Microsoft Word - neo.doc


Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology

2007, 23(4), 470-489

A constructivist approach to learning an
interactive multimedia course: Malaysian
students' perspectives
Mai Neo, Tse-Kian Neo and Gillian Tan Xiao-Lian
Multimedia University, Malaysia

We present an alternative method in the constructive perspective to enhance
student learning through a multimedia project, in which computing and
multimedia technologies are used to enable students to participate more
actively in their own learning. Students in a second year course in the
Multimedia University, Malaysia, used the multimedia development
process (MDP) to build a project in a collaborative, problem solving learning
environment. They worked in groups and sought to solve their design
problems as a team, with the teacher acting as a facilitator supporting them
in their learning. Results showed that this method enhanced learning and
improved understanding of the subject.

Introduction: The constructivist approach
Business, industry, the military and educational institutions have
recognised the potential for using computers as instructional tools. The
Malaysian Government’s initiative, Vision 2020, has called for schools and
institutions of higher education in Malaysia to integrate technology into the
classroom and in the curricula. Mat (2000) proposed that Malaysian
educationists be proactive towards incorporating technology into the
teaching and learning environment. In such an environment, students will
experience new challenges in technology and need to be versatile in
adoption:

Information and communication technology (ICT) provides powerful tools
for accessing, storing, and disseminating information… Our approaches to
teaching, preparing contents and delivering learning materials need to be
adjusted according to the existence of this technology. The classroom is no
more a static physical set-up, but a rather dynamic existence… Teachers
should be able to integrate technology in their process of teaching and
learning...” (Mat, 2000)



Neo, Neo and Tan 471

In the traditional education realm, the role of the teacher is to provide the
content and information to the students, through instructional media such
as notes, diagrams, overhead transparencies, models and more. The
information or content that is presented is based on the teacher’s
curriculum and other relevant information for the class. With the
introduction of multimedia into various industries, many educators began
to see computers as part of a combination of technology resources, which
included media elements such as text, graphics, sound, video and
animations, instructional systems, and computer based support systems.
Multimedia is the combination of various digital media types such as text,
images, sound and video, into an integrated, multi-sensory, interactive
application or presentation, to convey a message or information to an
audience. In other words, multimedia means “an individual or a small
group using a computer to interact with information that is represented in
several media, by repeatedly selecting what to see and hear next” (Agnew,
Kellerman & Meyer, 1996).

At the heart of any digital multimedia development is interactivity.
Interactivity in a multimedia application can be either linear or non-linear.
With linear multimedia, there are no interactive features embedded into
the design and the user simply navigates through the application in a
sequential manner, whereas with non-linear multimedia, interactive
features are embedded and the user can navigate to any part of the
application in a non-sequential manner. With such interactivity, the
audience is involved in the communication process and in the navigation
of the content.  Research suggests that people remember 20% of what they
see, 40% of what they see and hear, and about 75% of what they see, hear
and do simultaneously (Lindstrom 1994). Therefore, these types of
interactivity and interactive features in a multimedia application facilitate
interaction between the computer and the user, and increases user
engagement (Bates & Poole, 2003).

Lindstrom (1994) stated that, “Multimedia provides a means to supplement
a presenter’s efforts to garner attention, increase retention, improve
comprehension, and to bring an audience into agreement.” In the light of
this, educators can take advantage of the multi-sensory environment
created by the multiple digital media elements to create multimedia
education materials that would not only stimulate a variety of senses from
the audience, but also elicit high attention and retention rates from them.
This alliance of sophisticated computing hardware and software
technologies provides educators with a powerful toolset for creating
multimedia courseware content (Neo & Neo, 2004). Tway (1995) posits that
“Multimedia offers an excellent alternative to traditional teaching. By
allowing the students to explore and learn at different paces, every student
has the opportunity to learn at his or her full potential.” Multimedia is now



472 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

penetrating the education field and changing the way teachers teach and
students learn. With the advent of multimedia and technology in the
classrooms, teachers can equip themselves with these technological skills
and become better communicators of their content materials, thus enabling
the students to learn in a more productive way (Zheng & Zhou, 2006).

Thus educational curricula are evolving to incorporate multimedia
elements and interactive features that create a better learning and teaching
environment for the students as well as the teachers. By integrating
multimedia technologies into education, we will be better able to produce a
workforce that can meet the needs of the 21st century. The infusion of ICT
and multimedia technology into education has created a significant impact
on the instructional content development and the methods of
communicating information to the learners. It is leading to the evolution of
new concepts and innovative teaching techniques in the instruction-
learning process. It is changing the way teachers teach and students learn.
As stated by Bates (2000),

…modern education theory is moving beyond the recall of facts, principles,
or correct procedures and into the areas of creativity, problem-solving,
analysis, or evaluation (the very skills needed in the workplace in a
knowledge-based economy, not to mention in life in general). Learners need
the opportunity to communicate with one another as well as with their
teachers. This of course includes the opportunity to question, challenge and
discuss issues. Learning is as much a social as an individual activity.

