1.

Abstract
This paper aims at answering question: How to support and facilitate collaborative online
learning? There has been a dramatic growth in online education the last decade. I
will argue that constructive online learning will provide a competitive advantage in
what is seen as an increasingly competitive Education Industry. In support of this
argument I will consider a problematic online learning course and propose a solution
through constructive Instructional !esign and media selection. I will further develop
the design into a "proof of concept" prototype and implement it in a pilot study to
prove the worth of these ideas.
2. Introduction
In higher education there has been a dramatic increase in the adoption of distance
learning methods in higher education. # study released by the $ational %entre of
Education &tatistics in '(() found that the number of higher education institutions
involved in distance education would double from '((* to '((+ to include *+ percent of
all colleges and universities ,-lgren. /0001. #ccording to some estimates. the distance
learning mar2et is now growing at a /* percent annual rate in the 3.&. and represent 45.*
billion in annual revenues for post6secondary education ,7riffiths 8 7atien. '(((1.
# large part of the growth in distance education has been as result of the phenomenal
growth of the Internet. The 9orld 9ide 9eb has evolved. as an unrivalled platform to
serve the information needs of a variety of clients across diverse geography and conte:ts.
!istance education has capitali;ed on it. to develop into a large6scale information
technology service.
Tele6learning is: ma2ing connections among persons and resources through
communication technologies for learning6related purposes ,%ollis. '((<1. -nline learning
in terms of this definition refers to activities that ma2e connections among persons
through the Internet for learning6related purposes. # synonym often used for online
1
learning is e6learning. The number of online6courses available via the Internet grew from
an estimated /.000 in '(() to appro:imately '*.000 'n '((( ,-lgren. /0001.
&tudents= changing needs and demands are also an important motivation for the
investment in online6learning. Today nearly half of all college students are older adults
who >uggle >obs. families. and studies. In addition to being first6time degree see2ers.
many older students are re6careering or updating their >ob s2ills in response to rapid
changes in 2nowledge and the wor2place ,-lgren. /0001. -nline6learning offers students
a much more fle:ible learning e:perience. ?earning is self6paced. easily restructured. not
constrained by time and place. and up6to6date.
The above6mentioned factors have contributed to ma2ing online6learning one of the
fastest growing and competitive industries of the new information mar2et. The boundary
between business and education is then also becoming more blurred. In such a
competitive environment the competitive advantage stems from the ability to provide
high a quality learning e:perience at low cost.
Too often online6learning enterprises have focused their efforts at producing high quality
media e:periences instead of learning e:periences. @edia doesn=t ma2e it instruction.
says Aobert Bielins2y. vice president of mar2eting and strategic development at #llen
Interactions @inneapolis. Car more important are basic instructional design principles.
such as planning the content around the needs of your audience engaging learners with
relevant information. and delivering on your course=s ob>ectives. #ll that can be done
with simple elements of te:t and static graphics6especially if learners can interact with an
instructor and with one another via the web ,Cister. /0001.
7ood online6learning depends on tested and proven instructional design principles and
theories not media. Effective design of online6learning systems therefore depends on
translating relevant instructional principles and theories into well6selected media.
Instructional !esign ,I!1 speciali;es in these practices.
2
2.1. Instructional Design
The term instructional design refers to the systematic and reflective process of
translating principles of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials.
activities. information resources. and evaluation ,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1. I! is foremost
an activity. The aim of I! is the production of a plan or a s2etch of the intended
instruction based on systematically reflecting on learning principles and theories. The
primary aim of I! is therefore the production of a plan. These plans are implemented and
used in the production of course plans. learning materials. information resources and
learning activities. The production can be done by media specialists or the instructional
designer himD her 6self if they have the relevant technical s2ills. The implementation of
the I! plan is often utili;ed as a formative evaluation of the plan in order to improve on
the initial plan in a spiral developmental process referred to as rapid prototyping.
The term Instruction has a very distinct meaning in conte:t of I!. Instruction is an
intended activity to promote learning ,!i>2stra. /00'1. Intention is central to the I!
conception of instruction. ?earners learn various things from their instructional
e:periences. however only if they succeed in achieving the intended learning goals of the
instructional can the activity be described as successful instruction. I! is therefore
concerned with the systematic development of instructional plans toward intended
learning goals.
?earning also plays a central role in I!. ?earning is the activity I! hopes to engender in
the participants of instruction. i.e. develop 2nowledge about the reality and acquire s2ills
how to operate on the reality ,!i>2stra. /00'1. ?earning is however a problematic term. It
means different things to different people. -ur conception of learning is largely
determined by deep6rooted philosophical and social beliefs and arguments. I! has
consequently drawn on other disciplines for e:ample Ehilosophy. Esychology. &ociology.
etc. in an attempt to overcome limited conceptions of learning.
3
-ver the years I! has grown into a field of study in its own right. #s a field of study. it
provides a theoretical foundation to principles of instructional design. a research base
confirming the theoretical foundations. and a direct involvement in the application of
those principles. Instructional design theory is often referred to as a prescriptive theory in
that the variables and conditions of I! theories are predictable to given learning
outcomes ,Tennyson 8 &chout. '(()1.
9e can therefore ma2e a distinction between I! as an activity and as a study. The border
between the two conceptions is not clear6cut. I! activity draws heavily on I! theory and
I! practice provides valuable descriptions and inventions that enable researchers to
e:tend I! theory.
In my paper I will focus on I! as practice. I will however draw on I! theory in the
e:ecution of my design activity to guide and motivate my decisions. !esign is primarily a
problem solving activity. The term design implies a systematic or intensive planning and
ideation process prior to the development of something or the e:ecution of some plan to
solve a problem ,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1.
Aeal world ,situated1 problem solving. on the other hand. involves ill6structured problems
and 2nowledge domains. These problems may possess multiple solution and solution
paths. or no solutions at allF present uncertainty about which concepts. rules. and
principles are necessary to determine appropriate actionF and require learners to ma2e
>udgments about the problem and defend them ,Gonassen. '(((1.
I! problems are primarily ill6structured in nature. There e:ist no algorithms for solving
these types of problems. !ifferent designers will often develop quite different designs to
the same instructional problem. !eveloping solutions to these problems is essentially a
creative process. I! is therefore primarily innovation. I! innovation needs to however be
done in a systematic and scientific manner.
4
I! is therefore a systematic as well as chaotic activity. !espite the fle:ibility and
creativity required in the e:ecution of I! it is very important to develop instruction
systematically to ensure all relevant factors are considered in the design and its
implementation. To support the systematic development of design and its implementation
I! have developed an I! procedure. This procedure does not serve as an algorithm for
I!. rather it is meant to function as a systematic framewor2 for creative design practices.
2.2. Instructional Design Procedure
The Instructional !esign Erocedure ,I!E1 roots can be traced to other design professions
li2e engineering. This systematic procedure has however been adapted and e:tended
throughout its developmentF and will surely be further developed in future.
I will now provide a brief overview of the I!E:
2.2.1. Analysis
#nalyse the problem. conte:t. ob>ectives. target group. etc.
2.2.2. Design
%reate models. s2etches. plans. etc.
2.2.3. Development
!evelop prototype from !esign ,models. s2etches. plans. etc.1.
2.2.4. Evaluation
Evaluate !eveloped prototype.
5
2.2.5. Implementation
Implement prototype when it meets requirements.
This representation of the I! process is however ambiguous in that it portrays the design
process as a linear procedure. #ny designer will tell you that this is not the case. !esign
is a chaotic process where the above6mentioned sequence is multi6staged. Each phase is
lin2ed to their predecessors by feedbac2 loops. The conclusion reached at a later phase
can therefore lead to the rethin2ing of any or all of the preceding phases.
I will utili;e the above6mentioned procedure to structure my report to give a more
systematic account of the development of the prototype I developed for the problem
considered in this paper.
3. Te Problem
The problem considered in this paper refers to the inefficient problem definition and goal
setting activities involved in the %ollaborative Ero>ect ,%E1 tas2s of the Introduction to
3rban !esign ,I3!1 online course. The solution will aim to support collaborative online
learning.
4. Analysis
4.1. !earning "onte#t
4.1.1. Discrepancy$%ased &eeds Assessment
The I3! is a distance course that aims to introduce learners with little or no e:perience in
the field. to the theories. principles and procedures involved in urban design. The course
further aims to provide learners with a constructive learning e:perience. In an attempt to
achieve these goals. case6based learning and problem6solving learning are utili;ed.
6
?earners are e:pected to develop their 2nowledge regarding urban design theories.
principles. and procedures. They are further required to be able to reflect on these ideas
critically in conte:t of real world cases. ?earners are also e:pected to be able to solve
urban design problems both individually and collaboratively.
Evaluating the course results the designers have found that the course generally succeeds
in its aims. The instructors of the course have however become aware of an increasing
amount of complaints being raised by students who are e:periencing frustration in their
participation in the %E. The instructors have reviewed the asynchronous communication
messages by students regarding their %Es. They found that the ma>or cause for frustration
had been the activities of defining problems and setting goals collaboratively. during the
e:ecution of the %E tas2s. These activities seemed to ta2e a long time and much
discussion in comparison to the other %E tas2 activities. In some of the reviewed
messages students have also directly referred to these tas2s as cause for frustration. The
%E component of the I3! course is therefore not being delivered efficiently.
?earners should be able to solve collaborative urban design problems more efficientlyF
more specifically the collaborative problem definition. and goal setting activities of the
%E tas2 should be done more efficiently.
4.1.2. !earning Environment
The I3! course is delivered through an Internet based ?earning Environment ,?E1. The
?E system is divided into various categories to support the activities in the course. these
include: organi;ation. communication. resources and collaboration. These activities have
been translated into specific system features.
The $ews feature contains the latest information regarding the course. participants and
assignments. The %ourse Info feature contains information regarding the content.
ob>ectives. organi;ation and instructors of the course. The Aoster feature contains the
activities planned for the course. It specifies and schedules the course materials to be
7
covered and assignments to be completed. The e6mail feature incorporates the
conventional e6mail system in the ?E web interface. ?earners are able to send and receive
e6mail messages to one another or groups of peopleF as well as attach files to these
messages. The !iscussion feature enables students to discuss issues. cases. designs and
assignments by posting messages to the discussion forum. The 9or2space feature
enables students to wor2 as a group by sharing files. These files are saved to the
wor2space that can be accessed by group members over the Internet. The %hatting
feature enables learners to read and reply te:t messages to one another or groups in real6
time.
The I3! course adopts a constructivist approach to learning urban design. It centres its
learning activities on problem6solving activities. %ritical reflection by the learners.
regarding the problem they are required to solve. forms the basis of the courses didactic
approach. #ccording to this approach learners themselves should formulate the problem
and the consequent goals required for its solution. The course designers believe that
2nowledge is constructed through an active process of critical reflection and
collaboration. They also 2now that since most of the participants are adult learners that
providing them with an opportunity to determine their own goals will facilitate learning.
