Criteria 1

Name :Neville Auld

Student No: D8640005

Criteria 1

Introductory objectives and directions

This is regarded by Hannafin and Peck (1988) as one of the most important features of multimedia content

and is consistent with Gagne’s (1985) instructional event ‘informing learners of

objectives’ and Overbaugh’s (1994) dimension of ‘orienting activities’. There seem to be two

fundamental reasons for incorporating this criterion into Multimedia design. First, many learning and

instructional theorists have argued that learning is best facilitated when new information is

perceived or encountered in context with previously held knowledge (Ausubel, 1960; Ausubel

& Fitzgerald, 1962; Hannafin & Peck, 1988; Overbaugh, 1994; Park & Hannafin, 1993; Schmidt,

1993). By providing introductory notes or background to the content area, recall of existing

knowledge will be facilitated, thus increasing the potential for learning. It is also important to

provide introductory directives so that it is clear to users what the goals of instruction are

and what is expected of them as they traverse the program. Doing this reduces learner anxiety

and allows learners to judge what are the relevant and important goals of instruction (Overbaugh,

1994).

Metrics for Instructions and Directions

( please grade between 1(lowest)to 5(highest)in satisfaction

*Metrics*	*Description*
*Objective*	*Did you grasp the objective of the content?*
*Directions*	*Were the directions of the content easily explained?*
*Instructions*	*Were the instructions easily obtained and understood?*
*Goals*	*Were the goals of the content attainable?*

Criteria 2

Navigation orientation and sequencing

Herrington and Oliver (1997) say there are three purposes to navigation: (i) to allow the student

to locate and access particular information (ii) to allow the student to purposely move between

related information (iii) to allow students to establish their current position within the program.

The navigation system is particularly important in complex multimedia content so that student

confusion and disorientation are avoided (Stemler, 1997; Park & Hannafin, 1993). A consistent

and clear navigation system is therefore seen as a crucial aspect of an effective multimedia design.

The way the navigation system is set up will be dependent to a certain extent on the structure

of the program but navigation should usually allow students to ‘exit’, go ‘forward’, go ‘back’,

go to the ‘main menu’ or ‘help’ and ‘glossary’ if required (Locatis, Letourneau & Banvard,

1989; Stemler, 1997).

Sequencing refers to the flow of content and information in the multimedia package. The

content should be cohesive and well structured and designers should

attempt to minimise the amount of energy and effort users expend trying to make links

between information. Distracting or irrelevant information should be removed and the most

important information should be given prominence. Hannafin and Peck (1988) argue that

“Lesson flow is critical to the ease with which learning will occur. Lessons that move logically

and smoothly from frame to frame and from section to section will likely maintain learner

attention effectively” (p. 303).

Metrics for Navigation orientation and sequencing

( please grade between 1(lowest)to 5(highest)in satisfaction)

*Metrics*	*Description*
*Locate Information*	*Could you locate the information quickly and efficiently?*
*Related information*	*Were you able to move between related information easily?*
*Current position*	*Were you aware of your current position within the content?*
*Logic and flow*	*Did the content flow smoothly and logically?*

Criteria 3

Interactivity

Interactivity is seen as one of the most important aspects of Multimedia content and refers

to features which actively involve or engage the learner.

Najjar (1996) defines interactivity “as the mutual action between the learner, the learning system, and

the learning material” (p. 131). Interactivity may take several forms such as formative assessment

questions on material covered in the preceding part of the program, asking users to perform

some manipulation of the interface or challenging users to form hypotheses or predictions

based on the material they have encountered. It is important to acknowledge that the criterion

of interactivity cannot be satisfied through basic point and click procedures or by simply allowing

users to use a navigation bar to actively move through the package.

There are a number of advantages to promoting interactivity in multimedia content. Interactivity

limits the chance of instruction proceeding while the learner is not concentrating (Hannafin &

Peck, 1988). By using feedback questions, a popular method of promoting interactivity, retention

of knowledge is enhanced and remediation of incorrect knowledge is addressed (Hannafin &

Peck, 1988; Stemler, 1997). The use of feedback questions also allows developers to

individualise instruction for the learner which instructional designers have argued facilitates

learning (Hannafin & Peck, 1988). One of the most important reasons for promoting interactivity,

however, is that it encourages deeper processing of learning material. Interactivity makes

students reflect on the content of instruction thereby encouraging the integration of knowledge

and the elaboration of new information with pre-existing knowledge. Thus, interactivity

promotes deeper processing which results in greater comprehension and retention (Park &

Hannafin, 1988; Stemler, 1997).

Metrics for Interactivity

*Learner Action*	*Did you have a greater comprehension and retention of the content?*
*Learning system*	*Did you at any time feel you were not in control of the content?*
*Learning material*	*Did you find the integration of the content and the user a rewarding experience?*

Criteria 4

User Attitudes and Effects

If users have positive perceptions of multimedia content

this should not only extend the amount of time users spend learning but, more importantly,

it should promote engagement with the program and thus foster deeper processing of

instructional content. This analysis is consistent with motivational approaches to instructional

design such as Keller’s (1983) ARCS model.

A number of questions could be formulated to determine user’s perceptions of multimedia content at both a general and a specific level. These questions cover issues such as effectiveness, efficiency, usefulness, degree

of interest, enjoy ability, appeal, degree of user-friendliness, relevancy and degree of engagement.

Metrics for User Attitudes and Effects

*Metrics*	*Description*
*Perception*	*Did you have a positive perception of the content?*
*User Friendliness*	*Was you experience user friendly?*
*Effectiveness*	*How effective was the content to you?*
*Usefulness*	*Was the content useful to reach your goals ?*
*Degree of Interest*	*What degree of interest did the content create ?*

REFERENCES

Ausubel, D.P. (1960). The use of advance organisers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal

material. Journal of Educational Psychology 51: 5, 267-272.

Ausubel, D.P. & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organiser, general background, and antecedent learning variables

in sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 53: 6, 43-49.

Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th Ed.), Dryden Press.

Hannafin, M.J. & Peck, K.L. (1988). The design, development and evaluation of instructional software,

McMillan Publishing Company.

Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (1997). Multimedia, magic and the way students respond to a situated

learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 13: 2, 127-143.

Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional-design

theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-424), Lawrence Erlbaum.

Locatis, C., Letourneau, G. & Banvard, R. (1989). Hypermedia and instruction. Educational Technology

Research and Development 37: 4, 65-77.

Najjar, L. J. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational and Multimedia and

Hypermedia 5: 2, 129-150.

Overbaugh, R.C. (1994). Research based guidelines for computer-based instruction development. Journal

of Research on Computing in Education 27: 1, 29-47.

Park, I. & Hannafin, M.J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia.

Educational Technology Research and Development 41: 3, 63-85.

Schmidt, H.G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Some explanatory notes. Medical

Education 27, 422-432.

Stemler, L.K. (1997). Educational characteristics of multimedia: A literature review. Journal of

Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 6: 3/4, 339-359.