According to Ertmer and Newby, learning theories “are a source of verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques” (2013). However, to ensure effective learning design, one must be able to appropriately select the ideal method of instruction for specific groups of learners (Ertmer et al., 2013). Considering our multimedia project topic of stress and the target audience being university students, we will base our project on the constructivism learning theory.
The constructivist learning theory adopts a subjective view where learners draw on their own experiences to create knowledge; constructivists contend humans do not acquire meaning but rather create meaning from experience (Ertmer et al., 2013). We decided to base our project on the constructivism learning theory due to the nature of our activities. For instance, one of the activities in our project is a group discussion based on a case study where students will share different situations in which they have experienced stress. As a result, students are given an opportunity to form connections between the course material and their personal experiences. Further, stress is considered a subjective state of emotion (Porter, 2019); therefore, this makes constructivism a suitable learning theory for our topic, for constructivism “equates learning with creating meaning from experience” (Ertmer et al., 2013).
In addition to our activities and topic, we also based our project on the constructivism learning theory due to Merrill’s first principles of instruction. These principles state learning is promoted when learners apply newly acquired knowledge to their existing mental models and when learners share or reflect on their personal experiences (Merrill, 2018); therefore, this further supports constructivism as an appropriate learning theory for our multimedia project. More specifically, we have employed Merrill’s Engagement Principle. For example, it’s best to use smaller, more informal assessment forms to ensure student learning and understanding. The activities we have chosen will help increase student engagement and interaction, thus promoting active learning and adhering to Merrill’s principle of Engagement (Mathers, 2017; Merrill, 2002).Â
We have also used various of Mayer’s principles, such as the Signalling and Coherence principles. According to the Signalling and Coherence principles, it is essential to ensure that the most important thing on our slide is the most prominent and to use contrast to move the audience around the information on the slide (Mayer, 2014). Therefore, we have arranged all fonts and colours to be clearly visible, and the spacing between all of our content elements makes the modules easy to follow.
Further, according to the planning decisions at the core of instructional design, it is important that students know the learning outcomes or objectives to attend to the key information throughout the lesson (Kurt, 2015). In our multimedia project, we have included an introduction of the topic, big ideas, and learning outcomes, which are aligned with the assessment activities throughout the overall design. Overall, this adheres to instructional design principles and Mayer’s Coherence principle (all information fits together like pieces of a puzzle; Kurt, 2015; Mayer, 2014).
Design for Inclusion
We have designed our resource with the knowledge that students who are colour-blind and English-language learners will participate, thus maximizing its potential for inclusion (Vinney, 2021). Firstly, there will be no activity that relies on colour selection or identification. Further, the text and foreground in all of our content have high colour contrast. All colours used are not difficult for those with colour blindness to differentiate.
Secondly, all language used throughout the resource will use age-appropriate vocabulary and will be clear, slow, and easy to understand. This will ensure that all English language learners can understand the material (Jungles and Patel, 2019). Additionally, during discussions, English language learners will be given the option of having a speech-to-text and translation program in front of them to ensure they can still follow the discussion if it becomes more fast-paced.
Our resource has the option of being taught online or in the classroom. For example, students can access our website online, meet on Zoom, and on Zoom, students can be placed into breakout rooms with regular check-ins from the instructor for the smaller group activities.
Assessment Plan
For each topic in our assessment plan, there are 1 to 2 learning outcomes. There are small, formative assessments in each topic to check for understanding and to verify students have met the anticipated learning outcomes. As stated within our course, school and assessment can be stressful for people; therefore, we want our assessment methods to be discrete and non-stressful. To do this, we included non-standardized assessment methods, such as class discussions and compare/contrast charts. Further, instead of giving letter grades or percentages, we will only mark the students’ assessments as either complete or incomplete and provide qualitative feedback. We also included a blog post and comments as a summative assessment to ensure students have the opportunity to express their understanding of the topic of stress after completing the course.
References
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Jungles, A., & Patel, C. (2019, June 24). What is universal design for learning?YouTube. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdmoBl3Z75I
Kurt, S. “Instructional Design Models and Theories,” in Educational Technology, December 9, 2015. Retrieved from https://educationaltechnology.net/instructional-design-models-and-theories/Dr. Serhat Kurt, Instructional Design Models and Theories. Sept 28, 2022.
Mathers, B. (2017). Wikipedia – Active vs Passive learning. https://bryanmmathers.com/wikipedia-active-vs-passive-learning/CC-BY-ND (images for Active/Passive Learning interactivity)
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning, from The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp 279 – 315
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. ETR&D, 50, 3. pp. 43-59.
Vinney, C. (2021, August 5). Universal vs. Inclusive Design: What’s the difference? Career Foundry. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://careerfoundry.com/en/blog/ux-design/universal-vs-inclusive-design/