This changing landscape of education focusses on the learner, rather than
on teaching and pedagogy, curriculum and instruction.  It seeks to create a
generation of learners whose learning is defined as "the ability to retain,
synthesize, and apply conceptually complex information in meaningful
ways" (Lambert & McCombs, 1998), and to encourage better student
learning through the learning objectives of project based learning or
learning by doing (Schank, Berman & Macpherson, 1999). In addition to
this, multimedia technology has been shown to affect students’ motivation
and self esteem levels, as well as allow them to be creative and self directed
thinkers (Agnew, Kellerman & Meyer, 1996).

What is a constructivist learning environment? Wilson (1995) defined it as
“a place where learners may work together and support each other as they
use a variety of tools and information resources in their pursuit of learning
goals and problem-solving activities." As stated by Savery and Duffy
(1995), the learning activities generated by solving a design oriented
problem are constructivist in approach. This mode of learning is
considered as a student centred instructional model whereby students
determine their own learning needs, set their own goals, monitor their own
progress and determine how to reach the desired learning outcomes in a



Neo, Neo and Tan 473

collaborative learning environment (Land & Hanafin, 1996; Newby,
Stephich, Lehman & Russell, 2000; Yildirim, 2005). The teacher is no longer
perceived as the sole authority, but rather as the facilitator of learning,
guiding and supporting learners in the process of constructing knowledge
(Berge, 1999; Nelson, 1999). The amount of guidance teachers provide
depends on students' prior knowledge levels and experiences (Orlich,
Harder, Callahan & Gibson, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).

This constructivist process is geared towards determining how the student
structures and processes knowledge rather than how much is learned
(Mayer, 1998). Thus, the focus is on the learning process rather than on the
content, learning 'how to learn' rather than 'how much is learned'. Students
develop critical thinking skills, problem solving and team skills,
experiential learning and interdisciplinary knowledge, with technology
being integral to their learning (Cook & Cook, 1998; Oliver, 2000). It also
represents a move away from traditional education towards learners being
active participants in the learning process (Oliver, 1998).

In constructivism, there is a strong belief that learning is a personal
interpretation of the world, as learners create interpretations of the world
based on their past experience and interpretations (Wilson, 1995; Duffy &
Cunningham, 1996; Jonassen & Henning, 1999). In this context, students
must play an active part in their learning process and not remain as passive
learners as in the teacher led instruction process whereby the teacher is the
sole authority and distributor of knowledge. In the constructivist mode of
learning, the learning process is shifted towards the student centred mode
where students become active learners and take more responsibility for
their own learning, and in the process, learn to construct knowledge on
their own and determine their own learning outcomes.  Collaboration is an
important and integral component to the learning process, whereby the
learner seeks out more experienced people to help solve the task and in
doing so, acquires knowledge and experience he or she would not
otherwise have had if acting individually. Scaffolding, then, becomes an
important aspect to constructivist learning as older, more experienced
peers, as well as teachers, become "scaffolds" who help and support
individual learners in a task and guide them until they reach a sufficient
competence level (Winnips & McLoughlin, 2001; McLoughlin, 1999; Collis,
Winnips & Moonen, 2000). The collaborative activities with others allow
them to develop multiple perspectives, where some type of "shared reality"
is produced (Jonassen, 2000) and enables them to consider “…varying and
discrepant points of view with which to consider the merits of his or her
own mental models” (Oliver, 2000).

The advantages of constructivism are that it provides learner centred
activities in the learning process, enables students to participate in their



474 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

learning process and become autonomous and independent while the
teacher acts as a facilitator, supporting the students in their learning
process, facilitating social interactions and communications between
students, and encouraging collaborative and cooperative learning. In such
an activity, student centred learning can be cultivated because the students
will engage in collaborative activities with their team members, as well as
with the instructor, who acts as a facilitator and guide to the students. By
working in a group situation, students will have to tap into their group
skills and use a variety of activities to accomplish the project's overall
objectives. The group would be responsible for their goals and learn to
solve problems and work collaboratively. Learning takes place in a
meaningful, authentic context and is a social, collaborative activity, where
peers play an important role in encouraging learning (Herrington, Oliver,
Reeves & Woo, 2004).

Multimedia and constructivist learning in Malaysia

In Malaysia, the Government is echoing this learner centred learning
initiative and has thereby called for using multimedia materials for student
development, self assessment and self directed learning (Mohaiadin, 2000;
Chee, 2000)  as well as e-learning methods in the universities (Kamsah,
Mokhtar, Ahmad & Yaacob, 2000; Ismail, 2001). There is a strong initiative
in the country to integrate technology and multimedia into the classrooms
and to encourage educators in institutions of higher education to integrate
the existing curricula into technology based, learner centred programs
where students become active participators in their learning process, and
become developers of multimedia applications (Mat 2000; Moggie, 2000).
Institutions of higher learning here in Malaysia are thus meeting these
challenges by integrating multimedia into various teaching and learning
environments such as storytelling (Norhayati & Siew, 2004), problem based
learning (Neo & Neo, 2001, 2005; Hong, Lai & Holton, 2003), web based
courses (Rohaida & Kamariah, 2000; Hong, Abang Ekhsan &
Zaimuarifuddin, 2005; Neo, 2005), and in e-learning applications (Lee,
2005; Suraya, 2005).