9hen learners define and formulate the problem they form an ownership relationship
to it. This greatly benefits learners= motivation. which is seen as crucial in any distance
learning activity.
The instructors of the course are e:perts in urban design. They are committed to
providing the distance learners participating in their course with the necessary support.
The instructors are aware that distance learning can be a frustrating and isolated
e:perience. The ?E has therefore been designed with the intention of facilitating
interactions between learners and instructors. as well as between learners themselves. To
achieve these aims the instructors utili;e both asynchronous and synchronous
communication systems.
8
#synchronous communication refers to communication where participants in the
discourse use the communication system at different times. The asynchronous
communication occurs through e6mail. newsgroups. shared wor2space and bulletin
boards. These technologies been integrated in an easy to use web interface. The web
interface enables learners to post threaded messages to individuals or groups. share files
and read other learners messages.
&ynchronous communication refers to communication where participants in the discourse
use the communication system at the same time. The synchronous communication occurs
through an online %hatting facility incorporated in the ?E web interface. ?earners are
able to read and reply te:tual messages to one another or groups in real6time.
?earners utili;e their personal computers to access the course resources and ?E from
home via the Internet. The distance course is delivered entirely across the Internet via the
web interface of the ?E. ?earners are therefore required to have an Internet connection as
well as a web browser. #dditional programs for drawing and word processing are up to
learners= prerogatives.
4.1.3. !earner "aracteristics Analysis
The group of learners participating in the I3! course is diverse in character. !ue to the
fle:ibility of distance learning we find that it caters for a specific yet diverse set of the
learning population. !istance learners are typically older and more mature than regular
full6time students. ?earners= ages vary from /0 to <5. They often have full6time >obs.
loo2 after children and have other commitments.
!istance learners have varying aptitudes. They have different educational a life
e:periences. #ll learners have completed schoolingF however vary in their level of higher
education. &ome learners have gone to college or universities. while other had started
wor2 after completing their schooling. ?earners are all literate and meet the minimum
requirements set by the course. ?earners all are s2illed at using computers. the Internet
9
and the ?E web interface. ?earners have diverse bac2grounds. however. this seen as an
asset since it enables learners to draw on their different life e:periences to contribute to
the course discussions.
?earners vary in their level of cognitive development. &ome ?earners are in %oncrete
operational stage ,unable to mentally manipulate symbols without requiring concrete
supports1 of their cognitive development while others are in the formal operational stage
,able to mentally manipulate symbols without requiring concrete supports1. ?earners also
vary in their visual of literacy and therefore vary in their ability to gain information from
graphical representations. They also vary in their level of cognitive processing and
learning strategies.
#ll learners are interested in urban design. They are all participating voluntarily in the
course. ?earners have diverse motives for their participation. &ome learners are
participating purely motivated by their interest. while others are motivated by prospects
of career advancement. #ll learners therefore have a positive attitude toward the sub>ect
and learning. ?earners have varying perceptions of and e:perience with distance
education through the Internet. The learners range from first time users to users with
ample e:perience from learning online. The learners= perception of the mediation of the
course varies from optimism with the new technology to pessimism with e:pected
frustrations with it. ?earners vary greatly in their academic self6concepts. &ome students
see themselves as e:pert learners while others are insecure about their academic ability.
?earners also vary greatly in their attribution of success.
!ue to the nature of distance education the social relationships with fellow learners are
very wee2. #part from tas2 oriented communication and some informal discussions via
the communication facilities provided. no social interactions have ta2en place between
learners. ?earners tend towards competition. The ma>ority of course assignments are to
be completed individually. #ll learners also are e:pected to review and comment on one
another=s assignments. ?earners perceive themselves as mature individuals. They li2e
10
managing their own wor2 and goals. ?earners are from different socio6economic as well
as from diverse cultural bac2grounds.
4.2. Tas' Analysis
The tas2 to be analysed is the effective solution of collaborative urban design pro>ects.
particularly focusing on improving learners= ability to define the urban design problem
and set goals. within the I3! ?E. The I3! is delivered through an Internet based ?E
based on constructivist principles. i.e. %onstructivist ?earning Environment ,%?E1.
9e argue in this paper that the powerful framewor2 for designing %?Es is provided by
activity theory ,Gonassen 8 Aohrer6@urphy. '(((1.
In conte:t of the problem under consideration. activity system analysis is the most
appropriate tas2 analysis method. ?earners encounter difficulties in the activities of
defining problems and setting goals in the collaborative urban design pro>ects they are
required to complete in the I3! course. The problem lies with the e:ecution of the
learning activities and not with the learners= 2nowledge states.
#ctivity theory provides a unique lens for analysing learning processes and outcomes.
Aather than focusing on 2nowledge states. activity theory focuses on the activities in
which people are engaged. the nature of their tools they use in those activities. the social
and conte:tual relationships among collaborators in those activities. the goals and
intentions of those activities. and the ob>ects or outcomes of those activities ,Gonassen.
'(((1. The most appropriate unit of analysis is activity. The components of any activity
are organi;ed into an activity system.
11
The following figure ,Cig H./.'1 illustrates the #ctivity &ystem:
The primary focus of the activity system analysis is the top triangle of the activity system
model. The production of an ob>ect ,physical or conceptual1 is the goal of an activity. In
conte:t of the %E the goal of the activity system is the collaborative production of a
design that will meet the requirements stated by the urban design problem description.
The sub>ects utili;e tools to create or transform the ob>ect to attain the goal of the
activity. The sub>ect of an activity is the individual or group of actors engaged in the
activity. In the urban design tas2 these are the learners participating in the I!3 course
over distance.
The ob>ect of the activity is the physical or mental product that is sought. In the I3!
course this are the products produced with the aim of solving the %E problem. i.e.
s2etches. design. models. and the report reflecting on the design.
12
(igure 4.2.1) Activity *ystem
,Gonassen 8 Aohrer6@urphy. '(((1
The tools of an activity can be anything used in the transformation process ,physical or
mental1. In case of the urban design tas2 the tool would be primarily the web interface of
the I3! ?E. however all software as well as physical tools utili;ed in the transformation
and production of the ob>ect will be considered.
The production process in the top triangle of the activity system is supported through the
implicit and e:plicit rules regarding the activity. the community and the division of
labour.
I will continue with a brief description of the activity system.
4.2.1. "lari+y Purpose o+ te Activity *ystem
The community of learners participating in the I3! course shares a common goal of
learning to solve urban design problems collaboratively and to complete the I3! course.
The learners are novices at urban design and are participating in the course to gain an
introduction to the principles. theories and procedures of urban designF as well as develop
practical s2ills for solving urban design problems.
?earners will have different e:pectations depending on their prior 2nowledge and
personal motivations for participating in the urban design course. They have registered
for the course individually and hence are participating in the course to achieve individual
ob>ectives. They however all share the e:pectation of being introduced to urban designF
its application and participating in urban design e:ercises individually and
collaboratively.
4.2.2. Analy,e te Activity *ystem
The sub>ect in the activity is the particular group of learners required to complete the %Es
together to meet the I3! course requirements. The learner6perceived roles are largely
determined by the e:isting course structure. ?earners largely view themselves as
13
individuals. since they are participating in the course individually. The group6
assignments are largely decomposed into smaller tas2s. which the individual group
members complete and then discuss with their fellow group members.
The learner6perceived contradictions are primarily the discrepancy between the intended
collaborative urban design activities in the actual resulting combination of individual
urban designs into the final product. The collaborative pro>ects usually develop as
individual pro>ects. which are later in response to fellow group members= reflection
amended to fit the collaborative design. This is in contradiction to the comple:ity of true
collaborative design learners have been introduced to in case studies.
Their e:ist contradictions between the different conte:ts the learners are situated in.
?earners have committed to the urban design course. however. all participants are full
time employees and the course is done through distance. ?earners might be influenced by
their other conte:ts and commitments that might seem more immediate and demanding.
The learners are furthermore learning at home. hence it can be difficult for participants to
differentiate between their roles as learner or homema2er in this environment.
The ob>ect of the activity is the production of an urban design. It is the production of a
s2etch of the proposed urban design as well as a report reflecting on the design decisions
made to solve the design problem. The focus of the activity analysis is the definition of
the urban design problem and goal setting. The collaborative urban design pro>ects
embody the course designers= pedagogical principle that 2nowledge and understanding is
developed in situations where the learners measure cognition. e:perience and attitudes
against each other. In the collaborative pro>ects learners= reflections play an important
role.
The nature of the ob>ect is tangible. The ob>ect ta2es the form of a s2etch of the proposed
urban design and a report reflecting on the design decisions ta2en during the e:ecution of
the tas2. The instructors of the I3! course measure the ob>ect. They evaluate the group
or individuals urban design s2etch and report. They are e:pert urban designers with a
14
great deal of e:perience and provide learners with valuable feedbac2 regarding their
designs. Transforming the urban design problem into a solution both individually and
collaboratively will achieve learners= goals of understanding and applying urban design
principles and theories.
4.2.3. Analy,e te Activity *tructure
This activity structure of the %E is comple:. ?earners will start by defining the urban
design problem in conte:t of their assigned roles. These definitions will be posted to the
!iscussion forum. where group members will comment and give arguments for and
against these propositions. -nce the problem is defined learners will proceed to set goals.
select means for achieving these goals and developing prototypical designs for the
solution of the urban design problem. These decisions will be negotiated between group
members. #ll negotiations will all ta2e place through the !iscussion. 9or2space and
%hat features of the ?E. The initial prototype design s2etches are shared utili;ing the
9or2space and discussed utili;ing the !iscussion and %hat features. The final design is
achieved once the group has agreed on their proposed s2etch for the solution of the urban
design problem. The final report is then written summari;ing the design decisions made
during the collaborative design. The !iscussion feature is utili;ed in writing the report
since it contains all the suggestions. arguments and decisions made during the
transformation of the ob>ect.
The activity is driven by both the intentions of the learners and the instructors. ?earners
intend to learn urban design principles and theories and apply these individually and
collaboratively. ?earners also intend to successfully complete the I3! course. These
intentions drive the production of the urban design products by the learners. The
Instructors intend to introduce learners with little or no e:perience in the field. to the
theories and principles involved in urban design. The course further aims to provide
learners with a constructive learning e:perience. enabling learners to apply what they
have learned individually as well as collaboratively.
15
The instructors also have specific intentions for the collaborative design activities. #s
mentioned previously ,please see. ?earning Environment point H.'./1 the I3! course
adopts a constructivist approach to learning urban design. which centres the learning
activities in problem6solving activities.
The activity developed from a part6time I3! course offered on6campus. !ue to the
development of communication technologies. more particularly the ?E. instructors and
course designers foresaw the opportunity to offer the course through distance over the
Internet. The ma>or change between the on campus and off campus modes of the activity
is the omission of face6to6face meetings for groups wor2ing on the collaborative urban
design pro>ects.
In completing the %E learners analyse problem situations. formulate problems and goals.
select goals. produce s2etches. formulate arguments. communicate. negotiate. evaluateF
and reflect and report on design decisions.
