presentation design for “conceptual model” learning objects

Presentation design for “conceptual model” learning objects

Daniel Churchill

Daniel Churchill is the Head of Division of Information and Technology Studies at University of Hong Kong. He hasstrong research interest in mobile learning, educational multimedia design and social networking in education.Address for correspondence: Mr Daniel Churchill, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, PokfulamRoad, Hong Kong, China. Email: [email protected]

AbstractThis paper discusses a set of recommendations for the presentation design of “concep-tual model” learning objects. A conceptual model is a learning object designed tosupport conceptual learning. Often, it is interactive and multimodal and allows a learnerto examine and interrogate displayed content. Presentation design is concerned prima-rily with the arrangement of content and screen design features that are optimized foreducational purpose. The paper presents the following set of recommendations for pres-entation design: present information visually, design for interaction, design a holisticscenario, design for a single screen, design for small space, use audio and video onlyif they are the only option, use color in moderation, avoid unnecessary decorativeelements, design with a single font, and use frames to logically divide the screen area.The recommendations were explicated from a study that involved a review of a collectionof conceptual models by a team of five independent reviewers. These recommendationsshould prove useful to designers of educational multimedia resources.

What is a conceptual model?For Anderson and Krathwohl (2001), a curriculum needs to address four categories of knowl-edge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Thus, a curriculum implementationmust include the development and intellectual uses of concepts that shape a specific discipline.

The literature about multimedia representations underlines the importance of concept learningand refers to evidence that incomplete conceptual knowledge and misconceptions seriouslyimpede learning (see Mayer, 2002; Smith, diSessa & Roschelle, 1993; Vosniadou, 1994). ForMerrill, Tennyson and Posey (1992), students learn a concept through pattern recognition; thatis, by recognizing (1) how a concept structurally relates to other concepts, and (2) how attributesof a concept relate to each other and link to prior knowledge.

Provision of certain conceptual tools or models is believed to have a positive effect on conceptlearning (see Dawson, 2004; Gibbons, 2008; Ivarsson, Schoultz & Säljö, 2002; Mayer, 1989;Norman, 1983; Seel, 2003). Lesh and Doerr (2003) define a conceptual model as a system“consisting of elements, relations, operations, and rules governing interactions” (p. 10). Suchmodels can be used for constructing, communicating, depicting and describing, illustratingattributes, or experimenting with a conceptual system (Johnson & Lesh, 2003; Merrill et al,1992).

Affordances of today’s representational technology enable the design of models for conceptlearning (see De Jong et al, 1998; Fraser, 1999; Johnson & Lesh, 2003; Norman, 1983; vanSomeren, Boshuizen, de Jong & Reimann, 1998). Churchill (2007) describes a conceptual model

British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 1 2014 136–148doi:10.1111/bjet.12005

© 2012 British Educational Research Association

as a specific form of learning object that is part of a broad classification including: presentationobjects, practice objects, simulation objects, information objects, contextual representationobjects and conceptual models. It is designed to represent a specific concept (or a set of relatedconcepts) and its properties and associated relationships. Often, a learner can manipulate theseproperties and associated relationships with interactive components (eg, sliders, buttons, hotspotareas and text input boxes) and observe changes displayed in a variety of modes (eg, numerical,textual, auditory and visual). This material can be provided to (1) a teacher, who must then decidehow to best integrate it into instruction, (2) students, for use in their independent learning, or (3)an instructional designer to use as a media object for integration into larger structures such ascomputer-based instructional packages. Literature suggests that these technology-based concep-tual models will support learning by activating certain cognitive processes such as mind modelingand linking of internal representations (eg, Churchill, 2008; Seel, 2003; Mayer, 2003).

An example of a conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. This learning object representsconcepts from a school mathematics curriculum including a trigonometric circle and sine andcosine functions. Overall, the purpose of this conceptual model is to serve as a tool that enables

Practitioner NotesWhat is already known about this topic

• Students learn better with visuals and text than with text alone.• Affordances of today’s representational technology enable the design of conceptual

models in interactive multimedia form.• Interactive and visual representation can support concept learning.• Conceptual models for concept learning are important form of a learning object.• Learning technology designers should utilize multiple representations when designing

conceptual models (eg, image and text).

What this paper adds

• Design of a conceptual model needs to be informed by at least three sets of recommen-dations: (1) recommendations for presentation design, (2) recommendations for learn-ing uses, and (3) design for implementation via specific media delivery technology(eg, small screens of a mobile device).

• The study reported in this paper proposes a set of emerging presentation design guide-lines including: present information visually, design for interaction, design a holisticscenario, design for a single screen, design for small space, use audio and video only ifthey are the only option, use color in moderation, avoid unnecessary decorative ele-ments, design with a single font, and use frames to logically divide the screen area.