Much of this push to incorporate constructivist based approaches into
teaching and learning is in answer to the problem of current graduates
lacking in creativity, communications skills, and analytical, critical
thinking, and problem solving skills (Teo & Wong, 2000; Siaw, 2000: Tan,
2000). This mismatch has created a need to seek new ways to transfer the
appropriate skills and knowledge to the students in order to meet the
rising expectations of the IT society.  Research in Malaysia has shown that
using constructivism and multimedia technology are becoming
increasingly important in teaching and learning in higher education in
order to promote and enhance the teaching and learning process. Shaziti



Neo, Neo and Tan 475

(2000) posited an online learning environment as a platform to support
constructivist teaching and learning practices in the everyday classroom, to
provide “a repository of useful resources, to showcase teacher 'best
practices' and for reflective dialogue.” Lee (1999) reported on the
Malaysian experience with students in a joint collaboration study on the
use of problem solving methods in a constructivist environment with
learners from three different countries, and found that rich learning
environments must present authentic problems to the learners. Lee (2005)
found that constructivist approaches such as guided discovery, interactive
Q&A sessions and the use of multimedia elements such as animations,
simulations and graphics enabled mathematics students to learn better, by
promoting active learning strategies in distance and e-learning
environments. Wong, Kamariah and Tang (2003) investigated the use of a
constructivist learning environment for addressing anxiety levels among
pre-service teachers, and found that it was successful in reducing the
anxiety levels among participants who perceived themselves as IT
incompetent, enabling them to better transfer their knowledge to their
students in the classrooms.

Therefore, in their efforts to progress towards more student centred
methods of teaching and learning, Malaysian institutions of higher
education need to further study the use of constructivism and multimedia
technology. In this case study, we sought to provide an alternative method
to enhance the student learning process in the constructive perspective
through the development of a multimedia project embedded in a
constructivist learning environment and to study its impact on the learning
process of Malaysian students. By integrating a multimedia project into a
constructivist learning environment, students would have to apply the
Multimedia Development Process (MDP) in order to complete it. Throughout
this process, students have to actively participate in their own learning
process and become more engaged learners. This study reports on the
students’ feedback and their experience with collaborative problem
solving.

Methodology
The study was coducted with 53 second year students (N=53) from 3
different faculties, the Faculty of Management, the Faculty of Information
Technology and the Faculty of Engineering, who were enrolled in the
Interactive Multimedia course (or unit). The objective for this course was to
acquire multimedia development skills through the creation of an
interactive group application authored in Macromedia Director. The course
was 14-weeks long and consisted of lectures, laboratory tutorials and
consultations. The project was focussed around an authentic setting context
(Herrington, Oliver, Reeves & Woo, 2004), with the project theme Malaysian



476 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

culture. Here students developed prototype applications on any aspect of
Malaysian culture for the Malaysian Tourism Board. Students worked in
groups to design, develop and implement their concept for the application
and would be responsible for all the decisions made in this process. The
authoring tool used to create the final application was Macromedia Director,
although students were free to use any third party software to enhance
their final Director application (Tai, Neo & Teoh, 2005).

Developing the constructivist based environment

Constructivist environments are designed so that students will be able to
become active participants in their learning process and develop skills that
would allow them to think critically, function well as a member of a team,
develop collaborative abilities and deepen their understanding of their
task. Jonassen (1999) also proposes that an essential part of the problem is
that it has to be interesting, engaging and appealing. It must also be
authentic, personally relevant, challenging and interesting to learners, and
provide a physical simulation of the real world task environment. As such,
these components were adapted into the design of this study to create an
effective constructivist learning environment for the Malaysian classroom.
In this project, the students engaged in the Multimedia Development
Process (MDP) (Neo & Neo 2004; Luther, 1994). The MDP is a development
method which outlines students’ process from the ideation of the project in
the beginning, to its implementation using the authoring tool, Macromedia
Director, to the delivery of the final application. The MDP involves 3
phases, depicted schematically in Figure 1.

1. The pre-authoring phase
The pre-authoring phase involves the planning of the project. The plan
identifies the specific aspect of the project that the student groups want to
present, the overall concept of their project or solution, and the target
audience. It groups brainstorming activities and storyboarding of ideas. It
also involves the acquisition of media elements (text, graphics, animation,
sound and video) from various analogue or digital sources. Media
elements acquired from analogue sources are converted into digital
formats and saved in the computer for later use. In this phase, students can
also edit and modify their media using third party software such as Adobe
Photoshop (for image files), Premier (for video files), Flash (for animation
files), and SoundForge (for sound files), to customise them to their project’s
design.