4.2.4. Analyse te -ediators o+ Trans+ormation
Iarious tools are utili;ed to accomplish the tas2: pen and paper. computers. software
programs and visuali;ation tools. The activity is managed through the ?E. This ?E
shapes the activity by structuring learners= access to tas2 information. specifying the
requirements. coordinating the activity. supporting learners communication and sharing
of resources and problem representations.
?earners also s2etch and share their proposed designs. ?earners utili;e various tools to
produce their s2etches. &2etches are produced utili;ing both software s2etch tools as well
as scanned hand drawings. Aeports are written utili;ing word processing tools. ?earners
also utili;e urban design procedures as in the e:ecution of their tas2.
In the past this tas2 has been performed utili;ing similar tools. In the on6campus course
the collaborative urban design was done through a board game. This tool represented the
16
problem space on paper and resources were represented as bloc2s or paper ob>ects that
the learners could manipulate.
The course designers have specified the formal rules for the I3! course. &ome rules are
inferred through the structure of the urban design pro>ects and the ?E. The formal rules
evolved from the requirements and methodology followed in the on campus course. The
inferred rules evolved from the development of the ?E and its structure. The formal rules
are wide in their scope. #ll participants in the activity are aware of them. The inferred
rules are not so e:plicit. learners might therefore not be aware of the rules they follow.
In the e:ecution of the %E activity learners are assigned specific roles to play. These roles
are specified by the course instructors and hence the students do not have much freedom
to change their or others roles. The roles are formulated to support the e:ecution of the
collaborative design pro>ects.
4.2.5. Analy,e te "onte#t
The ma>ority of conte:tual factors have been considered in the analysis of the ?earning
Environment ,section H.'./1. I would however li2e to include the limitations implied by
the activity=s conte:t.
The ?E limits the activities through its communication system. ?earners are limited in
their ability to collaborate and respond to other group member=s ideas and designs.
?earners are unable to reflect in action and share a common problem space in the
e:ecution of the collaborative urban design pro>ects. The learners are novices in urban
design. The lac2 of practical e:perience limits their abilities and 2nowledge of the
sub>ect. ?earners are furthermore studying from home. Cactors form the home
environment could influence and limit learners participation. ?earners= personalities.
motivations and ob>ectives are differentF these differences can limit the e:ecution of the
group pro>ects.
17
4.2... Analy,e te Activity *ystem Dynamics
#ccording to the activity system analysis. there should e:ist a strong interrelationship
between the components of the system. It is essential for the different parts of the
problem space to be interconnected.
The problem manipulation space needs to be connected to the wor2 group members and
the cognitive tools needed to perform the tas2. The problem representation needs to be
connected to the related cases and information resources. The collaborative tools need to
be interconnect the members of the learning community who are wor2ing on the %?E
,Gonassen 8 Aohrer6@urphy. '(((1.
In the I3! course this interrelationship is achieved through the ?E. The problem
manipulation space ,the shared s2etch1 is asynchronously connected to the wor2 group
members through the 9or2space feature. The problem representation is connected to the
related case studies and information sources through the ?E. The collaborative tools are
interconnected with members of the community wor2ing on the collaborative urban
design pro>ects through the ?E. The ?E supports collaboration through the !iscussion.
%hatting and 9or2space features. E6mail is also utili;ed as a collaborative tool to
interconnect group members and allow them to share ideas and files.
These relationships are not formalF rather they are inferred through the supporting
components of the I3! course. The relationships are dictated through the operations and
constraints implied by the ?E. These relationships developed through the distance
learning implementation of the I3! course and more specifically with the introduction of
the ?E. The factors that support the structure of the activity are the I3! course
requirements. the course structure. the assignments and pro>ects. the course management
and the ?E.
Tas2 analysis plays a very important role in traditional I!. Tas2 analysis provides the
instructional designer with the ob>ectives for their design. Tas2 analysis in the traditional
18
sense is therefore primarily prescriptive in its function. #ctivity theory on the other hand
focuses on practice and is therefore primarily a descriptive tool. %are needs therefore to
be ta2en generali;ing the analysis of activity theory. It is argued. however. that
researchers constantly refocus the ob>ect of interest to provide different views and to
advance activity as much as possible. #ctivity theory therefore is a very valuable
formative evaluation tool for describing an activity.
Aesearchers and designers can therefore utili;e activity system analysis=s description to
formatively evaluate their design. This is a great asset in rapid prototyping. where the
design is developed through a high frequency spiral process of successive
implementations and formative evaluations. #ctivity theory therefore provides
instructional designers with a useful description of the activities required in their goal.
This description then serves as a criterion for the formative evaluation of their design.
5. Design
In resolution of the problem under consideration I will design and develop an e:tension
to the e:isting ?E of the I3! course. I will base my design on %onstructivist Erinciples
and utili;e rapid prototyping as the design approach in the development of the prototype.
The choice for constructivist principles is two6fold. Cirstly. The instructors also have
specific intentions for the collaborative design activities. #s mentioned previously
,please see. ?earning Environment point H.'./1 the I3! course adopts a constructivist
approach to learning urban design. which centres its learning activities on problem6
solving activities. &econdly. I personally agree with many of the principles proposed by
constructivism in its various forms ,%ognitive. &ocial. %onte:tual1. @ost of the
controversy is not in disagreement with the ma>or tenet of personal construction of
2nowledge. but with the implications of this tenet should be ,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1.
%onstructivism can best be conceptualised as a philosophy rather than a theory.
%onstructivism is frequently presented as a theory but we concur with a number of
scholars that it is an educational philosophy that particularly addresses epistemology
19
,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1. #s a philosophy %onstructivism supports its assumptions and a
vision what learning should be by integrating various psychological theories ,EiagetJs
theory of cognitive development. Iygots2y=s sociocultural theory. %ognitive Cle:ibility
Theory. &ituated %ognition. %ognitive #pprenticeship. !istributed %ognition. ecological
psychology. etc.1.
5.1. "onstructivist Principles
The following principles are proposed by constructivism in its various forms ,%ognitive.
&ocial. %onte:tual1:
Knowledge is constructed from e:perience.
?earning results from personal interpretation of 2nowledge.
?earning is an active process in which meaning is developed on the basis of
e:perience.
?earning is collaborative with meaning negotiated from multiple perspectives.
?earning should occur ,or be situated1 in realistic settings.
Testing should be integrated into the tas2. not a separate activity
,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1.
The designers of the I3! course utili;ed these constructivist principles in the
development of the ?E. The concept of ?E has become popular in recent times as the
goal of I!. 9ith the increased emphasis on transforming instruction from transmitting
2nowledge into learners to facilitating learners to construct 2nowledge themselves. ?E
have become a valuable metaphor to guide this transformation.
5.2. !earning Environment
?E optimises constructivist principles. ?E propose a space or environment where
learning is facilitated through supporting learners to use their 2nowledge and to
20
collaboratively wor2 together as peers. applying their combined 2nowledge to solve
problems that are meaningful and realistically comple: in authentic conte:ts.
?E typically consist of the following components:
5.2.1. Problem$pro/ect *pace
The Eroblem6pro>ect space refers to the space in the ?E describing the problem situation.
This space can represent in various media ,pictures. stories. models. etc.1 and can be
manipulated by learners in their e:ecution of the problem6solving tas2.
5.2.2. 0elated "ases
The ?E should provide learners with related cases. Aelated cases are real world
descriptions of e:periences. These related e:periences support novice learners. who
generally lac2 e:perience.
5.2.3. In+ormation 0esources
?earners require relevant information to solve problems. ?E should therefore provide
ample information resources regarding the problem under consideration.
5.2.4. "ognitive Tools
%omple: problems often require cognitive procedures and models to manage comple:
problems represented in the ?E. ?E should therefore provide various cognitive tools and
scaffolding to support learners cognitive processing.
21
5.2.5. "onversation and "ollaboration tools
?earning and 2nowledge creation are shared amongst the participants of a ?E. ?Es
therefore need to provide learners with means to communicate and collaborate.
!. H. Gonassen developed a valuable design model for the construction of ?Es. I will
discuss the above6mentioned components further in conte:t of Gonassens= model and the
developed prototype in section *.<.
I strongly agree with the I3! course designers in their use of constructivist principles and
development of a ?E. These are sound decisions. I believe the ma>or cause of the
identified problem is that the ?E designed does not provide adequate cognitive tools or
scaffolding for the collaborative tas2. The media does not support learners= cognition nor
provide a rich enough interaction between participants to effortlessly communicate
regarding the %E and its solution.
5.3. Problem$based Instruction
The %E was developed using a problem6based instructional design model. ?earners are
required to design an urban settlement collaboratively in response to a described problem
situation. The I3! course designers chose for a problem6based instructional design.
because they believe that it would facilitate an active learning process and hence
contribute to their constructivist learning philosophy. The choice for a problem6based
instructional design model is made in order to provide optimal means to support the
imaging. perception. and manipulation of ob>ects as well as the invention and production
of ob>ects ,!i>2stra. &. '(((1.
The following three categories of problems have been identified in conte:t of I! to
provide a comprehensive description of the main categories of problems instructional
designers can base their problem6based instructional designs on. Each of the categories of
22
problems has different features. result in different s2ills and 2nowledge. and are best
supported through various media.
In case of categori;ation or description problems. instances must be assigned to
categories or relationships between entities have to be found. The 2nowledge resulting
from this activity is labelled labels. relationships. conceptual networ2s and descriptive
systems ,!i>2stra. &. '(((1.
In case of solving an interpretation problem. the cognitive constructs are principles.
causal networ2s and e:planatory theories. The general method to solve such problems is
to formulate a hypothesis about a supposed relationship between an independent and
dependent variableF ma2e a prediction concerning what will happen in a specified
situation after a certain time lapseF test prediction. indicating whether it is confirmed or
falsified. and. if relevant. specify the range of probability of occurrence of a certain event.
E:planatory theories predict changes of ob>ects and relationships and lead to an
understanding of the causal mechanisms involved ,!i>2stra. &. '(((1.
Cor solving design problems. an artifact must be imagined and a first s2etch. outline or
plan has to be created and made. %oncepts and interpretations form the 2nowledge that is
used to solve design problems. The cognitive constructs are the images of the artifact and
the rules and criteria that have to be met in order to achieve a good design ,!i>2stra. &.
'(((1.
The %E tas2 is a comple: design problem. !esign problems include the other two
problem types. !esigns are based on ob>ects that are categori;ed and which are
understood in relation to other ob>ects. I also believe that design tas2s are more
constructive since they require the learner to construct a product or artifact.
23
5.4. -edia *election
The medium is the physical means by which an instructional message is communicated.
such as television. print materials. teacher. or computer ,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1.
@ultimedia refers to multiple media used together to communicate an instructional
message.
@edia and multimedia are playing an increasingly important role in instruction. The role
of media in instruction however remains controversial. @ost instructional designers
would agree that media offers cost effective method for delivering instruction.
Instructional designers however strongly disagree in their views regarding the potential of
media to be more than simply a medium for instructional presentation.
