or object…[to]…try to place an act in its context which constitutes significance…” for the learner (p. 326).  .

The learner, rather than the teacher, then becomes the focus of the learning environment (Tearle, Dillon and Davis, 1999. See Torrisi and Davis, 2000).  From a constructivist perspective, the focus of curriculum design shifts from being purely goal-orientated, strictly structured and ordered knowledge transmission, to a process focused on re-conceptualisation of curriculum design to ensure active exploration by the learner (Brown, 1997).  Biggs (1999, p13) says that

Learning is … a way of interacting with the world.  As we learn, our conceptions of phenomena change, and we see the world differently. The acquisition of information in itself does not bring about such a change, but the way we structure that information and think with it does. Thus, education is about conceptual change, not just the acquisition of information. 

In a similar vein, Sorrell (2000) says, “Information is no longer power, it’s interpretation that is important”.  Further, Biggs (1999, p. 13) notes that

What people construct from a learning encounter depends on their motives and intentions, on what they know already and on how they use their prior knowledge. Meaning is therefore personal…. The alternative is that meaning is ‘transmitted from teacher to student, like dubbing an audio-tape, which …is an untenable but not uncommon view.

Thus, the constructivist theory of learning generates a focus on learning to the learner him/herself, students’ prior experiences of learning, their perceptions of their learning situation, their approaches to learning and their learning outcomes (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton, Hounsell and Entwistle, 1997).   It is the process of engagement in the activities that results in learning (Dewey, 1916, p. 169).

The changing role of the teacher

In applying constructivism theory to the design of multimedia, the principal aim, then, is to engage the learners in the active exploration and construction of their own knowledge. Designing tasks that are appropriate to the learner’s needs means that the process of design of interactive multimedia materials forces a focus onto the characteristics of the learner, rather than the teacher’s role (See Biggs, 1999; and Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).  Consideration of the factors that influence how the learner learns best, then becomes of paramount importance. 

Furthermore, interactive multimedia materials lack the dynamics of face-to-face human engagement, during which the teacher can respond to learner needs ‘on the fly’ as the learning situation unfolds. Schon (1983, p.50) would probably refer to this as ‘reflection-in-action’ whereby in the professional teacher’s skill, many quality judgements are made instantaneously and are dependent on “..tacit recognition, judgements and skilful performances“ which are often difficult to articulate, but result in skilful action or response by the teacher. Thus, in designing educational multimedia, the difficulties that students may encounter, and the importance of constructive feedback needs to be predicted, and the multimedia module designed to cater for these predictions as best as possible, as a means of substitution of the teacher and his/her reflection-in-action (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton, Hounsell and Entwistle, 1997).

The teacher’s role

The teacher’s role within the multimedia arena may be seen, then, as a manager of knowledge, a facilitator who provides advice in exploration, a guide, a helper and an assistant (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999; Marton, Hounsell and Entwistle, 1997).   Dewey (1916, p. 160) notes that “… the teacher is a learner, and the learner is, without knowing it, a teacher – and upon the whole, the less consciousness there is, on either side, of either giving or receiving instruction, the better”.   In a study of Internet educational usage by High School students around the world, Goldman and Hocking (1999) found that in their sample, nearly all teachers who used the Internet believe its usage motivates students in their learning, and since using it, nearly half the teachers had changed their teaching techniques. In another study of internet connectivity of High School students around the world, Goldman and Hocking (2000) found evidence that there are self-motivated teachers in High schools who are constructing interesting and useful planned activities for students on the Net. For examples of different types of projects see Goldman & Hocking (2002).  Further, students as young as Upper Primary School age, about 10 years to 11 years, are also proving competent using technology in their learning, and some exhibit characteristics of being competent scriptwriters and educational designers (See Goldman and Krause, 2001, 2002).

Teachers’ computer inhibitions

 For some teachers, whether at school or university, the incorporation of technologies into the classroom, is difficult to contemplate, let alone carry out. Technological merging with education practice, is, for these teachers, uncomfortable and threatening, and even generates computer phobia.  Bradley and Russell (1997, p. 267) found that computer anxiety is present in a sizeable minority of school teachers, and that such anxieties “were inversely related to the quality of prior computer learning experiences, and to the extent of current school support for computer usage”.  Rowland ( 2000, p.13) in examining the enquiring university teacher says that  “…the development of our teaching involves the kind of personal enquiry and openness to change that inform our ability to make educational judgements in the light of personal and professional values”.