2. The authoring phase
This is characterised by the integration and synchronisation of media
elements in an authoring tool and the integration of interactivity, to create
one final, standalone application. Interfaces designed according to the



Neo, Neo and Tan 477

storyboard in the pre-authoring phase are used in the application, and the
media elements are incorporated accordingly. Interactive features and
navigational tools are incorporated, and the final application is then
packaged, or saved, as a standalone application for delivery to the end
user.

3. The post-authoring phase
The final application is presented and delivered to the end user. It is
interactive, media rich, and is presented in accordance with the group’s
own concept of what the project should be, as decided by the group in the
pre-authoring phase.

Figure 1: The Multimedia Development Process (MDP)
(Neo & Neo, 2004)

The student’s collaborative problem solving learning process

Students followed a six step problem solving learning process, including
the MDP, which outlined a learning strategy for the multimedia project
development. Students worked collaboratively in groups to achieve
solutions to their common problem. The learning process, depicted
schematically in Figure 2, is defined as follows.

1. Group formation and task delegation
Students began their collaboration by forming groups of 4 to 5 members
and choosing a group leader. At this stage, groups created their own group
identity and began division of tasks.

2. Collaboration
Collaboration in the project took the form of brainstorming activities to
identify a variety of possible solutions to their project problem, as well as
the skills needed in the group to properly develop the application. Students
scoured the Internet for ideas and resources to help them make decisions
and group meetings were held to discuss these issues. Ideas for the project
were then presented as a proposal to the class and the lecturer, who was
acting as a facilitator in the class, for feedback and approval.
`



478 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

3. Pre-authoring: Conceptualisation
Storyboarding and interface design were carried out in this stage, where
student groups visualised and generated materials for the final application.
Members created sketches for the interfaces of their application’s screen
and started to acquire the necessary media elements (e.g. graphics, sound,
video, animation and text) and created the visuals for their Director
application. This process was iterative as members modified their designs
according to ongoing group discussions and decisions. Conflict
management and problem solving were prevalent in this stage as members
experienced problems in group dynamics.

4. Authoring: Integration and interactivity
In this stage, student groups utilised Macromedia Director to translate their
storyboard concepts to the final digital application. Collaboration was still
prevalent in this stage as students collaborated to put their individual
screens together under one final application.

5. Post-authoring: Presentations
Work in progress presentations were carried out to ensure groups were
progressing on schedule and to solicit feedback and comments from other
members in the class. Final presentations, two weeks later, were done to
showcase the completed application.

6. Reflective thinking
Reflective thinking occurred throughout the development period and
encouraged students to think about their progress in the class, the
problems they faced and how they overcame them. Reflective thoughts
were documented in their journal reports at the end of the semester.

Figure 2: The students’ collaborative problem solving learning process

Throughout their learning, aside from the face to face meetings, students
utilised various methods of communication and collaboration tools,



Neo, Neo and Tan 479

especially the Yahoo! Instant Messenging service, emails and even telephone
SMS (short messaging service) to exchange ideas and files, collaborate,
hold meetings and discussions, and keep in touch with each other.

Table 1: Means and percentages on the student survey (N=53)

No Items Mean(m)
% (p)

SA
% (p)

A
% (p)

U
% (p)

D
% (p)

SD
Std.
dev.