%lar2=s ,'(+5. '(+*1 argument was that. aside from a few advantages in efficiency with
which media help students learn. media has no intrinsic properties that ma2e instruction
more effective. i.e. media couldn=t teach anything that a teacher couldn=t teach on their
own ,&eel 8 9inn. '(()1.
Ko;ma ,'(('1 emphasi;ed the semiotics and processing capabilities of media. and thus
introduced a new view on the relationship between media and learning largely
corresponding with constructivism ,!orr 8 &eel. '(()1. Ko;ma drew attention to a shift
in the instructional function of media from a didactic one to one through which they
create learning environments. to varying degrees free of sub>ect matter. which allow
students the freedom of e:ploration and encourage them to construct their own
2nowledge ,&eel 8 9inn. '(()1.
I believe the above6mentioned controversy came about due to the researchers
assumptions regarding how learners interact with media. If we consider a situation where
learners learn from media. i.e. media as presentation medium. Then we will agree with
%lar2. that media has no intrinsic properties to ma2e instruction more effective. If on the
other hand we consider a situation where learners learn in media. i.e. a multimedia ?E.
24
where learners have to actively e:plore the media environment and construct their
interpretations of the presented environment. Then we will agree with Ko;ma that media
can support learners= cognitive processes by providing them with symbols to manipulate.
The true value of media in instruction is to provide learners with multi6sensory
representations they can use to construct meaning. ?earning in multimedia environments
affords information resources and collaborative and cognitive tools for ma2ing sense of a
problem. creating wor2ing models of the system. and developing and testing solutions
,Gonassen. /00'1. The technology for manipulating and constructing multimedia with has
been e:pensive and technically demanding. #s the costs of theses technologies decrease
and they become easier to use. it becomes increasingly feasible to implement more
interactive uses of media in instruction. The constructive use of media in instruction can
be one of the most powerful learning e:periences available. because it assumes some
level of ownership by the learner of their own learning process.
I believe that the I3! course designers attempted to utili;e media to develop a ?E that
would support learning in multimedia.
5.4.1. 1sed media
The content of instruction is about ob>ects in a reality. the teacher has to solve the
problem whether to use real ob>ects or a representation of those ob>ects or both. The
argument in favour of using real ob>ects is that students can perceive these with their
senses. e:perience them directly. operate on them to learn how they behave and how they
are used. and therefore more easily transfer learning outcomes outside the instructional
conte:t ,!i>2stra. '(((1.
3nfortunately real ob>ects are often too e:pensive. too dangerous. not perceivable or not
available to utili;e in instruction. In such cases it is useful to utili;e media to represent
the ob>ect under consideration. It is however important to consider which media will best
serve to represent the learning ob>ect in a particular instructional situation. Iarious
25
factors determine which media will be best in a particular instructional situation.
!epending on the tas2. the learners and the conte:t of the instruction to be developed
different media will be better at representing the ob>ect of and supporting the intended
learning.
In conte:t of the %E tas2 under consideration. real ob>ects are too e:pensive to
implement. Aeal urban design problems require e:perts to come up with solutions and
designs. #s mentioned in point *.5 the %E was developed using a problem6based
instructional design model. The use of mediated ob>ects is related to the category of
problems that have to be solved and the 2nowledge and s2ills that result from this
process. The choice of signs. of information carrier and of the technical device for
presentation and use depends on their features such as clarity and ease of presentation.
the possibility to show movement and change. elaboration of the material presented
,interactivity1. use of the mediated ob>ects in distance education. and so on ,!i>2stra. &.
/00'1.
Two important questions need to be carefully considered when selecting media to
represent real ob>ects in instruction. i.e. how to represent ob>ects and how learners will
manipulate these? Cirst ob>ects that are used or represented should clearly show the
relevant features. show regularities if they change and show ways how to design and
construct these ob>ects. &econdly. the instructional designer will try to construct a
learning environment that the students can be active. consult the reality and operate on it
,!i>2stra. &. /00'1.
#s mentioned in the analysis of the ?E ,section H.'./1 the media used to deliver the I3!
course over the Internet utili;ed both representation and communication media. The web
interface of the ?E enables learners to access content in various media ,te:t. pictures.
video. etc.1 from home over the Internet. ?earners are also able to interact with these
media in the e:ecution of their assignments. i.e. students can produce te:ts. pictures. etc.
These media can furthermore be shared through the asynchronous communication
26
channels provided. ?earners can share their media constructions and discuss them
synchronously ,through te:t chatting1 in their attempts to solve the %E assignments.
I believe the above6mentioned media utili;ed in the I3! ?E ,te:t. pictures. video. etc.1 is
not rich enough to support the appropriate ob>ect representation and manipulation
required for solving the %E design problem. The problem space and ob>ects are
represented through pictures and te:t descriptions. &tudents are able to manipulate these
representations individually and share them asynchronously. I believe the two ma>or
limitations with the e:isting media utili;ation is that urban design ob>ects are
characteri;ed by 5 dimensions and also collaborative design requires participants to be
able to manipulate ob>ects simultaneously and collaboratively. &tudies typically identify
as sources of failure those aspects of the learning process that are missing from the media
combination concerned. i.e. feedbac2 from teachers. reflection by students on the goal6
action6feedbac2 cycle ,?aurillard. '((51.
I believe these limitations directly contribute to learners= frustration with the %E
component of the I3! course. ?earners have different cognitive abilitiesF they are not all
able to manipulate abstract concepts without concrete supports or visuali;e the problem
space efficiently. @ore problematic however is the fact that the utili;ed media does not
support a synchronously shared problem representation. ?earners find it difficult to
define the problem and set goals when the problem representation is shared
asynchronously. They are unable to reflect on other learners= comments and arguments in
action. 3nli2e the classical tools. the future tools are transparent. and some of them are
designed to actually facilitate human thought. besides compensating for obstacles. such
as distance ,!illenbourg. '(((1.
I believe the emerging technology of networ2ed Iirtual Aeality ,IA1 is one of the future
tools. which offer this possibility and would enable us to overcome media limitations and
solve the problem under consideration.
27
5.4.2. Proposed media
IA is a very dynamic medium. $ot only does it include and utili;e various other media
and technology within itself. the e:perience of IA is a sub>ective phenomenon. Iirtual
reality media consist of collections of different input and output technology ob>ects li2e
stereoscopic displays. spatial audio devices. and devices that simulate the sensations of
force. touch. and motion. These immersive devices create a coordinated sensory
e:perience when coupled to a userJs motor and autonomic channels L,Miocca 8 !elaney.
'((*. ,Miocca. ?auria. 8 @c%arthy. '((<1N. The user of virtual reality communications
media becomes a participant inside an informed computational space. e:periencing a
sensory environment ,?auria. '(()1.
%entral to our understanding of IA is the phenomenon of immersion. Immersion refers to
the human e:perience of being within an environment. -f central importance in IA is the
aim to generate an e:perience of telepresence. Meing in an environment is a 5
dimensional e:perienceF hence most attempts to produce the e:perience of telepresence
through immersion utili;e technologies that simulate 5 dimensions through either 5!
visual displays or audio. Telepresence can be defined as the e:perience of presence in an
environment by means of a technology or media. IA can therefore be defined as
environment communicated through a technology medium in which a perceiver
e:periences telepresence.
IA can be very motivating for users. The popularity IA action games are astounding.
The amount of time young people today spend in theses immersive entertainment
environments is phenomenal. -ne of my motives for considering IA as an instructional
media is its seemingly engaging and entertaining nature. IA enables designers to create
engaging and fantastic worlds. which can demand e:ploration and problem solving.
In IA the information space has 5 dimensions. IA therefore enables you to learn your
way around a virtual environment ,that can represent a computer system1 very much li2e
28
you learn your way around your neighbourhood. There are some inherent benefits for this
spatial representation of information.
%ognitive psychologists typically spea2 about declarative and procedural 2nowledge.
drawing on AyleJs ,'(H(1 distinction between 2nowing6that and 2nowing6how. Eer2ins
suggests that 2nowing your way around includes much more: ...having a sense of
orientation. recogni;ing problems and opportunities. perceiving how things wor2
together. possessing a feel for the te:ture and structure of the domain. It encompasses not
>ust e:plicit but tacit 2nowledge. not >ust focal awareness but peripheral awareness. not
>ust a sense of whatJs there but whatJs interesting and valuable. as urged by @ichael
Eolanyi ,'(*+1 ,9ilson. '((<1.
There are also various psychological factors involved in utili;ing IA as medium. IA
enables people to e:ternalise their mental models by constructing representations of their
internal models in IA and sharing them with others. In essence we can e:plore our own
cognitive processes of concept formation and 2nowledge creation. IA can hence have the
additional benefit of ma2ing people aware of their own meta6cognitive processes.
This cannot be a proposition that can be conclusively proven in science or in IA. Mut it is
from this metaphysical and epistemological perspective that psychology is said to be the
physics of IA. Esychology is the physics of IA in the sense that that the virtual
environment is manufactured towards creating a cognitive state. The creation of the
cognitive e:perience. of presence in IA. is necessary towards any end in IA. and
ultimately becomes the e:perience of the user. IA is a reality generator rather than a
symbol processor L,Mric2en. '((0a1N ,?auria. '(()1.
&alomon contended that the closer the symbol system of a particular medium are to the
mental representation and s2ills required to complete a specific instructional tas2. the
easier the learning will be ,&mith 8 Aagan. '(((1. I believe that IA symbols ,5!
models1 are closer to the mental representations necessary for urban design. The s2ill of
manipulating these ob>ects could also greatly facilitate the learning of urban design.
29
9e believe IA has enormous potential to facilitate 2nowledge construction. and even for
improving some aspects of didactic instruction ,9inn 8 Mric2en. '((/1. There are many
reasons for this. two of them being the engaging and motivating nature of immersion in
IA and the intuitive ways in which participants can interact with the environment.
Eerhaps most important. though. is the ability to build instructional strategies. coaching.
guidance and prompts directly into the environment itself. ,&eel 8 9inn. '(()1.
$etwor2ed IA has only recently become a viable media to utili;e in the construction of
?Es for distance education via the Internet. I believe that the media currently utili;ed in
the I3! ?E is limited in supporting the tas2. I believe that networ2ed IA can overcome
these limitations by supporting learners= cognitive capabilities and providing students
with a shared 5! environment with ob>ects to manipulate and collaboratively design a
solution more efficiently.
$etwor2ed IA enables multiple users to share a virtual environment over the Internet or
?#$. 3sers are represented in the environment as #vatars ,5! models representing
people1. They are able to see and communicate with one another and navigate and
interact with the virtual environment. %ommunication occurs typically through te:t
chatting due to the limitations of bandwidth. These limitations could in future be
overcome. The #vatars are also becoming more realistic and interactive. #nimated
avatars are already ma2ing their way into virtual worlds. In future comple: social
behaviours will also be incorporated. This will enable a much more authentic e:perience
for users.