This principle when applied to modern educators suggests that they need to be open to the changing needs of the technological and information-intensive society that is evolving (See Prosser and Trigwell, 1999).  New technologies provide tools with the potential to reconstruct education (Hammer & Kellner, 2001), and used effectively, new technologies result in positive changes to the way teachers teach and the way learners perceive information (Hamza & Alhalabi, 1999).

Designing multimedia interactivities

Faradouly (1999) suggests that interaction design should be guided by questions such as:

• “Who are the learners?  - What do they need or want to learn, in what environment will the learning be applied, what do they already know?

• ‘What is the teacher trying to achieve with the instruction?’.  Clearly define goals and objectives and relevant content.

• ‘What skills, attitudes and knowledge are you trying to develop?’

• ‘How will content be structured?’

• ‘What strategies might be used?’

However, there also appear to be broader issues of design necessary to incorporate within a constructivist paradigm.

Successful interaction design which engages learners in actively exploring knowledge and experiences, is the result of careful analysis of the learner and of the learning outcomes. Biggs (1999, p.11) refers to such a process as constructive alignment. He says that;

A good teaching system aligns teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives, so that all aspects of this system are in accord in supporting appropriate student learning. This system is called constructive alignment, based as it is on the twin principles of constructivism in learning and alignment in teaching (Biggs,1999, p. 11)

Eight constructivist principles

In constructivism, learning is seen to be affected by the context of the learning, and the beliefs and attitudes of the learner (Prosser and Trigwell, 1999, p. 168). Learners should be given the opportunity to build on prior knowledge, encouraged to invent their own solutions, and to try out ideas and hypotheses. Savery and Duffy (1996, p. 3) note that effective instructional design of multimedia interactivities (as in other learning situations) may be based on eight constructivist principles, namely; 

1. Anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem.

2. Support the learner in developing ownership for the overall problem or task.

3. Design an authentic task.

4.   Design the task and learning environment to reflect the complexity of the environment that students should be able to function in at the end of learning.

5.   Give the learner ownership of the process used to develop a solution.

6.   Design the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking.

7.   Encourage testing ideas against alternative views and alternative contexts

8.   Provide opportunity for, and support reflection on, both the content learned, and the learning process itself.

In encouraging learners to participate in the interactive experience, interactivities need to be designed to provide experiences that have an appropriate balance between success and difficulty, and between control and discovery (See Smith and Ragan, 1999; Seels and Glasgow, 1998).  Success without difficulty does not promote optimal learning, nor does difficulty with little or no success (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990. See also Dewey, 1916, p.157).

Methods

Aim

This paper analyses three examples of interactivities designed for student-teachers undertaking a Bachelor of Education (Primary school) at an Australian university in Queensland. The activities are part of the modules on a CD-ROM which included three semester-long subjects for undergraduates, and some for post-graduate teachers. Each subject on the CD-ROM is estimated to take students about 52 hours to complete. This is equivalent to a semester of face-to-face teaching (viz, 14 weeks x 3 hours). The scriptwriting of each of the subjects is estimated to have taken 1,000 hours, and the educational design took a further 1,000 hours.

Background

This CD-ROM includes a Social Studies curriculum subject called ‘Social and Environment Education’, which was developed for university students intending to be Primary School teachers. The CD-ROM covers appropriate content, objectives, goals, strategies, resources, concepts and skills relevant for Grades 1-7, and is also embedded with appropriate pedagogies for teachers to implement (See Marsh, 2001; Education Queensland, 2000). The subject “Social and Environment Education” includes 10 modules, each containing a varying number of sub-modules, and students are required to proceed though these at their own pace, and respond in a variety of ways. Spread throughout the text are a number of interactivities for practice and comprehension for the student-teacher, followed by a number which are computer-marked.  The total number of marks worked out to be 140. The total marks gained by each student-teacher was, at the completion of the 10 modules, converted by the computer to a percentage which was printed and signed by the student-teacher, then delivered to the Subject Convener as evidence of completion of the subject.

The three interactive examples of sub-modules addressed here are from the subject Social and Environment Education, and cover “The Water Cycle”, “The Lifecycle of the Frog”, and “Slipwriting”. Each is now examined.