1. Challenging yet inspiring
project

4.2 24.5 67.9 5.7 1.9 0 0.60

2. I felt motivated to involve
myself in project

4.0 18.9 64.2 15.1 0 1.9 0.72

3. Willing to change to keep
growing

4.2 24.5 66.0 9.4 0 0 0.57

4. Accept critical/negative
comments

4.1 24.5 62.3 9.4 3.8 0 0.70

5. Place more emphasis on
learning in the project than
studying for exams

3.9 22.6 50.9 24.5 0 0 0.74

6. The individual and group
assessments encourage me to
give full commitment

3.8 7.5 66.0 22.6 3.8 0 0.64

7. Smooth interactions tightened
the bond among members

3.7 17.0 45.3 30.2 3.8 3.8 0.94

8. Willing to pay price to ensure
growth of group

3.9 15.1 58.5 24.5 1.9 0 0.68

9. Able to manage group
effectively

3.6 7.5 54.7 30.2 5.7 1.9 0.79

10. Willing to make improvements
to keep project growing.

4.0 20.8 56.6 20.8 1.9 0 0.57

11. Team resolve problems
together

3.9 22.6 56.6 13.2 7.5 0 0.73

12. Team solve problems in
positive manner

4.0 18.9 64.2 11.3 5.7 0 0.82

13. Project presented well using
MM technology

3.6 11.3 47.2 30.2 9.4 1.9 0.89

14. Presentation skills developed
and improved

3.6 11.3 45.3 35.8 7.5 0 0.79

15. Project increased my
understanding

4.1 18.9 71.7 7.5 1.9 0 0.58

16. Capable of thinking critically 4.0 17.0 64.2 18.9 0 0 0.60
17. Gained confidence in acquired

skills
3.9 17.0 66.0 11.3 5.7 0 0.72

18. Developed skills needed in
real-world

3.9 15.1 64.2 18.9 1.9 0 0.65

19. Able to apply skills 4.1 22.6 64.2 13.2 0 0 0.71
20. Overall, I am very satisfied

with my performance
3.8 18.9 50.9 26.4 1.9 1.93 0.83



480 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

Results: Student surveys, comments and interviews
Students were given a 20-item questionnaire adapted from Neo and Neo
(2001) and Diamond (1998). This survey was structured to measure
individual, group and project performances. It used a 5 point Likert Scale
from Strongly disagree (SD=1), Disagree (D=2), Undecided (U=3), Agree (A=4)
to Strongly agree (SA=5). The sample size was 53 students (N=53). The
students were required to fill up the survey at the end of the project
development period to reflect on their learning and performances after the
project experience. The data were analysed using SPSS (Statistical Package
for Social Sciences), and yielded a Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.8, which
satisfied the requirement for survey reliability (Lim, Khine, Hew, Wong,
Shanti & Lim, 2003). Table 1 presents the results.

The survey also sought open ended comments from students to elicit more
in depth feedback on their attitudes towards the project. These open ended
comments were at the end of the survey and students were encouraged to
be candid and honest with their feedback. These comments were useful to
gauge the individual student’s inner feelings toward the development of
the multimedia project and working in a team to complete it. These
comments, illustrated in Table 2, also provide richer support for the survey
items that the students’ completed at the same time.

Results in Table 1 show that the majority means were above 3.6, indicating
very favourable and positive responses from the students in this learning
environment. Comments in Table 2 lent further support to the results in
Table 1 as students provided richer and more candid comments to the
items on the survey. All of the responses in the three tables were organised
and reported together (concurrently) under the four constructs detailed
below.

1. Motivation
This construct sought to measure the students’ motivation towards
developing a multimedia project as part of their learning process, and was
made up of Items 1, 2, 13, 17 and 20 on the survey. Overwhelmingly, 92.5%
of students in the class reported that the project was challenging yet
inspiring (Item 1, m=4.2), making that item the highest rated item in the
survey. This is followed by 83% of students reporting that they felt
motivated to be involved in project (Item 2, m=4) and that the project was
presented very well using multimedia technology (Item 13, m=3.6,
p=58.5%). 83% of students also reported that they gained confidence in
their acquired skills after completing the project (Item 17, m=3.9), and
69.8% reported being very satisfied with their performance (Item 20,
m=3.8). The survey results are further supported by the comments at the
end of the survey, as shown in Table 2. Results showed that learners were



Neo, Neo and Tan 481

delighted and satisfied with knowledge achievement through the learning
activity, for example comments 1 and 2 in Table 2

Table 2: Student’s comments and feedback on the survey
Motivation
1. “I feel very happy and satisfied with the result. It made me feel everything is

worth it. But, I guess there are a lot more to learn”
2. “I feel excited and happy for the successful completion of the project. I'm

thankful also that all our hard work paid off.”
3, “Yes, very much! This project is new to us, very experimental and fun.  We are

very excited.”
4. “I feel satisfied and proud that our application came out great and this feeling

encourages me to create more better applications in the future.”
Knowledge construction/enhancement
5. “I feel that I had gain more knowledge and experience by doing the group

assignments.”
6. “I feel the course is very useful and interesting for me to apply in my future.”
7. “In class, we only study the theories.  But in this project, we get lots of hands on

practices, hence understand the whole idea, and we can develop something
together.”

8. “This project makes us force ourselves to learn and apply. We think that it is
good.”

Teamwork and collaboration
9. “I feel really glad to be in this group as we work together very well and my

team mates really help each other when we have problems.”
10. “I feel interesting in this course because I can know other faculty friends and

share the knowledge that I did not learn from my major such as, programming
or scripting.”

11. “We prefer working in team because we can share a lot of ideas from the
members.”

Skills
12. “I had improved my multimedia skills from this project.”
13. “…in this project, we really learnt what we want to achieve and really try our

way to do it… We’ve make use of the theories we’ve learnt in class into this
assignment.”

14. “Pretty much confident about doing all those application in the future because
…We already know the step… So in the future we can refer or recall, back to
our project then how we solve the problem, so it helps us.”

2. Knowledge construction/enhancement
This construct measured the students’ perception of their knowledge
construction process and their attitudes towards an increased
understanding of the topic after the project was completed and were made
up of Items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 15 on the survey.  As seen in Table 1, the survey
showed that 90.6% of students reported that the project increased their
understanding of managing and developing a multimedia application
(Item 15, m=4.1). 90.6% of the students also reported that they were willing
to change to keep growing, even if it meant sacrificing a lot of time learning



482 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

to solve problems by themselves (Item 3, m=4.2). 86.8% of students
reported a willingness to get rid of improper attitudes and inappropriate
methods in acquiring knowledge by being open to critical or negative
comments (Item 4, m=4.1). They also reported favorably upon the
individual and group assessments, which they found encouraged them to
give full their commitment to the project (Item 6, m=3.8, p=73.6%). 73.6% of
students reported that they placed more emphasis on learning by doing the
project instead of just studying for exams (Item 5, m=3.9), which allowed
them to understand their topic and the class better. Results from their
comments also lent support to the notion that the project enabled them to
build knowledge and increase their understanding, for example comments
6 and 7 in Table 2.

