Page |0

Theme: Curriculum Issues in Open and Distance Learning

Topic Area: New perspectives in instructional design: meeting learning needs in the
online environment

Chapter title: Applying multimedia instructional design in support of independent study

Author: Candice V. Sankarsingh, MSc.
Position: Multimedia Instructional Designer

Abstract:

This chapter presents the role of contemporary multimedia instructional design in course
development. It revisits the operating context and challenges within which multimedia
instructional design was introduced to the Open Campus for the period 2015 to 2017. The
rationale for several strategies used to scaffold members of the Course Development
Department, as well as the need to re-engineer critical workflows are outlined. By way of a case
study involving scenario-based learning (SBL) design, readers are invited to discover and
contemplate the underpinnings of quality multimedia instructional planning and design practice.
The chapter also highlights the critical relationship that exists between content specification and
the programming of multimedia learning objects.

Keywords:
instructional design, multimedia content planning, scenario-based learning design,
Page |1

The Trigger Event: The Open Campus’s implementation of the DFATD/GAC project

In January 2015, the Academic Programming and Delivery Division of the University of the
West Indies Open Campus began using a resource-based course development model known as
the “wrap-around” to develop new online learning programmes. The proposed model was
intended to allow greater agility and mobilization during course design and development,
ultimately increasing the number of courses offered at the Open Campus. Greater emphasis was
placed on the use and inclusion of links to existing open educational resources (OERs) around
which learning activities could be structured. Subject Matter Experts were hired and trained as
Course Developers during the period. They were expected to use their knowledge and experience
in the subject area to identify relevant baseline content. With the guidance of a team of
curriculum development specialists, instructional designers and other specialist personnel, the
intention was to create meaningful learning experiences suited to the online environment. The
transition, however, posed significant challenges for the course development team. The project
introduced new specialist positions that were previously under-represented or absent from the
course development process. This chapter begins with an exploration of the science and role of
multimedia instructional design in supporting meaningful learning experiences for the
contemporary learner. It focuses on an identified need to strengthen the design and development
of context-appropriate learning activities for independent study at the Open Campus. By using
the case of an advanced proof of concept for scenario-based learning, the chapter highlights how
the hybrid discipline is used as a bridge to connect domain-specific content with multimedia
design and best practice.

Protagonist: The Multimedia Instructional Designer

One of the areas of expertise introduced into the operations of the course development
department in 2015 was that of the Multimedia Instructional Designer. Though widely accepted
as a fundamental specialization in contemporary elearning practice (Warren, Lee, & Najmi,
2014; Simonson, Smaldino & Zvacek, 2014; Savenye & Spector, 2010; Reddi & Mishra, 2003;),
it was the first and single post of its kind in the 8 years of the Open Campus’ existence.

Multimedia Instructional Design is a hybrid discipline in which a body of information is first

examined and deconstructed according to the principles of instructional design science (Clark &
Mayer, 2016; Makki & Makki, 2012). Human performance is analysed, and desired
competencies are specified (Foshay, Villachica & Stepich, 2014). Common mistakes regarding
domain-specific content are anticipated and often used to scaffold the learner with appropriate
feedback or reinforcement. Learning content is identified and detailed depending on the
instructional intention and a corresponding strategy to achieve that very intention. The content is
then re-designed, validated and engineered into an instructional resource using multimedia. The
resource itself may be “integrated” i.e. embedded within another learning resource,
“complementary/reinforcing” i.e. used in addition to another learning resource, or “stand-alone”
i.e. act as a self-contained learning or teaching artefact (Reddi & Mishra, 2003).

The strategic use of several media (textual, aural, visual, etc.) presents opportunities for
increased message retention, and is central to communications practice and social semiotics
(Mayer, 2014; Kress, 2010). For learning objects to be fit-for-purpose, multimedia instructional
planning begins during the conceptual stages of the lesson or unit of study. Regardless of the
Page |2

mode of delivery, it is primarily concerned with the logical and progressive transmission of an
accurate message. Quality multimedia instructional design should result in active cognitive
processing and facilitate meaning-making (Liu, 2003; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). While the design
goal is to engage the working memory of the learner, this must be done in ways that eliminate or
reduce extraneous cognitive processing (Mayer, 2014).