5.5. 0apid Prototype Development
#t very early stages of planning. a small6scale prototype is built that e:hibits 2ey features
of the intended system. This prototype is e:plored and tested in an effort to get a better
handle on the requirements of the larger system. The prototype is then scrapped as
designers start over and build the larger6scale system. This process is called rapid
30
prototyping. Its advantage is that it allows for tryout of 2ey concepts at early stages when
costs are small and changes more easily made ,9ilson. Gonassen 8 %ole. '((51.
The particular flavour of IA I utili;ed for the prototype is des2top IA. !es2top IA
refers to the most common. cost effective. accessible form of IA. !es2top IA utili;es a
normal computer screen to represent a 5! ob>ect or world. The ob>ect or world is not 5!
in the true sense of the wordF however. as the ob>ect or world is navigated or manipulated
it=s representation change according to the navigated or manipulated perspective.
!es2top IA enables users to get a feel for IA without having to buy e:pensive hardware
such as head6mounted6displays and data gloves. !es2top IA is however strictly spea2ing
still /! in representation. i.e. /! interactive picture.
I e:plored various networ2ed IA programs available and finally decided to use is the
Islands platform ,http:DDwww.parallelgraphics.comDproductsDislands1. I chose Islands
because it enables users to: &imultaneously interact in 5! environments. communicate
with other on6line users. drag and drop any IA@? ob>ect into a scene and manipulate
and edit these 5! ob>ects in scenes in real time. The platform enable users to drag and
drop IA ob>ects into a scene and manipulate and edit these 5! ob>ects in scenes in real
time.
The shared virtual environment is coordinated through the multi6user server. The shared
environment is therefore independent from any of the clients. &o if a clients connection
brea2s or is disconnected. the shared environment is left intact. This has important
implications for coordination. which is difficult in remote collaboration. The participants
can coordinate their activities through their presence in the environment. They are not
constrained by others leaving or entering. This ma2es the shared environment fle:ible
with regard to time and coordination. This opens up the possibility for a shared
environment to be accessed and manipulated at different times by different people.
The prototype went through two developmental phases. The first prototype contained a
smaller world than the one utili;ed in the final prototype
31
,http:DDhome.student.utwente.nlDh.vermeulenDmulti6userDlandscapeOold.wrl1. The ob>ects
contained in it were also fewer. It did however provide the opportunity to test the concept
and e:periment with the media. The first prototype was tested using multiple computers
simulating a multi6user e:ercise. I was able to interact with the other user through te:t
and see them represented in the virtual world. I could insert ob>ects and manipulate them.
These changes effected the shared representation of the virtual environment. The
interface was not too complicated. but I 2new that the users would be ine:perienced
using it so I set out to develop instructions for users to use the prototype.
It was decided to ma2e an initial user test of the environment. ob>ects and support
information. The required software was installed on one of the computers in the masters=
lounge. The first prototype was configured. its ob>ects. support material and also an
online questionnaire regarding the interface and its usability. # sign was placed on the
computer as2ing fellow masterJs students to try out the prototype. 3nfortunately I have
still not received any feedbac2 from my online questionnaire. I have however spo2en to
some of the masters who have tried the prototype. It seemed that everything was o2. I had
to ma2e only a few minor ad>ustments to the support material.
The virtual environment was redesigned for the second prototype. The second prototype
aimed at ma2ing the ?E more authentic. This meant that I had to ma2e the problem
situation represented in the ?E more comple:.
The second prototype ?E was made to be an island. These meant participants would need
to consider various issues and ma2e decisions regarding the islands typography. I also
decided to design the ?E around a role6play. I believed this would scaffold the tas2 by
distributing it between the learners and also ma2e the e:perience more authentic. since
urban design in reality is comple: because the various participants have different goals
and requirements. I initially intended to have ( roles. I also designed ob>ects for each role
depending on the role and typical ob>ects the role would require.
32
!uring the design of the roles and ob>ects I conducted tests to see how the environment
would cope with the amount of ob>ects dragged into the virtual world. I also tested the
environment on the university networ2 and found that the computers with the fastest
rendering to screen. I reserved this room for my final prototype=s implementation. !uring
my testing I found that as the amount of ob>ects placed in the environment increase the
environment started slowing down. This was primarily due to hardware limitations of the
computers. 5! graphics cards would solve the problem. however I did not have the
financial support to do this. I opted for fewer roles and hence fewer ob>ects and also
removed all te:tures and audio. which slow down rendering significantly.
The participants were all volunteers from the @aster of &cience Erogramme "Educational
and Training &ystems !esign. I did not have the resources or time to recruit the real
urban design students for the running of the pilot study. Instead I argued that the focus of
my study would be a "proof of concept" prototype. feasibility testing of the medium and
the instruction of general design principles and collaborative design s2ills. #ll the
participants were studying to become instructional designers. so I argued that they
already have a good understanding of design and ample e:perience in designing and
collaborating.
-n reflection on the development of the prototype I have found Gonassen=s !esigning
%onstructivist ?earning Environments model to be a helpful and systematic framewor2
for considering the construction of ?Es.
33
5... 2onassen3s 4Designing "onstructivist !earning Environment5
Gonassen=s !esigning %onstructivist ?earning Environment model is represented in the
following figure ,Cigure *.<1:
This model represents the design of a ?E. which surrounds a problem or tas2 with related
cases. information resources that support 2nowledge construction. cognitive tools.
conversation and collaborative tools. and social6conte:tual support for implementation.
The mentioned components are supported through instructional supports. including
modelling. coaching and scaffolding.
34
(igure 5..) 2onassen3s 4Designing "onstructivist !earning Environment5 ,Gonassen1.
The following sections will discuss the prototype design of in terms of Gonassen=s
!esigning %onstructivist ?earning Environment model:
5...1. Te Problem
The focus of any %?E is the question or issue. the case. the problem. or the pro>ect that
learners attempt to solve or resolve. It constitutes the learning goal. It is important to
provide interesting. relevant. and engaging problems to solve. The problem should not be
overly prescribed. Aather. it should be ill6defined or ill6structured. so that some aspects of
the problem are emergent and definable by the learners ,Gonassen1. I chose the ill6
structured problem of urban design for the prototype. Eroblems in %?Es need to include
three integrated components: the problem conte:t. the problem representation or
simulation. and the problem manipulation space ,Gonassen1. I will discuss each of these
problem components in conte:t of the prototype.
5...1.A. Te Problem "onte#t
#n essential part of the problem representation is a description of the conte:t in which it
occurs. The same problem in different social or wor2 conte:ts is different. %?Es must
describe in the problem statement all of the conte:tual factors that surround a problem
,Gonassen1.
I described the physical. socio6cultural. and organisational climate surrounding the
problem. Cor the physical conte:t of the problem I constructed my virtual world
,http:DDhome.student.utwente.nlDh.vermeulenDmulti6userDlandscape.wrl1 with the aim of
providing an authentic and comple: problem conte:t for the urban design tas2. I
constructed the environment as an island to create various problems requiring solution.
i.e. Islands require a connection to the mainland. it needed to be self6sufficient. and a
function of the island needed to be determined and protection against floods were to be
sought. The island was created to have two levels of elevation. The typography required
35
that the participants survey the area carefully to determine the most suitable utili;ation of
the land. I added the wind direction. some trees and an old shipwrec2 as heritage site. in
order to ma2e things more ill6structured and engaging. hoping these comple:ities will
encourage participants to interact and negotiate.
To support the problem conte:t of the virtual world I described the physical resources
surrounding the problem ,#ppendi: #.'.51.
I also constructed a narrative for the environment. describing the socio6cultural.
historical. and organisational climate surrounding the problem. ,Elease see appendi:
#.'.'1.
5...1.%. Te Problem 0epresentation
The problem representation of the problem must be interesting. appealing and engaging.
It must perturb the learner. 3se high6quality video scenarios or virtual worlds for
introducing the problem and engaging learners. #n effective. low6tech method for
representing problems is narrative ,Gonassen1.
In the prototype the problem was represented in the virtual world. I also developed a
narrative for the problem. The problem conte:t was therefore combined in the problem
representation. This was due to the fact that the problem was effectively a design within
conte:t ,environment1.
5...1.". Te Problem -anipulation *pace
In order for learners to engage in meaningful learning. they must manipulate something P
construct a product. manipulate parameters. ma2e decisions P affect the environment in
some way ,Gonassen1.
36
Eroblem manipulation spaces are causal models that enable learners to test the effects of
their manipulations. receiving feedbac2 through changes in the physical appearance of
ob>ects they are manipulating or in the representations of their actions ,Gonassen1.
In the prototype this problem manipulating space is the multi6user software program. The
software contains the shared virtual world and the ob>ects that can be dragged into and
manipulated in the virtual world. The learners can receive feedbac2 regarding their
manipulations in real time as they manipulate the represented ob>ect in the virtual world.
The multi6user software therefore integrated all three of the problem components. i.e.
integrated the problem conte:t into the problem space into the problem manipulation
space. This ability is one of the strengths of networ2ed IA as instructional media.
5...2. 0elated cases
3nderstanding any problem requires e:periencing it and constructing mental models of it.
9hat novices lac2 most are e:periences. The lac2 is especially critical when trying to
solve problems. &o. it is important that %?Es provide access to a set of related
e:periences novices can refer to. The primary purpose of describing related cases is to
assist learners in understanding the issues implicit in the problem representation
,Gonassen1.
Aelated cases also help to represent comple:ity in %?E=s by providing multiple
perspectives. themes. or interpretations to problems or issues being e:amined by the
learners. #n important model for designing related cases in %?E=s. cognitive fle:ibility
theory. provides multiple representations of content in order to convey that is inherent in
the 2nowledge domainQ,Gonassen1.
In the prototype case studies were provided to assist learners in understanding the issues
implicit in the problem representation ,Elease see appendi:es: 7overnment -fficial
#./.'.H. Musiness !eveloper #././.H. %ommunity ?eader #./.5.H. Environmental Elanner
37
#./.H.H and Transport Elanner #./.*.H1. Elease note that the case studies provided role
specific cases to assist learners in understanding their role specific problems.
5...3. In+ormation 0esources
In order to investigate problems. learners need information about the problem in order to
construct their mental models and formulate hypotheses that drive the manipulation of the
problem spaceQ%?E=s should provide learner6selectable information >ust6in6time
,Gonassen1.
The 3seful information ,Elease see appendi:es: 7overnment -fficial #./.'.5. Musiness
!eveloper #././.5. %ommunity ?eader #./.5.5. Environmental Elanner #./.H.5 and
Transport Elanner #./.*.51 provided participants with role specific online resources to
assist them in the role specific e:ecution of their respective tas2s.
5...4. "ognitive Tools
If %?Es present comple:ity. novel. and authentic tas2s. you will need to support learners=
performance of those tas2s. In order to do that. you must identify the activity structure
required that are required to solve the problemQ%ognitive tools are generali;able
computer tools that are intended to engage and facilitate cognitive processingQThey are
intellectual devices used to visualise ,represent1. organise. automate or supplant
information processing ,Gonassen1.