3. Teamwork/collaboration
In the teamwork/collaboration construct, students were measured on their
willingness to participate as team members and support the team goals and
were made up of Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the survey. Results showed
that students were very positive towards working in teams. As seen in
Table 1, 77.4% of students reported favourably on their willingness to make
improvements to keep project growing (Item 10, m=4.0). 73.6% of students
reported that they were willing to pay price to ensure growth of group
(Item 8, m=3.9), which reflected their concern towards learning and team
building. In terms of solving problems, 79.2% of students reported that the
team resolved their group problems together (Item 11, m=3.9) and in
positive manner (Item 12, m=4, p=83%). The majority of them reported
being able to manage team work effectively (Item 9, m=3.6, p=62.3%), with
62.3% reporting that the smooth interactions tightened the bond among
members (Item 7, m=3.7). Comments from students in Table 2 also showed
that teamwork was an integral part to the successful completion of the
project. Some found the benefits of teamwork as they are able to learn more
knowledge than expected, for example comments 9 and 10.

4. Skills (critical thinking, problem solving, confidence and presentation skills)
This construct sought to measure students’ attitudes toward the various
skills experienced during the project development period and were made
up of Items 14, 16, 18 and 19 on the survey. As seen in Table 1, 81.1% of
students reported that the project allowed them to think critically (Item 16,
m=4.0), 56.5% of students reported that the project allowed them to
develop and improve their presentation skills (Item 14, m=3.6). Many
realised that they had developed skills needed in the real world (Item 18,
m=3.9, p=79.2%), with 86.8% of students reporting that they were now able
to apply these skills in a more valuable manner on upcoming projects (Item
19, m=4.1). They also reported similar attitudes in their comments on the
survey, for example 12 and 13 in Table 2.



Neo, Neo and Tan 483

To provide further support to the survey and feedback results, students’
learning outcomes in the form of their final project are showcased in
Figures 3 and 4. These examples of their work are in line with Winnips &
McLoughlin’s (2001) statement that student’ final learning outcomes show
proof of student learning. Figure 3 shows a screen picture from one group’s
interactive application on Malaysian heritage, Baba & Nyonya, and Figure
4 is a screen picture from another group’s interactive application on
Malaysian traditional craft, Wayang Kulit (shadow puppets).

Figure 3: An interface from one group’s application on Malaysian heritage

Discussion: Students’ perceptions on learning
From this study, it is quite clear that the constructivist learning
environment had an important influence on these Malaysian students’
learning process. By allowing students the creativity and responsibility to
create and develop an interactive multimedia project via an authentic
theme, based on their group’s decision making process, they were able to
harness several salient constructivist attributes which enabled them to be
more active in their learning process. In particular, the authors found that:

1. The incorporation of the multimedia development process (MDP)
within this constructivist based learning environment enabled students
to engage in many constructivist learning activities, Through the MDP,
they engaged in research, planning and organising of the content of the



484 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

Figure 4: An interface of one group’s application on
Malaysian traditional craft, Wayang Kulit (shadow puppets)

project and structure solutions to the problems as per their own group’s
learning path. They were able to design and create multiple solutions or
multiple expressions to the same problem, as they are able to
incorporate their experiences and their own views of the world to make
it meaningful to them.

2. Students were very motivated to finish the project and see their final
results. This is indicative in their survey results, their open ended
comments, as well as in their interviews. Even though they did find that
the project was challenging at times, they were still able to report
enjoying their work and feeling confident in their multimedia
development capabilities.

3. The incorporation of a multimedia project allowed students to become
multimedia designers and exercise their creativity in using various
combinations of multimedia elements in the project design. Thus, this
multimedia mediated, constructivist based learning environment
allowed students to gain increased understanding of their work and
their project topic. By designing an authentic learning environment
where students had an active interest in the outcome of the task at hand,
they were more apt to pay attention to the information presented, and
in doing so, enhanced their understanding of multimedia as well as
their topic, making them more likely to become lifelong learners.



Neo, Neo and Tan 485

Multimedia technology became an enabler for them to become actively
involved in their learning process and experience high motivation
levels.

4. This learning environment also encouraged and supported
collaborative peer learning, where the teacher acted as a facilitator and
consultant, guiding students in solving their problems. Students were
able to work together to make decisions, and implement them as a
group, in order to complete their group task, despite several obstacles
such as scheduling conflicts, lack of skills and personality conflicts.

5. They were also able to display metacognitive skills, which Bentham
(2002, p114) defined as the “personal awareness of factors that
influence… thinking, learning and problem-solving abilities”. This is
indicative of students’ ability to see the relevance of their project to real
life work situations. From their comments and interviews, students did
not view the project simply as a classroom exercise, but rather as an
experience acquired for real life situations. This showed that the project
was successful in bridging the gap between students' theoretical
understanding of interactive multimedia and its practical uses in the
real world, and has important implications for their future.