It follows from this that the construct “multimedia instructional design” and its derivative
profession therefore should not be used interchangeably with that of “multimedia design” or
“multimedia production” as they do not convey the same meaning or expertise. A designer or
producer of multimedia is not an instructional designer and may function outside of a training
environment. Similarly, an instructional designer is not necessarily a producer or designer of
multimedia and may complete all the functions related to her position without the use of
multimedia. However, a multimedia instructional designer is a hybrid and is trained in the
applied aspects of instructional design science using multimedia (Reddi & Mishra, 2003).
Furthermore, in an online learning environment all instances of multimedia production are
inextricably linked to instructional design principles. A production team involved in elearning is
ultimately concerned with the “provision of quality learning solutions that make use of the full
cognitive capacity of the learner, building meaningful representations and connections through
effective multimedia design.” (Mayer, 2014; Clark and Mayer, 2016).

Issue-based scenarios at the course development department: an overview of challenges for

multimedia instructional design

During the first content development cycle, few staff members involved in course writing
acknowledged the need for multimedia instructional design planning at the time of unit
conceptualisation. Instead, semi-completed units of instruction were forwarded towards the end
of the cycle with an expectation that the multimedia instructional designer would existing
content in the units of instruction to script, storyboard or suggest appropriate resources. There
were several things wrong with this assumption as the units of instruction revealed a far more
troubling reality.

Excessive text-based content remained an issue in what should have been a leaner, more focused
course development model. In the wrap-around model, the course developer was expected to
locate open educational resources around which he would present his instructional narrative: a
personalized communication between an expert and the learner. To a large extent, the
instructional narrative was not successfully executed. Instead of seeking and linking to OERs
already associated with bodies of knowledge, developers continued to re-write widely accepted,
easily accessible declarative and procedural content. Very few subject matter experts took the
opportunity to outline and use context-appropriate explanations, worked examples, scenarios that
would help to clarify content. Meaning-making activities for the learner during independent
study were minimal. Additionally, there was little evidence of objectives or activities targeting
mid-to-higher order cognitive study. There was also persistent overuse of reflective questioning
destined primarily for course forums at the time of delivery.

Poorly developed instructional narrative obscured lesson takeaways for the learner. Further, the
weak elaboration of content provided insufficient, often superficial, information and examples
that would negatively impact the development of a quality resource. Baseline subject matter,
Page |3

authoritative sources, credible examples and relevant feedback are typically provided by Subject
Matter Experts (Hung & Chen; 2001). However, during the first cycle of development, this was
not the case. It was commonplace for a course developer to include a hyperlink to an e-book
chapter in the course manual, and then send a request to the production team for an interactive
quiz without ever composing the assessment himself. Similarly, requests for infographics were
made with little or no indication as to the kind of infographic required (process, timeline,
statistical, comparison, informational etc.) or the narrative for the resource. What should one
readily assume about the content of the book chapter when the instructional intention of the
course developer is unknown? Should a non-expert presume to know the relevant questions on
the mind of the course developer? What type of knowledge is to be tested and why? Conflict was
inevitable. Questions, choices, and feedback pertinent to the topic under study remained
unspecified.

If information is unspecified multimedia content cannot be designed or developed. Multimedia

cannot be used to magically create information that is not communicated. When asked to provide
content in support of a quality multimedia-based learning resource, there was reluctance on the
part of those involved in course writing. Many believed, albeit erroneously, it was not the role of
“multimedia personnel” to scrutinize the instructional value of the content provided but rather to
produce an audio-visual resource or asset. The insistence on content clarification from the
Multimedia Instructional Designer now appeared to be untimely. At this last stage in the process,
it was inconvenient to seek the level of detail required for an instructionally sound resource. The
subject matter expert (SME) who had been hired for a three-month period, was either unavailable
or now unwilling to complete multimedia instructional design recommendations. Oddly enough,
some perceived the narrative required for instructional resources in support of their course as
‘additional’ writing duties.