I facilitated learner=s cognitive processing at various levels in the prototype. Cirstly. there
is the shared virtual representation of the urban design problem. This enables the learners
to imagine the urban settlement in collaboration with other learners. The software
integrates the virtual world with the ob>ects that can be selected. dropped into and
manipulated in the virtual world. This hence serves as a modelling tool.
38
&econdly. there are the ob>ects utili;ed in the prototype. These provided the learner with
the conceptual building bloc2s ,representations1 they required designing the town. This
further supports learners that find it difficult to manipulate symbols without requiring
concrete supports. The ob>ects were role dependent. Earticipants were given ob>ects
relevant to their roles and more particularly role requirements ,Elease see appendi:es:
7overnment -fficial #./.'./. Musiness !eveloper #./././. %ommunity ?eader #./.5./.
Environmental Elanner #./.H./ and Transport Elanner #./.*./1. # complete list of the
ob>ects can be found online at: http:DD'50.+(./5).'(Dmulti6userDrolesDob>ectOlist.html. The
ob>ects were provided as resources for the participants to use in their design tas2. To
assist the participants each ob>ect was described. highlighting its function. To ma2e
things more comple: and authentic some ob>ects were limited. by providing participants
with a budget and assigning a cost to each ob>ect.
The design of a settlement and particularly in collaboration with other parties is a very
comple: and demanding tas2. To facilitate cognitive processing I provided learners with
!esign Erinciples describing the general design procedure as well as a more specific
design procedure for urban design. It further e:plained to the participant the comple:
nature of design and more particularly collaborative design. I tried to support the
learners= information processing by providing both simple and more comple: procedures
and also provided them with an alternative visuali;ation of the process ,Elease see
appendi: #.'.H1.
5...5. "onversation and "ollaboration Tools
?earning most naturally occurs not in isolation but by teams of people wor2ing together
to solve problems. %?E=s should provide access to shared 2nowledge building tools to
help learners to collaboratively construct socially shared 2nowledge ,Gonassen1.
In the prototype the collaboration tools are encapsulated in the software interface. The
interface contains the shared virtual representation ,virtual world1. the ob>ects that can be
39
dragged into the environment and the chat dialog bo:. ?earners are therefore able to
communicate primarily through te:tual discourse in real time through the dialog bo:.
Their communication is further facilitated thought the virtual world and their shared
representation in it. The learners are represented as 5! animated characters in the virtual
world. They can therefore see one another in the virtual world. They ta2e different
perspectives and direct their discourse at the shared virtual representation. This adds a
very dynamic visual reference to the conversation and collaboration repertoire. ?earners
are hence able to share a dynamic problem space that can be collaboratively manipulated
and negotiated in real6time. In the prototype the animated characters are only animated to
wal2. however if they were ,and they can be1 able to ma2e social gestures or facial
responses this would add a very dynamic social aspect to the communication process.
This would also lead to a more authentic activity and resolve problems of heightened
verbal effort. The heightened verbal effort of coordination in cooperation over networ2s
is e:plained to be a result of lac2ing non6 and para6verbal cues ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8
@andl. /00'1.
5..... *ocial6 "onte#tual support
In designing and implementing %?E=s. accommodating conte:tual factors is important to
successful implementation. It is also necessary to train the teachers and personnel who
will be supporting the learning. and finally train the students who will be learning from
the environments ,Gonassen1.
The prototype developed failed in providing its learners and teacher with support. Moth
teacher and students were both unfamiliar with the ?E. &tudents were provided with
instructions on using the software. however. navigating and manipulating ob>ects in a
virtual environment is a very demanding tas2. It requires a lot of practice. Therefore a lot
of time was spent doing this. The learners were supported through their resource 2its.
however. the instructor failed to support their activity. This was not entirely the
instructor=s fault. It was the first time they were facilitating learning in a virtual world
40
and li2e navigating it ta2es some practice. Curthermore the instructor was not given any
support in their tas2. -n revision some innovative ideas have come to light. please see the
Cuture Erospects %hapter (.
5...7. *upporting learning in !E
To supports e:ploration. articulation and reflection activities in ?E. it is necessary to
support learners through modelling. coaching and scaffolding these activities.
5...7.A. -odelling
@odeling is the most commonly used instructional strategy in %?E=s. Two types of
modelling e:ist: behavioural modeling of the overt performance and cognitive modeling
of the covert cognitive processes. Mehavioural modeling in %?E=s demonstrate how to
perform the activities identified in the activity structure. %ognitive modeling articulates
the reasoning ,reflection6in6action1 that learners should use while engaged in the
activities ,Gonassen1.
In the prototype I utilised behavioural modelling. In the implementation of the prototype I
e:plained and demonstrated the Islands user interface to the participants utili;ing the
beamer before we began the tas2. I roughly followed the support instructions I developed
for the participants= resource 2its ,Elease see #ppendi: #.'./1. I also referred them to the
resource 2its and e:plained the different resources I had provided them. This
demonstrated how to perform the activities identified in the activity structure. i.e.
Mehavioural modelling.
The prototype did not provide learners with cognitive modelling. # valuable form of
modelling problem solving is wor2ed e:amples. In revision of the prototype I would
include wor2ed e:amples of virtual urban settlements. These e:amples can contain
hyperlin2s to information regarding ob>ects and their placement in the world. This would
give the learners opportunity for reflection6in6action.
41
5...7.%. "oacing
The role of a coach is comple: and ine:act. # good coach motivates learners. analyses
their performance. provides feedbac2 and advice on the performance and how to learn
about how to perform. and provo2es reflection and articulation of what was learned
,Gonassen1.
#s mentioned previously. the greatest wea2ness of the prototype was that it did not
provide adequate coaching. The instructor was ill e:perienced and ill supported in both
the ?E and the domain and hence was unable to perform well as a coach. Aevision of the
coaching function will be considered in the Cuture Erospects %hapter (.
5...7.". *ca++olding
The concept of scaffolding is fu;;y and indistinct in many definitions of modeling and
coaching. Cor the purpose of %?E=s. I believe that scaffolding represents some
manipulation by the system of the tas2 itself. 9hen scaffolding performance. the system
performs part of the tas2 for the student. supplants the students ability to perform some
part of the tas2 by changing the nature of the tas2 or imposing the use of cognitive tools
to help the learner perform. or ad>ust the nature or difficulty of the tas2 ,Gonassen1.
I believe the prototype scaffolds the urban design tas2 through designating different roles
to the learners. This changes the nature of the tas2 from a single perspective to multiple
perspective design. The roles therefore scaffold the ta2ing of different perspectives. Each
of the participants= roles was described in their respective resource 2its. The roles further
scaffolded the learnersJ collaborative problem definition and goal setting activities. by
requiring all participants to formulate a problem diagnosis and set goals for their
respective goals. The roles provided the participants with a set of requirements to be met.
These requirements required participants to define problems and set goals in conte:t of
their roles. The respective role requirement therefore scaffolds goal setting and problem
definition through role specific questions and so guides the participants= collaborative
42
design procedure. ,Elease see appendi:es: 7overnment -fficial #./.'.'. Musiness
!eveloper #././.'. %ommunity ?eader #./.5.'. Environmental Elanner #./.H.' and
Transport Elanner #./.*.'1.
Crom the standpoint of distributed cognition. success in a tas2. particularly a tas2
involving several participants. is a shifting coalition of agent6environment constraints and
resources ,Kirsh1. I believe that distributed cognition offers an important model for
scaffolding problem resolution by distributing the problem amongst participants. This
issue requires further consideration.

These roles further scaffolded argumentation and interaction. Cor e:ample. the Musiness
!eveloper. Transport Elanner and %ommunity leader were provided with insufficient
funds for their developments and encouraged to apply for a grant from the government
official. The 7overnment official was given a set amount for funding. 3rban design is
constrained by limited resources. I further believed including this comple:ity in my
design made it more authentic.
.. Implementation
The final implementation of the prototype was done in the afternoon of the '< Gune /00'
in room ?'0/. I had boo2ed the room for my prototype implementation. I installed and
configured the required software the previous day. I had also sent copies of the
participantsJ resource 2its to them hoping that they would have a loo2 at theirs
beforehand to save us time. before sending participants their respective resource 2its they
were required to fill in a pre6test. This test evaluated their perception of the value of
design and collaboration in instruction. as well as how they understood the nature of
design. It furthermore tested their affinity to visualD spatial style of processing and
learning. I thought that this would be an interesting control variable to measure. since it
could e:plain their preference or disli2e for the media.
43
The implementation went smoothly. which is a real blessing considering my
technological dependence. Erevious e:perience has taught me never to trust computers.
Mefore we began the tas2 I e:plained and demonstrated the Islands user interface to the
participants utili;ing the beamer. I roughly followed the support instructions I developed
for the participants= resource 2its ,Elease see #ppendi: #.'./1. I also referred them to the
resource 2its and e:plained the different resources I had provided them.
!uring the e:ercise I played the role of virtual instructor. I made suggestions. provided
feedbac2 and generally tried to facilitate the participants= interaction and tas2 e:ecution. I
have not much e:perience in this domain and believe that more e:perience would have
enabled me to play the role more successfully. Aeflecting on the e:perience I have.
however. reali;ed that I need to have developed the role of instructor more consciously.
providing the instructor with resources and ob>ects.
#s the participants became more comfortable with the environment and their orientation
and navigation in it. they began to actively e:plore and discuss the environment. I
believed that they en>oyed the e:perience. #fter some discussion they also started to
insert ob>ects in the environment to design the town. I followed their every move loo2ing
for opportunities to assist.
#fter some time one of my initial reservations regarding the rendering demands of the
platform began to emerge. #s the number of ob>ects increased the environment started to
slow down. This was very detrimental to the e:ecution of the tas2. since it is hard to
manipulate ob>ects in IA if the interaction is not real6time. It is difficult to place or
transform an ob>ect precisely if the result of your manipulation is only visible a few
seconds later. My this time ,around two and a half hours later1 I had some concrete
results. I 2new that the participants also were themselves limited for time being busy
masters students. &o I decided to end the pilot study.
44
7. 0esults and Discussion
The results of the pilot study include the te:t dialog between the participants ,Elease see
appendi: #.5.'1. pre6test. post6tests. formulation of role dependant goals and problems.
and the final resulting virtual urban design.
7.1. Dialog
# !iscourse analysis was conducted of the utterances produced by the interactions
between the participants during the e:ecution of the tas2 to elucidate learners= activities
in the ?E. I defined '0 categories of interaction to utili;e in analysing the discourse. i.e.
&tatement. Aepetition. Suestion. #nswer. &uggestion. #greement. Ae>ection.
@odification and !irective. These categories. as well as the categori;ation rules. are
based on speech6act6oriented procedures for the analysis of everyday conversations
,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. This procedure for discourse analysis was
e:tended to fit the pilot study by further analysing each utterance according to applying
to either %oordination or Tas2. Tas2 utterances were furthermore distinguished into either
being Eroblem or 7oal directed.