The Water Cycle

The interactivities in this sub-module proceeded as follows;

• Text: A paragraph on the introduction to this sub-module on Water.

• Text: Explanation of outline of module in text and dotpoints.

• Problem posed: “Type five other environments teachers can address in Primary School.”

• Comparison of response: “Compare your answers with the following…”

Water

• Text: A paragraph on rainfall distribution in Australia.

• Activity:  On the following map of Australia draw a line and shade in those areas which are have the highest rainfall.

• Text: A paragraph on cleanliness and purity of water.

• Activity: On the water cycle.  Consider the water that comes to the place where you live. Where does it come from? Type the places in sequence where it came from before it came to your tap. There are at least 10 sequences.

Figure 1. Sequence of events of Watercycle frame

If you need assistance, view the animation.

Figure 2. Animated watercycle frame

• Comparison of response: Compare your water cycle sequences with this one.

1. Moisture is evaporated from the Pacific Ocean into the air by the action of the sun.

2. This moisture gathers and forms clouds which are pushed by winds onshore to the South Eastern coast of Queensland.

3. The clouds are elevated by the Macpherson Ranges and the Great Dividing Range (mountain ranges) as the clouds pass near them.

4. The moisture in the clouds condense (join together) into bigger droplets called rain.

5. Rain is heavy, is unable to remain in the cloud, and falls to earth in South Eastern Queensland.

6.  Some of this rain falls in the Catchment area of the Hinze Dam and flows down a hillside into a creek.

7. The creek flowed into Hinze Dam.

8. It remains stored in the Hinze Dam until needed

9. The water is purified by the Local City Council and has flouride (a chemical aimed to help prevent tooth decay) added to it.

10. The water is pumped along a water pipe called a conduit (pronounced con-dew-t).

11. Where the land under the pipe is steep, going uphill, a pump is needed to boost the water along on its path in the conduit.

12. The purified water is directed to a smaller storage tank on the top of a hill.

13. The water remains in the storage tank until needed.

14 .When humans turn on a tap, pure, clean, fresh water comes out in practically unlimited supplies, suitable for humans and animals to drink.

• Activity: Non-assessable activity on estimated cost of this water infrastructure for Australia.

• Activity: Six assessable activities worth a quarter of a mark each, including some on classroom pedagogies for primary children.

• Activity: Activity on teachers helping children develop empathetic values about water conservation.

• Comparison of response: Compare your answers with these.

This sub-module on the Water Cycle attempts to contextualise water into broad environments, the water cycle itself, rainfall distribution, cleanliness of water, addition of fluoride, costs of infrastructure associated with catchment, and finally delivery of water.  The animation of the water cycle is used as a pedagogical prompt for students’ learning, to help them write the ten sequences.  In terms of educational design, it seemed more effective to design it in this manner than in reverse. Finally, students were given a non-assessable activity as construction of knowledge for the six assessable activities following, which were linked to classroom pedagogies for children.  This sub-module then ended on a problem-solving activity related to the role of teachers in developing values about water conservation in children.

The Lifecycle of the Frog

This sub-module is shorter than that of the Water cycle, because its environmental contexts were addressed in previous sub-modules.

• Text: A paragraph about frogs

• Problem posed: “What does life-cycle of an animal (or human) mean? Type your answer.”

• Comparison: “Compare your answer to this.”

• Text: A paragraph about other life cycles, eg humans.

• Activity: “On the following life-cycle, click and drag the various stages of the frog’s life-cycle to their accurate position in the sequence”.

• Assessment response: Positive reinforcement.

Figure 3. Lifecycle of the frog frame

This sub-module provided information about frogs, posed a problem, provided answer for comparison, then extended the information further to other life cycles.  Finally, in the drag and click activity, learners were to provide forced choice ordinal steps within the life cycle. The sub-module closed with positive reinforcement.

Slipwriting

Slipwriting is an activity used in Social Studies Curricula (and other curricula) where a complex problem or issue is being studied, say, recycling.  Students write their ideas on slips of paper which are then sorted, and grouped according to particular headings, and then linked according to their relationships.   From the resulting piles, headings and inter-relationships, students then list, group, label and establish a generalisation about the problem.  Slipwriting is useful for any grade, and helps children particularly understand concepts, and their links to other ideas, conceptualisations, and the inter-relationships of many parts of our lives with the environment and animals.