The nature and timing of these and other reactions pointed to a basic lack of understanding of the
role of instructional multimedia in contemporary online learning environments. They also
revealed a failed work flow. Although challenges were swiftly identified, the misconceptions and
functional fixedness (Harris, Koehler & Mishra 2009; Dunker, 1945) held by certain team
members were slow to be released. Key members struggled to consider the use of multimedia
outside of an entertainment context. In other cases, some members assumed they could
adequately fulfil the role of the Multimedia Instructional Designer and circumvent her review.
These kinds of actions only served to derail workflows, create additional and unnecessary
bottlenecks as well as frustrate efforts in setting design quality and standards of multimedia
learning objects.

Taking action: re-positioning multimedia instructional design

Subsequent interviews and discussions particularly with Curriculum Development Specialists

revealed limited awareness of information hierarchies, categories of content, generative learning
theory (Wittrock, 1974) and the associated learning strategies and activities recommended for the
contemporary online learning environment (Neuman, 2011; Savenye & Spector, 2010). Without
this kind of foundational grounding, previous requests for multimedia could possibly add
aesthetic value to text-based content, but lack core instructional features.

1. Awareness training:
Page |4

Re-positioning content planning for instructional multimedia as the systematic, evidence-based

and multi-disciplinary collaboration that it is, and should be at the Open Campus, has been one
of the primary concerns and contributions of the multimedia instructional designer. A plethora of
recommendations, remedial workflows, diagnostic tools, checklists, samples and online
workshops were prepared for the Course Development Department over the period 2015-2017.
The resources were uploaded to the Course Development Department’s Portal: a secured module
accessible to the team and housed within a Moodle Training Environment (Figure 1). These
supporting resources were used to scaffold team members as they navigated “unknown”
territory, and framed content planning discussions regarding the use of multimedia in course
design.

Figure 1. Multimedia Instructional Design Resources Available on CDD Portal 2016. The CDD portal serves as an
amalgamation of the guidance notes for the work undertaken across the department.
Page |5

2. Workflow:

One of the first recommendations was for instructional multimedia planning to begin at the
course planning stage and in consultation with the multimedia instructional designer. This
would address the flawed workflow impacting multimedia production (Figures 2 & 3).
Typically, course developers compose their instructional narrative around the stated
objectives for each unit specified in the course plan template. An additional column for
multimedia was included into the same document. A course developer would now be
prompted to select at least one opportunity for a multimedia resource within a unit of his
course. Where applicable, he would develop the instructional narrative for the unit along with
the resource. Since a course developer is not himself expected to be skilled instructional
design for multimedia, he would need to be guided through the planning process for several
possible resources. Corresponding templates for various styles of instructional quizzes,
podcasts, games, graphic organizers, infographics, scenarios etc. were provided. In addition
to containing reflective prompts and guidelines, the templates were fully customizable. SMEs
would have the opportunity to add additional fields of information once justifications were
provided to the MMID and the CDS during the recommended workflow, thereby
strengthening the potential learning experience and increasing design agility.
Page |6

Figure 2 Work Flow for Multimedia Instructional Content Planning. Figure 2 outlines the sequence of operations governing
multimedia instructional design consultations. Figure 3 is notably anecdotal and perhaps more palatable with reflective prompts
on how engagement may be more efficiently conducted.
Page |7

Figure 3 Workflow Infographic with Reflective Prompts during Course Development

Open Campus Publication/Submission Page |8

Implementing recommendations and the new workflow

1. Opportunities with scenario-based learning (SBL)

The emphasis on scenario-based learning (SBL) opportunities is associated with a need to

transform and strengthen the instructional narrative within courses at the Open Campus in a way
that is memorable and meaningful to a learner during independent study (Savenye & Spector,
2010; Savery, 2009). Generative Learning theory (Wittrock, 1974) focuses on selecting
appropriate learner-centric instructional activities for the learner. It combines the importance of
learner and instructional intentionability. Lee, Lim and Grabowski (2008) underscored the
importance of generative learning strategies in helping the learner with meaning-making. The
same authors explained that the processes that allow learners to generate information
relationships or connections between memory including preconceptions, abstract knowledge,
everyday experiences, domain-specific information and new information hold strong
implications for meaning-making.