The discourse was further divided into < distinct discourse periods ,every *0 utterances
totalled1 according to its linear progression. This was done in order to determine how the
characteri;ed elements in the discourse changed and developed over the progression of
the tas2.
45
(igure 7.1.1) (re8uencies o+ "ommunication +unctions o+ 1tterances. ,&ta T
&tatement. Aep T Aepetition. Sst T Suestion. #ns T #nswer. &ug T &uggestion. #gr T
#greement. Ae> T Ae>ection. @od T @odification. !ir T !irective1
# statement ,&ta1 has the function of imparting information to the learning partner
,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of statements is high in most of
the discourse periods analysed. &tatements played an important role throughout the
discourse. It is therefore evident that learners actively imparted information to their
fellow learners. This reflects positively in light of facilitating collaboration in the ?E.
Aepetitions ,Aep1 refer to content which is identical to what has already been said but
without evaluations ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of
repetitions is low throughout the discourse analysed. This is a positive sign since
repetition implies that learners are not repeating statements for clarity or confirmation.
9ith a question ,Sst1 the spea2er is actively demanding information from the learning
partner ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of questions is high and
constant throughout the discourse analysed. This is also very positive indicator for
46
collaborative activities. since it implies that learners are actively demanding information
from one another.
9ith an answer ,#ns1 the spea2er responds to a directly preceding question ,7rRsel.
Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of answers is also prevalent throughout
the discourse. Suestions. however. outnumber answers significantly. This is probably due
to the nature of the te:t chatting. It is difficult to 2eep trac2 of who is tal2ing to whom
and also to 2eep up with the speed of generated te:t6dialog. This is detrimental to
facilitating collaboration in ?Es. # more structured dialog system might be considered to
overcome this problem ,Elease see Cuture Erospects %hapter (1.
9ith a suggestion ,&ug1 the spea2er proposes something which he. the listener or both
could do ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of suggestions is
initially low. however as the discourse progresses it increases rapidly. The frequency of
suggestions reach a clima: in the fourth discourse period. where it is the most frequent of
category of utterances. This indicates that learners are actively proposing possible actions
to other learners in conte:t of the ?E and tas2. #gain this is a positive sign for
collaboration and 2nowledge construction in the ?E.
#greement ,#gr1 is the accepting or positive evaluation of a preceding utterance by the
partner ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of agreement is constant
throughout the discourse analysed. The frequency of agreement. however reaches a
clima: in the fifth discourse period. where it is the most frequent of category of
utterances. This pea2 in agreement follows the pea2 in suggestion of the previous
discourse period. &ince agreement follows suggestions this would infer that the ?E
supports not only suggestions. but also more importantly agreement. which is very
important for collaboration activities.
Ae>ection ,Ae>1 is a negative evaluation of a preceding utterance by the partner ,7rRsel.
Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of re>ection is low throughout the
47
discourse analysed. ?earners refrained from negative evaluations of utterances of fellow
learners.
9ith a modification ,@od1 the preceding utterance is slightly changed. namely a limited
agreement or re>ection ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of
modification is also low throughout the discourse analysed.
# %ommissive ,%om1 is an utterance with which the spea2er promises to do or not to do
something ,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of commissive
utterances is low throughout the discourse. The frequency of commissive utterances.
however reaches a clima: in the fourth discourse period. This coincides with the pea2 of
suggestions in the fourth discourse period. This could suggest that learners are translating
their and other learners= suggestions into actions.
# directive ,!ir1 is an order or request for the listener to do or not to do something
,7rRsel. Cischer. Mruhn 8 @andl. /00'1. The frequency of directives is low throughout
the discourse. The frequency of directives. however reaches a clima: in the fifth
discourse period. This coincides with the pea2 of agreement in the fifth discourse period.
This could suggest that learners are translating their agreement into actions through the
issuing of directives.
%onsidering the above6mentioned discourse analysis it is evident that the IA ?E
facilitates collaboration. ?earners are actively ma2ing statements and suggestions. they
are as2ing one another questions. providing answers. finding agreement and acting on
these negotiations. This is very critical for the problem under consideration in this paper.
since problem definition and goal setting activities depend primarily on the ?E ability to
facilitate collaboration.
Each utterance was further analysed according to according to applying to either
%oordination or Tas2
48
(igure 7.1.2) (re8uencies o+ Tas' and "oordination 1tterances.
%oordination utterances refer to the participant=s orientation to one another andD or the
environment and not to the tas2 they were required to perform in the ?E. -ne of the most
significant constraints of IA is navigation and confusion regarding orientation and
coordination. IA is difficult media to navigate and to manipulate. Crom the discourse
analysis it is evident that coordination utterances dominated the dialog at the beginning of
the pilot study. In the first discourse period all utterances are in regard to coordination.
The participants are getting their bearings. wor2ing out how to insert their #vatars.
navigate and interact with the environment. The frequency of coordination utterances.
however soon decreased. In the second discourse period tas2 and coordination utterances
are equal and in the following four discourse periods coordination utterances are
minimal.
Tas2 3tterances refer to utterances that apply to the tas2 and its e:ecution. #lthough
there are few tas2 utterances at the begging of the discourse. the frequency of tas2
utterances increase rapidly dominating the discourse. The dominance of tas2 utterances
49
suggest that the ?E supports the tas2 and furthermore that the constraints of IA does not
inhibit the ?earners= collaboration regarding the tas2.
(igure 7.1.3) (re8uencies o+ Problem and 9oal: Tas' 1tterances.
Eroblem utterances refer to tas2 related utterances made regarding perceived tas2
problems. Eroblem utterances therefore refer to learners= perceptions of problems and
problem definitions. In the first discourse periods there are no problem or goal utterances
since all utterances are directed towards coordination. #s the discourse progresses the
tas2 utterances increase to dominate the discourse. # significant part of these utterances
are dedicated to problems. This is important for the problem under consideration in this
paper. It infers that the IA ?E facilitates collaboration regarding problem identification
and definition.
7oal utterances refer to utterances that specify goals or the intention of achieving goals.
7oals should be defined by the participants. this is very important in constructivist
learning and hence ?Es. 7oals also increase steadily during the progression of the
dialog. It demonstrates that participants are increasingly considering new goals and
50
negotiating them through argumentation. This is important for the problem under
consideration in this paper. It infers that the IA ?E facilitates collaboration regarding
goal setting.
7.2. Pre$test
The pre6test was done to estimate the relevance of design and collaboration in learning.
the perceived nature of design ,Elease see appendices: 7overnment -fficial #.5./.'.'.
Musiness !eveloper #.5././.'. %ommunity ?eader #.5./.5.'. Environmental Elanner
#.5./.H.' and Transport Elanner #.5./.*.'1. I am conducting a qualitative study. hence I
reasoned the best way to evaluate the relevance of design and collaboration in learning.
would be to as2 the opinion of my fellow instructional design students. I further tested
participants= affinity to visualD spatial style of processing and learning. I thought that this
could be a determining variable in their e:perience of the ?E.
#ll participants stated that they believe that a design tas2 is useful in instruction. They
hence supported the conception that developing instruction or ?E around a design
problem was valuable for learning. @ost of the participants also believed design to be an
individual and collaborative process. They therefore saw design to have both individual
and collaborative aspects. Aegarding the nature of design: @ost participants believed that
design was a comple: process. -ne participant said that the comple:ity depends on the
conte:t. The question regarding the creativityDoriginality of design received diverging
opinions. The participants were therefore unsure weather designs were required to be
completely original. The participants also differed in their visual affinity to processing
information and learning. Two of the five participants scored low in their affinity to using
visual stimulus for processing information and learning.
7.3. Post$test
The post6test evaluated the participants= e:perience of the ?E prototype and as2ed
participants to reflect on the e:perience and determine weather they thought it
51
contributed to learning. collaboration and design ,Elease see appendices: 7overnment
-fficial #.5./.'./. Musiness !eveloper #.5./././. %ommunity ?eader #.5./.5./ and
Environmental Elanner #.5./.H./1.
The results from the post6test questionnaire suggest that the participants found that the
?E facilitated learning once they become used to the IA interface. The authenticity of
the tas2 and Environment received mi:ed responses from participants. This was
disheartening since I had put a lot of effort in ma2ing the ?E authentic. I believe.
however. that the problem might lie in the question. I do not thin2 it was clear what I had
meant by #uthentic. @ost participants e:perienced the ?E positively and en>oyed the
e:perience. particularly after getting more familiar with the interface and navigation. #ll
participants furthermore predicted that IA ?E such as the one developed for the study
would be utili;ed in future education.
@ost participants had problems navigating and manipulating ob>ects in IA. This is not
surprising regarding their unfamiliarity with the interface and the fact that this was the
first IA e:perience for two of the participants. The participants formulated various
advantages and disadvantages of the IA ?E. avatars and chat interaction.
9hen as2ed regarding the design procedure utili;ed and the difficulties in the tas2. I got
the distinct impression that the participants were not sure what I was tal2ing about. This
was rather disappointing since one of the aims of the ?E prototype was to teach design
s2ills. I 2now that the participating masters students are busy wor2ing on their respective
pro>ects and that they are under pressure for time. &o I have the strong suspicion that they
did not read the !esign guidelines that e:plicitly formulate a design methodology.
#lternatively the fault could lie in the way I had formulated the question?
Crom the remaining questions it seems that my fellow instructional designers believe:
The design activity contributed to the "learning" process. %ollaboration is valuable in the
e:ecution of the design tas2. The IA ?E facilitates collaboration. %ollaboration plays an
important role in the "learning" process and the IA ?E helps to visuali;e the tas2. They
52
were however not sure weather the resources were inadequate in supporting the required
tas2.
7.4. 0ole Dependant 9oals and problems
The roles specified in the participants respective resource 2its scaffold the learnersJ
collaborative problem definition and goal setting activities. by requiring all participants to
formulate a problem diagnosis and set goals for their respective goals. ,Elease see
appendi:es: 7overnment -fficial #./.'.'. Musiness !eveloper #././.'. %ommunity
?eader #./.5.'. Environmental Elanner #./.H.' and Transport Elanner #./.*.'1.
The participants did not utili;e these questionnaires regarding roles specific problem
definitions and goal setting. This was primarily due to the time limitation imposed. The
facilities were only available the one afternoon and it was difficult to coordinate a time
where the fellow students would be available from their busy schedules. The emphasis of
the tas2 was on the collaborative urban design in the IA ?E. This led the participants to
decide to omit the answers to the questionnaires regarding roles specific problem
definitions and goal setting.
53
7.5. 0esulting 1rban Design
Crom the above screen capture ,Cig ).H.'1 of the resulting design some important urban
design decisions can be seen articulated in the ?E:
7.5.1. "asino6 ;otel
The %asinoD Hotel was built with a seaside view. The main function of the island was
then also decided to be tourism. The nearby shipwrec2 heritage site was then also seen as
a resource to be utili;ed in tourism.