This investigation shows that using a multimedia project within a
constructivist based learning environment can be successful in effecting
salient constructivist attributes such as problem solving and critical
thinking skills, creativity, presentation and reflection skills, resulting in
enhanced knowledge construction and increased motivation levels. The
incorporation of computer and multimedia technologies into such a
learning environment serves to further strengthen their involvement and
commitment and make them more active participants in their learning
process. The results of the study showed that this alternative method
provided Malaysian students the opportunity to enhance their learning
process and improve their understanding of the subject matter and thus
provide further positive encouragement towards the development of
constructivist learning environments as well as innovative teaching and
learning methods using multimedia and digital technologies in Malaysian
classrooms.

Acknowledgements
The research was funded by a Multimedia University Internal Funding
grant. The authors wish to thank the students in the Interactive Multimedia
class, Multimedia University, Malaysia, for their cooperation in this
research project, and the Multimedia University for the facilities and
support.



486 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

References
Agnew, P. W., Kellerman, A. S. & Meyer, J. (1996). Multimedia in the classroom. Allyn

and Bacon, Boston.
Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Bates, A. W. & Poole, G. (2003). Introductory remarks on knowledge, learning and

teaching. In Effective teaching with technology in higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Bentham, S. (2002). Psychology and education. New York: Routledge.
Berge, Z. L. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary web-based learning. Educational

Technology, January/February, 5-11.
Chee, K. Y. T. (2000). Running a Smart School successfully. e-learning 2000:

Accelerating e-Learning Towards Higher Education Value, Malaysian International
Conference & Exhibition on Electronic Learning 2000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Collis, B. A., Winnips, K. & Moonen, J. (2000). Structured support versus learner
choice via the World Wide Web (WWW): Where is the payoff? Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 11(2), 131-162.

Cook, J. & Cook, L. (1998). How technology enhances the quality of student-centred
learning. Quality Progress, 31(7).

Diamond, R. M. (1998). Designing & assessing courses & curricula -- A practical guide.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Duffy, T. M. & Cunningham, D. J. (1996).  Constructivism: Implications for the
design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research
for educational communication & technology. NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver, R. & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic
activities in web-based courses. Journal of Computing and Higher Education, 16(1),
3-29.

Hong, K. S., Lai, K. W. & Holton, D. (2003).  Students’ satisfaction and perceived
learning with a web-based course. Educational Technology & Society, 6(1), 116-124.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=7&a_id=130

Hong, K. S., Abang Ekhsan, A. O. & Zaimuarifuddin, N. (2005). Computer self-
efficacy, computer anxiety, and attitudes towards the Internet: A study among
undergraduates in Unimas. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 205-219.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=29&a_id=590

Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments.  In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional
theory (2nd edition), pp. 215-239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ismail, Z. (2001). Learning for the knowledge society: National E-Learning Agenda
(NELA). National Conference & Exhibition on Electronic Learning 2001 (e-learning
2001): Moving Towards e-Learning Society, 7-8 June, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking.
NJ: Merrill.



Neo, Neo and Tan 487

Jonassen, D. H. & Henning, P. (1999). Mental models:  Knowledge in the head and
knowledge in the world. Educational Technology, 39(3), 37-42.

Kamsah, M., Mokhtar, S., Ahmad, R. & Yaacob, M. (2000). Developing the concept
of e-university for Malaysian public universities. e-learning 2000: Accelerating e-
Learning Towards Higher Education Value, Malaysian International Conference &
Exhibition on Electronic Learning 2000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Lambert, N. M. & McCombs, B. J. (1998). Introduction: Learner-centered schools
and classrooms as a direction for school reform. In N. M. Lambert & B. L.
McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered
education, pp. 1-22. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Land, S. M. & Hannafin, M. J. (1996). Student-centred learning environments:
Foundations, assumptions and implications. In Proceedings of Selected Research
and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology, Indianapolis: IN. pp. 395-400.

Lee, C. S. (1999). Problem-solving in a constructivist environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 2(4), 137-145.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=20&a_id=461

Lee Y. L (2005). Integrating constructivist approaches in e-learning to enhance
mathematical self-study. The Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Reform, Revolution and Paradigm Shifts in
Mathematics Education. Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 25 Nov - 1 Dec.
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/21_project/21_malasya_ZLee%20Ya%20Ling238-
242_05.pdf

Lim, C. P., Khine, M. S., Hew, T., Wong, P., Shanti, D. & Lim, B. (2003). Exploring
critical aspects of information technologies integration in Singapore schools.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 1-24.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet19/lim.html

Lindstrom, R. (1994). The Business Week guide to multimedia presentations: Create
dynamic presentations that inspire. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Luther, A. C. (1994). Authoring interactive multimedia. MA: AP Professional.
Mat, J. (2000), Technology in the Malaysian Education System. Opening address at the

E-Learning conference, 25 May, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In

N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds), How students learn: reforming schools
through learner-centered education, pp. 353-377. American Psychological
Association, Washington DC.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). Scaffolding: Application to learning technology supported
environments. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 1999: World
Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, pp. 1827-1832.
Charlottesville, VA: AACE.