In this example, Slipwriting is used as a pedagogical example for student-teachers, and applied to learning about the environment as follows;

Slipwriting strategy (student-teachers undertake the slipwriting activity)

• Problem posed: “What are some ways in which we can care for the environment?”

• Direction provided:  “Type up to 10 entries in the box below?”

• Direction provided: “Click and drag your responses, to the circle, one-by-one, into piles of ideas that are similar. Label each pile. Use the Draw Pencil to link any of the piles that are inter-connected.”

• Direction provided:  “Discuss with your partner/group what statements or generalisations you can make about your piles of information.”

Figure 4. Slipwriting frame

b) Student-teacher analysis of the slipwriting activity above

• Problem posed: Student-teachers were then asked, “Reflect on your undertaking of the slipwriting exercise. What do you think are the main steps required to implement this strategy in the classroom.”

Figure 5. Steps of slipwriting strategy frame

• Comparison: “ Compare your steps with these.”

Step 1. A problem is presented or a question asked.

Step 2. Children (form groups of 3-5) write individual responses on a number of slips of paper, with one idea on each slip.

Step 3. Children place their slips in the centre of their group, and discuss and arrange them into piles, each with similar characteristics. Make a heading, generalisation or statement about each pile and label it accordingly. Make links, as in a spider’s web, between and among the piles where appropriate.

Step 4. As a class, share your statements or generalisations, and give examples where relevant.

• Problem posed: “What are the advantages and disadvantages of this pedagogy? Type your response in no more than two paragraphs.”

This sub-module has the learner undertake the slipwriting activity first. Then, students are asked to decipher the strategy in 4 steps and report them. Then, students compare their answer with the given one.  Finally, students are asked to construct what they consider are the advantages and disadvantages of this pedagogy.

Discussion

The design of each of these interactivities were based on constructivist theory, where the learner is provided with a variety of learning activities whose pedagogies are aimed at engendering a greater understanding based on students’ prior knowledge.  Table 1 indicates the application of the constructivist principles to the 3 sub-modules .

Table 1: Application of the 8 Constructivist principles to interactivities on The Water Cycle, The Lifecycle of the Frog, and Slipwriting.

Source: (Savery & Duffy 1996, p. 3)

In Table 1, each of the eight constructivist principles applicable to each of the three sub-modules is addressed, resulting in both commonalities and in varied ways.  For example, in the first principle to anchor all learning activities to a larger task or problem, all three sub-modules are anchored in the larger problem of environmental degradation and it inter-related bio-diversity.  In others, there is variation.

Of the 8 constructivist principles, the one that was not specifically addressed here was “Provide opportunity for, and support reflection on, both the content earned and the learning process itself”.  These 3 sub-modules were embedded within broader modules, and in the design, the authors included this at varying stages within the modules, frequently following the completion of a pedagogical task or problem-solving activity.  In each of these three examples above, this constructivist principle was not evident, however, it was present later in the modules where students were asked to write their reflections on their learning process and their learning progress.

Conclusion

Multimedia has enormous potential for enhancing the learning of adults and children. Here, a selection of three examples of sub-modules designed for subjects in a CD-ROM for Bachelor of Education students at an Australian university, were examined in terms of the principles of a constructivist approach. Enhanced interactivity of the learner, on an individual basis, and the knowledge and/or the experiential, means that what is being learned is aimed to be more relevant to the learner and therefore more likely to be relevant or reflected upon (Dewey, 1916). That is, the learner will be changed in some way/s for having had the experience of learning (Biggs, 1999).  Grant and Vansledright (2001; pp.75-76) note that the promise of constructivist views includes shifting control for learning to the learner, enhancing motivation, increasing expectations of what students can learn, and building interdisciplinary connections.

Thus, it seems that the application of the eight constructivist principles had wide scope for its application of enhancing learning and providing variation of pedagogy.  This approach, to address such characteristics, are the underlying principles used by the scriptwriter and the educational designer here. No doubt, there are a very large number of pedagogies that could be employed in teaching about the watercycle, the frog cycle and slipwriting.  However, the variety chosen here has a two-fold aim; to enhance both student-teachers’ learning, and their understanding of how they can teach these topics to children.  Biggs (1999, p. 2) says “there is no single all-purpose best method of teaching. Teaching is individual”. This characteristic may be said to apply also to these three sub-modules from our CD-ROM where variety of pedagogy is one of the key characteristics included in addressing students’ variety of learning styles.  