SBL is used as a change management strategy in training and development environments

because it is human-focused. Course Developers have the first opportunity in the content creation
process to awaken, reveal and foster such connections in learners. If properly impacted by the
supporting expertise of all CDD staff, the resulting multimedia product can be quite compelling.
Story-based content provides a powerful motivator for learning, as well as designing and creating
memorable interactive media (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002). A scenario is a story in
which a learner experiences work-based realities, consequences or outcomes of a decision or
action (Errington, 2011). For learning content to resonate with adult learners it must be
believable and context-appropriate. Authentic perspectives are best drawn from consultations
with experienced Subject Matter Experts. The choice of actions and range of decisions can be
based on several real and conflicting possibilities encountered in a professional setting.

2. Instructional design planning for scenario-based learning

In considering the extensive works of Errington (2003; 2011; 2014) and Clark (2009), five
components emerge for the instructional scenario to be complete: a trigger event, a protagonist or
several supporting characters, a set of decisions with related consequences, feedback with both
positive and negative reinforcement and a key message or lesson learned on the topic. While
various kinds of scenarios exist, the following four categories are most common: skills-based,
problem-based, issue-based and speculative. These four categories were introduced into the
multimedia instructional design recommendations with corresponding planning templates.

In a skills-based scenario: the learner is expected to demonstrate skills and knowledge he has
already acquired during the unit or course. In a problem-based scenario, the learner investigates a
problem by integrating theoretical and practical knowledge covered in the unit or course. In an
issue-based scenario: the learner takes a stand on an issue and witnesses the impact of his
decision-making on a wide cross-section of stakeholders. In a speculative scenario, the learner is
asked to predict the outcome of an event in the future based on their knowledge and deductions.

Input fields and reflective prompts for descriptive and prescriptive content obviously vary by
scenario type but as a rule, the course developer must provide all 5 components regardless of the
Open Campus Publication/Submission Page |9

scenario type. If one component is missing or has not been addressed, the scenario is considered
incomplete and should not be sent forward to multimedia development. In the new workflow
proposed by the multimedia instructional designer incomplete information is resolved or
negotiated through a collaborative process involving the multimedia instructional designer,
course developer and the curriculum development specialist.

“Old habits die hard”: an issue-based scenario and case study

A request was made for the development of eight multimedia resources. A course developer had
been led to use the issue-based scenario content planning template available on the CDD portal.
Even with the new recommended workflow presented, there had been no prior consultation with
the Multimedia Instructional Designer (MMID). The completed templates were sent directly to
the Production Manager for development. As expected, they were later re-directed to the MMID
for clarity. After a cursory examination of the scripts, the MMID immediately determined that
the course developer had detailed several complex scenarios comprised of mini-scenarios. This
was not the recommended use of the template. Further, while the written scenarios effectively
showcased a wealth of experience from the Subject Matter Expert, the content for decision
outcomes had not been provided in each case. This was evident by blank fields on the document.