• Further consideration needs to be given to design when a conceptual model is to bedelivered via devices whose screen size and interactions are different as compared withcomputers (eg, iPads).

Implication for practice and/or policy

• Designer of a conceptual models need to consider the three sets of issues: presentationdesign, design for learning uses and design for specific delivery platform.

• Presentation design of a conceptual model should consider recommendationspresented in the paper.

• Quality control and pedagogical implementations of a conceptual model shouldconsider the design recommendations when deciding on its uses.

Presentation design for conceptual models 137


students to understand how values for trigonometric functions are derived from a trigonometriccircle and develop the ability to predict/approximate values of sine and cosine based on any anglesize. This conceptual model can serve as a tool that supports completion of learning tasks requir-ing application of relevant knowledge of trigonometry. Students can explore the conceptualmodel by inputting different values for angle x and observe changes in the values of sine andcosine. These changes in the values of sine and cosine are presented in a number of modessimultaneously as follows:

1. numerically, as numbers between 0 and 1;2. visually, as projections of an arm of an angle along the x-axis (for value of cosines) and along

the y-ordinate (for value of sine) of a trigonometric circle (a circle with radius one unit long);and

3. visually, as points along the sine and cosine line on the graph.

Currently, there is a lack of empirically developed guidelines on how to design technology-basedconceptual models for educational purpose. Churchill has previously argued that design guide-lines should address at least three aspects (see Churchill, 2011a,b): (1) presentation design, (2)design for learning uses, and (3) design for implementation via specific media delivery technology(eg, small screens of a mobile device). Although some guidelines for the design of representationsfor multimedia learning exist (eg, Mayer, 2001), there are almost no guidelines in relation to thepresentation design of conceptual models and other forms of learning objects. At the same time,it is important to note that even the most effectively designed conceptual model might not beuseful unless it is properly designed for integration in instruction. Pedagogically, effective use of aconceptual model must be driven by a learning task (Churchill & Hedberg, 2008a; Foo, Ho &Hedberg, 2005; Mayer, Dow & Mayer, 2003). In this context, in addition to presentation designaspects, a conceptual model design must also be informed by possible uses in learning tasks(design for learning uses).

The focus of the study discussed in this paper is on presentation design, which should be coupledwith any existing or further recommendations for design for learning uses, in order for a concep-tual model design to be complete. This current paper asserts that a conceptual model is an

Learners can change values of an angle as many times

as they choose

Output of numerical values for sine and cosine

of the selected angle

Values for sine and cosine of the selected angle

shown graphically on the sine and cosine curves

Values for sine and cosine of the selected

angle shown graphically in the trigonometric circle

Figure 1: “Exploring trigonometry” conceptual model (from Churchill, 2007)

138 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 1 2014


important educational multimedia product that, when appropriately designed and used, cancontribute to improvements in concept learning. A number of recommendations for conceptualmodel presentation design are provided, explicated based on a study involving a review of acollection of conceptual models.

The study of effective presentation designThe recommendations developed in the study emerged from a review of a collection of conceptualmodels and their design characteristics. Five expert reviewers conducted the review. The review-ers were identified and selected based on the following criteria relevant to the objectives of theprojects:

1. formal qualification related to areas such as instructional design, e-learning or informationtechnology in education;

2. experience in design of multimedia content/learning objects;3. teaching experience in a specific discipline and previous use of learning objects in support

discipline-specific learning; and4. willingness to participate in the study as an expert reviewer.

The researcher also attempted to engage reviewers from across educational institutions includinga primary and a secondary school, a technical education institute and a university. The reviewersalso ranged with respect to their teaching disciplines that included geography, engineering, math-ematics, science, economics, multimedia design and teacher education. The reviewers included:

1. a geography secondary school teacher with a master degree in information technology ineducation qualification;

2. an English language primary school teacher with a graduate diploma in e-learning instruc-tional design qualification;

3. an engineering lecturer from a technical education institute with a graduate diploma ine-learning instructional design qualification;

4. a university professor with expertise in IT in education (previously worked as an economicsteacher in a school); and

5. a university professor with expertise in multimedia design (previously worked as a mathemat-ics and science teacher in a school).

The conceptual models reviewed are listed in Table 1. Some of these conceptual models areavailable at http://www.learnactivity.com/lo/.

The expert reviewers independently previewed each of the conceptual models from the collection.The reviews were recorded by using a form created for the purpose of the study. This form ispresented in Figure 2. The form was developed in partial consideration of certain issues from the“cognitive theory of multimedia learning” (Mayer, 2001) and based on a discussion between thereviewers. The cognitive theory of multimedia learning provides a set of empirically developedguiding principles for the design of educational multimedia for delivery via computer screens.Issues considered in developing the form were:

1. Multimedia principle—What is the predominant mode of representation for the essentialcontent of this conceptual model (eg, visual, textual, animation, auditory)?