The constructivist theoretical approach, when used in conjunction with multimedia, may be summed up, as Grant and Vansledright (2001; 158) note, to  “… open up wonderful worlds to learners”. Such worlds are increasingly being experienced by all university students, and any other learners, to make learning more enjoyable and relevant. The implications of such learning on-line have the potential to enhance individual growth to a level of quality rarely experienced before (cf Dewey, 1916) as learning becomes an activity where its self-consciousness is shed, and the act of learning becomes meaningful, relevant, active, enjoyable and uplifting.  Such characteristics of learning auger well for enhanced lifelong learning for everyone with computer access, and concurrently an enhanced quality of life in many societies.

References

          Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.

          Boling, E. & Kirkley, S. (1995). Interaction Design for Multimedia Software, AAIM 4th Annual Conference on Multimedia in Education and Industry [On-line],  Available:  http://www.indiana.edu/~iirg/ARTICLES/multimedia/interactionDesign_MM.html [12 Jun 2001]

          Bradley, G. and Russell, G (1997). Computer Experience, School Support and Computer Anxieties, Educational Psychology, 17, 3, 267-284.

          Brown, T. (1997). Multimedia in Education –Conclusions. http://129.180.87.4/Units/CurricSt/CSIT513/573/573_12.html [27 September 1999].

          Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

          Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education, New York: Macmillan.

          Education Queensland. (2000). Study of Society and Environment Syllabus, Brisbane: Government Printing Office.

          Fardouly, N. (1999). Instruction Design of Learning Materials.  University of New South Wales [On-line], http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/learning/instructionaldesign/materials.htm [10 December 2000].

          Goldman, J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (1999). Internet educational usage by High School students around the world, Educational Practice and Theory, 21,1, 67-85.

          Goldman, J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (2000). Internet connectivity in the education of high school students around the world: An Australian originated study, Journal of Pacific Asian Education, 12, 2, 25-39.

          Goldman, J. D. G. & Hocking, C. G. (2002). Internet curriculum projects by High School students around the world, World Studies in Education 3,1.

          Goldman, J. D. G. & Krause, J. (2001). Interactive multimedia collaborative strategies employed by upper Primary School students: A case study, Educational Practice and Theory, 23, 2, 61-80.

          Goldman, J. D. G. & Krause, J. (2002). Preparatory collaborative problem-solving for interactive multimedia projects in a Primary school.  Unpublished manuscript.

          Grant, S. G. and Vansledright, B. (2001). Constructing a powerful approach to teaching and Learning in Elementary Social Studies, Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

          Hammer, R. & Kellner, D. (2001). Multimedia pedagogy and multicultural education for the new millennium. Current Issues in Education, 4 (2). Available:

http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume4/number2/index.html [05 June 2001]

          Hamza, M. & Alhalabi, B. (1999). Technology and Education: Between Chaos and Order. First Monday – Peer-Reviewed Journal on the internet [On-line],

Available: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_3/hamza/ [06 July 2001]

          Marsh, C. (2001). (Ed) Teaching about Studies of Society and Environment  (3^rd ed.), Sydney: Prentice Hall.

          Marton, F., Hounsell, D., and Entwistle, N. (1997). The Experience of Learning. Implications for Teaching and Studying in Higher Education ( 2^nd ed.), Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

          Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching.  The Experience in Higher Education, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University.

          Rowland, S. (2000). The Enquiring University Teacher, Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University.

          Savery, J. R., and Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson, (Ed.) Constructivist learning Environments: case Studies in Instructional design, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

          Seels , B. and Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions, (2^nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

          Smith, P.  L. and Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional Design, (2^nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

          Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, Aldershot, Arena.

          Sorrell, M. (2000) Trend of the world as we know it…is American. The Australian, 8 February, p.27.

          Strommen, D.  (1999). Constructivism, Technology, and the Future of Classroom Learning.  http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/construct.html

[ 27 September 1999].

          Torrisi, G. and Davis, G. (2000). Online Learning as a catalyst for reshaping practice –The experience of some academics developing online learning materials, The International Journal for Academic Development, 5(2), 166-176.

          Torrisi-Steele, G. and Davis, G. (2000). A”A website for my subject”: The experiences of some academics’ engagement with educational designers in a team based approach to developing online learning materials, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 283-301. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet16/torrisi-steele.html