This kind of situation presented two main dilemmas. On one hand, the learner would not be
presented with the opportunity to consider the real-world effects of his stance on the issue. On
the other hand, and perhaps less obvious to the Course Developers and Curriculum Development
Specialists, no decision tree could be reasonably scripted, storyboarded or eventually
programmed for a multimedia learning object. Simply put, a decision tree is a logic technique
used to model consequences or outcomes (Karimi & Hamilton, 2011). It is commonly associated
with algorithms that contain conditional control statements. Decision trees are important during
multimedia development as scenario-based learning scenarios are typically automated, providing
a perspective based on a learner’s selection or input. In this case, no multimedia specialist could
expect to assume or generate missing content as it was domain-specific. Similarly, in advising or
providing feedback to the Production Manager, the MMID could not rely on assumptions.
Clarity was needed from the SME. With extensive content already developed and the premature
expectation that the resource was approved for development, a level of frustration and reluctance
was to be expected.

1. Structured feedback strengthens collaboration

Even in this situation, the deliberate evidence-based approach to planning by the Multimedia
Instructional Designer helped to quickly diffuse misconceptions or tensions. For each scenario,
the mere presence of a completed template provided a central script and working document for
all parties concerned. The Production Manager was able to indicate at which point the
explanations provided by the Course Developer were no longer clear, and where she felt further
clarification was needed. Additionally, the Multimedia Instructional Designer could use the same
completed template to isolate core content based on the requirements, and then map the flow of
information to a storyboarded version of the intended learning object. This initial diagnostic was
used to provide a visual count of content components, and to highlight outstanding pieces.
Open Campus Publication/Submission P a g e | 10

As is customary, an intervention meeting was planned by the MMID and held with the
Curriculum Development Specialist and Course Developer. During this single session, one
template was re-visited and presented along with its emerging storyboard. The draft storyboard
was used to validate the flow of information (Figure 4.) It was also used to demonstrate content
gaps based on the five components of instructional scenarios. The MMID took the opportunity to
reinforce the rationale and instructional design of the issue-based scenario as a learning object.
The Course Developer was also invited to share nuances and ways in which domain-specific
content could be accommodated within the template design. The Course Developer was
eventually asked to provide the missing information at her earliest convenience.
Figure 4 Information Flow for SBL Content

2. Outcomes of the intervention

During the walk-through, the Course Developer actively validated the information presented by
the Multimedia Instructional Designer. She also confirmed that it was now more apparent to her
that the related outcomes for some of her scenarios were missing. By the end of the first meeting,
the Course Developer expressed better understanding of the content planning exercise required
for the issue-based scenario. She was able to author and email the missing content within 24
hours of the meeting. In her written correspondence, she expressed greater appreciation for the
consultation held with the Multimedia Instructional Designer. Upon receipt of the missing
content, eight storyboards were subsequently completed and validated iteratively with the Course
Developer and Curriculum Development Specialist within two weeks. These were then passed
along to the Production Manager and her team for creative interpretation and production.
Open Campus Publication/Submission P a g e | 11

Lessons to be learned

Contemporary e-learning design and development practice necessarily require much greater
prominence and use of multimedia if undergraduate and graduate programmes offerings at the
Open Campus are to be competitive alternatives for learners and professionals seeking advanced
studies. While it is true that the departure from the traditional content-and-support model to the
wrap-around took place amidst already severe resource constraints at the Open Campus, it must
be understood that the wrap-around model itself did not diminish the need for instructionally-
sound multimedia for learners. The Course Development Department had to confront its
previous treatment and use of multimedia for instructional purposes during the DFATF/GAC
project 2015-2017.

Multimedia in a formal training setting is not a form of entertainment or visual art. It is a

scientific exercise enabled through the systematic planning and organization of resources into
processes that transform materials, provide services and information. Adherence to well-defined
workflows and the recognition of coordinated expertise is therefore critical to its success at the
Open Campus. Workflows generally allow for task specification and data coordination between
persons, and ultimately provide transparency and accountability from team members. Workflows
are fundamental building blocks in any organization intent on achieving its outputs with
efficiency and effectiveness. When workflows are ignored and not reinforced without
justification or reasonable alternatives, the organization risks many things: duplication of efforts,
increased delays through untimely bottlenecks, decreased responsiveness and output.