54
(ig 7.5) 0esulting 1rban Design
7. 5.2. %ridge
The bridge connects the island to the mainland. It is very important for the success of a
town to have easy access to other cities.
7.5.3. ;arbour
The harbour was positioned in a natural shelter provided by the island typography. These
served as an alternative transport connection and play an important role in ma2ing the
island and see accessible to tourists.
7.5.4. To<n "entre
#n administration building mar2s the town centre. The town centre plays an important
part in unifying the town=s processes. having the administration. as centre is a very
practical decision.
7.5.5. 0ing 0oad
# ring road was planned that would circle the town providing easy access to all residents
to all resources on the island.
7.5... (lood %arriers
Clood barriers were built in the form of hills. in case of floods. They were seen as a more
aesthetic and natural solution to retaining walls.
7.5.7. Accommodations
#mple accommodations for residents were provided.
55
!espite the technical constraints of the prototype ,system slowing down1 we can see
evidence for well thought through design decisions ta2ing form in the IA ?E.
=. "onclusion
I believe I have achieved my intended goals in this paper: I demonstrated how to support
and facilitate collaborative online learning through constructive I! and media selection
and further applied these ideas in a proof of concept prototype utili;ing networ2ed IA.
In reflection on the construction of the prototype I have learned some valuable lessons
and identified some helpful models and theories that can assist the construction of ?Es. I
believe that the prototype is a successful e:ample of a ?E. It contains all the required
components: Eroblem6pro>ect &pace. Aelated %ases. Information Aesources. %ognitive
Tools. and %onversation and %ollaboration tools. These components are furthermore
tightly integrated in the utili;ed software.
Gonassen=s !esigning %onstructivist ?earning Environment model is particularly
helpful for designing. evaluating and thin2ing about ?Es. If I came across this model
earlier in the design process the prototype would have been better designed. particularly
with regard to coaching. and social and conte:tual support.
#ctivity systems analysis also proved to be a valuable tool in the analysis of the tas2
activities that were required by the tas2 and in construction of the ?E. It provides us with
a formative description of the activities required. This can greatly assist designers in
inventing a ?E that can facilitate learners to actively construct 2nowledge around the
tas2.
%ognitive fle:ibility theory and !istributed cognition also valuable theories to further
e:plore in terms of their applicability to ?Es. The emerging technologies of IA and
networ2ed IA can distract and hinder learning as much as facilitate it. Cor IA to be
constructive to learning it is essential that users are familiar and comfortable with the
56
medium and interface they are using. I do however believe that these technologies offer
great possibilities for distance education. IA enable users to virtually share a problem
andDor environment. It is furthermore a very engaging medium that could simulate face6
to6face interaction.
The development of the prototype gave me the opportunity to develop my ideas regarding
IA and ?E. The prototype enabled me to not only test and implementation the feasibility
of the technology but also to prototype my ideas regarding I! and media selection. I was
also able to assess these ideas in conte:t of the IA ?E designed to address an online
learning problem. I believe that the prototype proves the relevance of these ideas for the
problem I considered in this paper.
I believe that the focus of my inquiry has a lot of potential. The ?E metaphor provides
instructional designers with a very valuable model for guiding their I!. It encapsulates
many of our constructivist learning values. Emerging technologies can be a fad but I
believe in the appropriate conte:t they can facilitate learning a great deal. 9e need to
e:periment with these new media to determine their instructional relevance and potential.
>. (uture Prospects
9hen revising the prototype I will try to ma2e the problem tas2 less comple:. In my
attempts to ma2e the tas2 authentic it became too comple:. The time required to
complete the urban design tas2 in its current form would require a couple of days to
complete. Crom the data it also seems that despite my efforts to ma2e the tas2 and
environment authentic. I was not successful in doing so.
In addition I have come to reali;e that the instructor can play a very important role in the
?E as coach. I should have supported the instructor more by developed the instructor role
further. loo2ing at resources and ob>ects that would facilitate the function of the instructor
in facilitating construction by the participants. The instructor could play a more
interactive role in the ?E by interacting and >udging participants behaviours. He could
57
assign resources. or to2ens to good activities and also effect the environment in novel
ways by initiating floods. etc.
I would also provide the learners with a great deal more support. I would develop social
and conte:tual supports. cognitive modelling and give them ample time to practice
navigating and manipulating IA. I would recruit urban design course participants that
could commit to longer periods of time. so I could give them the necessary e:posure to
IA. and the interface used.
In addition I would structure the communication more. In the prototype every message
was displayed to everyone. This was a constraint of the dialog data collection. It was only
possible to capture the dialog if it was displayed to everyone. This constraint did have a
negative effect. i.e. learners found it confusing. It was not always clear who was tal2ing
to whom. The shared dialog then also grew so quic2ly that it was sometimes hard to 2eep
up with reading all the messages. #n alternative would be to have learners send messages
to >ust one person. This would structure the communication more. This is possible with
the software utili;ed. however. the entire dialog cannot be captured using this
functionality. Therefore an alternative dialog capturing technique needs to be developed.
The rendering limitations of the platform will also need to be overcome. This could be
done in various ways. The quic2 and dirty solution would be to utili;e accelerating 5!
graphics cards. #lternatively solutions can be sought in the IA@? technology utili;ed to
design models. IA@? can utili;e ob>ect ?-! ,level of detail1 property to specify the
level of detail to be rendered according to the distance and location of an ob>ect in
relation to the viewer.
I would li2e to develop the IA ?E prototype further. I would design a more quantitative
e:periment and would utili;e control groups or individual versus group design to
qualitatively measure the effect of IA and ?E in facilitating collaborative online
learning. I would use the latest release of !irector +.* &hoc2wave &tudio to develop the
final prototype. since this multimedia pac2age now includes resources for the
58
development of 5! 9eb content and also @ulti6user functionality. @acromedia=s 5!
9eb content is bandwidth friendly and scalable and would enable a greater level of
control and efficiency for the ?E.
59
1?. 0e+erences
%ollis. M. ,'((<1. Tele6learning in a !igital 9orld. International Thomsons %omputer
Eress: ?ondon.
!i>2stra. &anne. ,/00'1. The !esign of @ultimedia6Mased Training. In &. !i>2stra. !.
Gonassen 8 &embill ,Eds.1. Multimedia Learning: Results and Perspectives. Eeter ?ang:
Cran2furt.
!i>2stra. &. ,'(((1. Instructional !esign for the development of 2nowledge and the
learning of s2ills. In Schulz, W. K. Aspete und Pro!leme der didatischen
Wissensstruturierung. Cran2furt am @an: Eeter ?ang.
!orr. 7 8 &eel. $. @. ,'(()1. Instructional !elivery &ystems and @ultimedia
Environments. In &. !i>2stra. C. &chott. $. &eele 8 A.!. Tennyson. Instructional "esign
International Perspective: #olume $ Solving Instructional "esign Pro!lems. ?awrence
Erlbaum #ssociates. publishers : ?ondon.
Cister. H. ,/0001. 9eb6Mased Training on a &hoestring. In @antyla. K. %he $&&&'$&&(
AS%" "istance Learning )ear!oo. @c7raw6Hill: $ew Uor2.
7rRsel. %.. Cischer. C.. Mruhn. G. 8 @andl. H. ,/00'1. !iscource in %ooperative
?earning. In &. !i>2stra. !. Gonassen 8 &embill ,Eds.1. Multimedia Learning: Results
and Perspectives. Eeter ?ang: Cran2furt.
7riffiths. G.@. 8 7atien. 7.@. ,Cebruary '(((1. The Aole of the traditional Aesearch
3niversity in the Cace of the !istance Education -nslaught. The Technology &ource.
Hansen. T.. !irc2inc26Homfeld. ?.. ?ewis. A. 8 Augel>. G. ,'(((1. 3sing Telematics for
%ollaborative Knowledge %onstruction. In !illenbourg. E. *olla!orative Learning:
*ognitive and *omputational Approaches. Eergamon: #msterdam.
60
Gonassen. !.H. ,/00'1. ?earning from. in. and with @ultimedia: #n Ecological
Esychological Eerspective. In &. !i>2stra. !. Gonassen 8 &embill ,Eds.1. Multimedia
Learning: Results and Perspectives. Eeter ?ang: Cran2furt.
Gonassen. !.H. et al. ,'(((1. Tas2 #nalysis @ethods for Instructional !esign. ?awrence
Erlbaum #ssociates. Inc. : $ew Gersey.
Gonassen. !.H. 8 Aohrer6@urphy. !. ,'(((1. #ctivity Theory as a Cramewor2 Cor
!esigning %onstructivist ?earning Environments. Educational6Technology6Aesearch6
and6!evelopmentF vH) n' p<'6)(.
Gonassen. !.H. %onstructivist ?earning Environments on the 9eb: Engaging &tudents in
@eaningful ?earning. #vailable:http:DDwww.moe.edu.sgDiteducationDedtechDpapersDd'.pdf
Kirsh. !avid. ,'(((1. !istributed %ognition. %oordination and Environment !esign.
Eroceedings of the European %ognitive &cience &ociety.
http:DDicl6server.ucsd.eduDV2irshD#rticlesDItalyDpublished.html
?auria. Aita. Iirtual Aeality: #n Empirical6@etaphysical Testbed. Gournal of %omputer
@ediated %ommunication Iolume 5. $o. /. &eptember. '(().
?aurillard. !iana. ,'((51. Aethin2ing 3niversity Teaching: # Cramewor2 for effective
use of educational technology. Aoutledge: ?ondon.
-lgren. %.H. ,/0001. !istance ?earning in Higher Education. . In @antyla. K. %he
$&&&'$&&( AS%" "istance Learning )ear!oo. @c7raw6Hill: $ew Uor2.
&eel. @.$. 8 9inn. 9.!. ,'(()1. Aesearch on @edia and ?earning: !istributed
%ognition and &emiotics. In A.!. Tennyson. C. &chott. $. &eele 8 &. !i>2stra.
61
Instructional "esign International Perspective: #olume ( %heor+, Research, and Models.
?awrence Erlbaum #ssociates. publishers : ?ondon.
&mith E.?. 8 Aagan T.G. ,'(((1. Instructional !esign. Gohn 9iley 8 &ons : $ew Uor2.
Tennyson. A.!. 8 &chott. C. ,'(()1. Instructional !esign Theory. Aesearch. and @odels.
In A.!. Tennyson. C. &chott. $. &eele 8 &. !i>2stra. Instructional "esign International
Perspective: #olume ( %heor+, Research, and Models. ?awrence Erlbaum #ssociates.
publishers : ?ondon.
9ilson. M. 7.. Gonassen. !. H.. 8 %ole. E. ,'((51. %ognitive approaches to instructional
design. In 7. @. Eis2urich ,Ed.1. %he AS%" hand!oo o, instructional technolog+. $ew
Uor2: @c7raw6Hill.
9inn. 9.!. 8 Mric2en. 9. ,'((/1. !esigning virtual worlds for use in mathematics
education: The e:ample of e:periential algebra. -ducation %echnolog+. 5/,'/1. '/6'(.
62