Moggie L. (2000). Opening speech by Datuk Amar Leo Moggie, Minister of Energy,
Communications and Multimedia. In Proceedings of the International Conference:
Education & ICT in the New Millenium. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27 October, pp.
iii-x.



488 Australasian Journal od Educational Technology, 2007, 23(4)

Mohaiadin, J. D. (2000).  Information technology/MSC: Who benefits most? In
Proceedings of the International Conference: Education & ICT in the New Millenium,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1-14.

Nelson, L. M. (1999).  Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (2nd
edition) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 161-181.

Neo, M. (2005). Web-enhanced learning: Engaging students in constructivist
learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 22(1), 4-14.

Neo, M. & Neo, T. K. (2001).  Innovative teaching using multimedia in a problem-
based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 4(4), 19-31.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=12&a_id=166

Neo, T. K. & Neo, M. (2004). Classroom innovation: Engaging students in
interactive multimedia learning. The Campus-wide Information Systems (CWIS):
The International Journal of Technology on Campus, 21(3).

Neo, M. & Neo, T. K. K. (2005). A multimedia-enhanced problem-based learning
experience in the Malaysian classroom. Learning, Media & Technology, 30(1), 41-53.

Norhayati, A. M. & Siew, P. H. (2004).  Malaysian perspective: Designing
interactive multimedia learning environment for moral values education.
Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 143-152.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=25&a_id=499

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D. A., Lehman, J., D. & Russell, J. D. (2000). Instructional
technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers,
and using media (2nd Ed). Merrill/Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivist learning on the web.
Educational Technology, November-December, 5-18.

Oliver, R. (1998). Partnerships in teaching and learning: An emerging role for
technology. Proceedings of EdTech'98: The Biennial Conference of the Australian
Society for Educational Technology. Perth: ASET. http://www.ascilite.org.au/aset-
archives/confs/edtech98/pubs/articles/oliver.html

Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R.C. & Gibson, H.W. (1998). Teaching strategies:
A guide to better instruction. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Rohaida, M. S. & Kamariah, A. B. (2000). A development of a web-based instruction
for primary school: SPICE. In Proceedings of the International Conference: Education
& ICT in the New Millenium, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 27 October, pp. 164-185.

Savery, J. R. & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model
and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, September-October, 31-
38.

Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C.
M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models: A new paradigm of
instructional theory (2nd ed), pp. 161-181. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Siaw, I. S. C. (2000). Fostering self-directed learning readiness by way of interven-
tion in business education. In Proceedings at the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on
Problem-Based Learning: Education Across Disciplines, 4-7 December, Singapore.



Neo, Neo and Tan 489

Shaziti, A. (2000). Network learning environment as a vehicle and support tool for
integrating constructivism in the everyday classroom. In Proceedings of the
International Conference: Education & ICT in the New Millenium, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 27 October, pp. 41.

Suraya H. (2005). A framework for strategic future e-learning applications to
support sustainable growth in the e-learning industry. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Multimedia and ICTs in Education (m-ICTE2005), 7-10
June, Caceres, Spain, pp 1-10.

Tai, X. L., Neo, M. & Teoh, S. P. (2005). Using a multimedia project in the
constructivist learning environment: Its implication on the student learning
process. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia and ICTs in
Education (m-ICTE2005), 7-10 June, 2005, Caceres, Spain.

Tan, O. S. (2000). Thinking skills, creativity and problem-based learning. In
Preceedings in conjunction with the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Problem-Based
Learning: Education Across Disciplines, 4-7 December, Singapore, pp.47-55.

Teo, R. & Wong, A. (2000). Does problem based learning create a better student:  A
reflection? In Proceedings at the 2nd Asia Pacific Conference on Problem-Based
Learning: Education Across Disciplines, 4-7 December, Singapore.

Tway, L. (1995). Multimedia in action. AP Professional, MA.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher pyschological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B. G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning

environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 25-30.
Winnips, K. & McLoughlin, C. (2001). Six WWW based learner supports you can

build. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of Ed-Media 2001: World
Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Tampere, Finland: AACE,
pp. 2062-2067.

Wong, S. L., Kamariah, A. B. & Tang, S. H. (2003). Differences in anxiety between IT
competent and incompetent Malaysian pre-service teachers: Can a discrete IT
course taught in a constructivist learning environment solve this problem?
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(4).
http://www.tojet.net/articles/244.htm

Yildirim, Z. (2005). Hypermedia as a cognitive tool: Student teachers' experiences in
learning by doing. Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 107-117.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=27&a_id=539

Zheng, R. & Zhou, B. (2006). Recency effect on problem solving in interactive
multimedia learning. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 107-118.
http://www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=31&a_id=636

Dr Mai Neo, Senior Lecturer, Dr Tse-Kian Neo, Senior Lecturer, and
Gillian Xiao-Lian, Tutor, Centre for Innovative Education (CINE), Faculty
of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia.
Email: kneo@pc.jaring.my