To a large extent, the parent strategy for multimedia instructional design has deliberately focused
on increasing human performance levels across the CDD team by addressing non-existent or
failed workflows that had consistently undermined the creative responsiveness of multimedia
and production staff. In the case presented, the quality as well as the completion of the
instructional resource could have been easily compromised without an established workflow and
the corresponding template. Core functions of the multimedia and production team are likely to
be impacted by missing content.

When the multimedia instructional design workflow is not followed, there is a risk of losing
access to meaningful teachable content from enthusiastic and experienced SMEs. In this case,
only the MMID could have provided the required template guidance to the Course Developer.
Had the MMID not intervened even at the late stage, the Course Developer may have not
understood the significance or rationale behind the design of the template used. The role and
contribution of multimedia instructional design in the course development process would remain
completely obscured from the Course Developer. Further, it demonstrated that despite the very
best efforts taken to formally outline the components of a quality multimedia, functional
fixedness from certain team members would continue to undermine quality control and operating
standards. It was therefore equally important to reinforce the purpose of the new workflow with
the Curriculum Development Specialist involved.

At the time of this chapter, Multimedia Instructional Design is three years old at the Open
Campus. It is currently taking place within the backdrop of several organizational changes,
uncertainties and resource challenges which will ultimately determine its evolution. What should
remain clear to all however is that practice itself, from conceptualization to implementation,
Open Campus Publication/Submission P a g e | 12

requires structured operations, scientific thought, shared inputs and consultations with key
personnel within the CDD for the formula to be a successful one.
Open Campus Publication/Submission P a g e | 13

References

Clark, R. (2009). Accelerating expertise with scenario-based learning. Training & Development,
pp 84-86.
Clark, R. & Mayer, R. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Errington, E. (2003). Developing scenario-based learning: Practical insights for tertiary
educators. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Foshay W.R., Villachica S.W., Stepich D.A. (2014) Cousins but Not Twins: Instructional Design
and Human Performance Technology in the Workplace. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen.
M.J. Bishop. (Eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and
Technology, (39-50). New York, NY: Springer.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 393–416.
Hung, D.W.L., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from
the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-
learning. Educational Media International, 38 (1), 3–11.
Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design:
Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(2), 65–77.
Karimi, K. & Hamilton, H.J. (2011). Generation and Interpretation of Temporal Decision Rules.
International Journal of Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management
Applications,3, 214-323.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
New York: Routledge, 2010
Lee W.H, Lim K.Y, & Grabowski, B. (2008). Generative leaning principles and implications for
making meaning. In J. Spector, M. David Merrill, Jeroen Van (Eds.) Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 111–123). New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’ cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive
Learning Environments, 11(1), 23–39.
Makki, B., & Makki, B. (2012). The impact of integration of instructional systems technology
into research and educational technology. Creative Education, 3(2), 275–280.
Mayer, R. (2014). Multimedia instruction. In: J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen. M.J. Bishop. (Eds)
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp 385-400).
New York, NY: Springer.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38 , 43–52.
Neuman, D. (2011). Learning in information-rich environments: I-LEARN and the construction
of knowledge in the 21st century. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer.
Reddi, U.V. and Mishra, S. Educational multimedia: A handbook for teacher-developers. A
publication for the Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.
www.cemca.org/emhandbook/edmul_full.pdf (accessed 17th March 2018)
Open Campus Publication/Submission P a g e | 14

Savenye, W. C., & Spector, J. M. (2010). The future of adaptive tutoring and personalized
instruction: Introduction to the special issue. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, &
Learning, 8 (2), 97–101.
Savery, J. R. (2009). Problem-based approach to instructional-design theories and models (pp.
143–165). New York: Routledge.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Zvacek, S. (2014). Teaching and learning at a distance:
Foundations of distance education. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age
Publishing.
Warren S.J., Lee, J., & Najmi, A. (2014) The Impact of Technology and Theory on Instructional
Design Since 2000. In: J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen. M.J. Bishop. (Eds) Handbook of
Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp 89-100). New York, NY:
Springer.
Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95.