2. Principles for managing essential processing (navigation)—Describe characteristic structureand navigation (eg, single or multiple screen, user-paced or automatic, hierarchical or linearnavigation, physically and temporally integration of modes).

3. Principles for managing extraneous processing (interactivity)—Describe the interactive fea-tures (IFs) used to manipulate the represented concept (eg, slides, buttons, clickable hot-spots).

4. Principles for reducing extraneous processing—How was the extraneous content used (eg, useof color to highlight the organization of the essential content)?



Tabl

e1

:C

olle

ctio

nof

conc

eptu

alm

odel

lear

ning

obje

cts

unde

rre

view

Col

lect

ion

ofco

ncep

tual

mod

els

unde

rre

view

inth

est

udy

1.

Velo

city

and

acce

lera

tion

2.

Shad

ows

3.

How

ligh

tstr

avel

4.

Woo

djo

ints

5.

Dra

win

gpe

rspe

ctiv

es6

.C

alor

ies

inta

ke7

.P

rope

rtie

sof

tria

ngl

es8

.P

rope

rtie

sof

circ

les

9.

Pro

pert

ies

ofre

ctan

gles

10

.Ex

plor

ing

trig

onom

etry

11

.Q

uad

rati

cfu

nct

ion

s1

2.

Alg

ebra

bloc

ks1

3.

Volc

ano

14

.D

ryin

gra

te1

5.

Hea

ttr

ansf

er1

6.

Rea

ctio

nti

me

17

.T

itra

tion

18

.B

asic

circ

uit

19

.T

ran

sfor

mat

ion

s2

0.

Mac

hin

ing

turn

ing

21

.M

ach

inin

gm

illin

g2

2.

Mac

hin

ing

grin

din

g2

3.

Tool

sele

ctio

n2

4.

Ch

ipse

lect

ion

25

.P

rin

cipl

esof

wat

erpu

mp

26

.W

ater

pum

pdi

sman

tlin

g2

7.

Air

pollu

tion

28

.Fi

reex

tin

guis

her

29

.H

urr

ican

e3

0.

Nap

oleo

nin

Ru

ssia

31

.R

iver

32

.P

ulle

ysy

stem

33

.Sh

apes

ofa

rain

drop

34

.Ea

rth

atm

osph

ere

35

.D

amm

anag

emen

t3

6.

Blo

om’s

taxo

nom

y3

7.

Pro

babi

lity

38

.Vo

lum

eof

apy

ram

id3

9.

Vir

tual

fact

ory

40

.W

ater

pollu

tion

41

.M

oon

phas

es4

2.

Sate

llite

sin

orbi

t4

3.

Food

cycl

e4

4.

Bar

and

colu

mn

grap

hs

45

.H

owel

ectr

ons

trav

el4

6.

Wat

erco

nsu

mpt

ion

47

.R

esis

tor

colo

rco

din

g4

8.

Boi

ling

poin

t

49

.A

ust

ralia

nan

imal

s5

0.

Dig

ital

mu

ltim

eter

51

.Ex

plor

ing

pen

dulu

m5

2.

Sun

eclip

se5

3.

Food

pyra

mid

54

.R

egre

ssio

nlin

e



Figure 2: Form used in the review of conceptual models



For example, a category in the form titled “Modes of representation” was influenced by the“multimedia principle,” whereas the “Content structure” category was influenced by the “prin-ciples for managing essential processing.”

Data from the completed forms was converted to numerical value according to the followingschema:

1. scores for pedagogical quality (PQ) included: 1 (very low and low quality), 2 (average quality)and 3 (high and very high quality);

2. scores for multimedia quality (MMQ) included: 1 (very low and low quality), 2 (averagequality) and 3 (high and very high quality);

3. scores for IFs were obtained by adding the number of unique interactive elements used in thedesign (range from 1 to 7);

4. scores for content structure (CS) included: 1 (single screen), 2 (linear sequence of screens) and3 (hierarchical structure of screens);

5. scores for screen display area (SDA) included: 1 (less than 640 by 480), 2 (greater or equal to640 by 480) and 3 (greater or equal to 800 by 600); and

6. scores for modes of representation (MR) were obtained by adding the number of differentrepresentations used in design, ranging from 1 to 7.

The reviewers were required to provide their independent assessment for PQ and MMQ respec-tively. Scores of all the reviewers were added together to obtain the final values (ranging from 5 to15). In addition, the reviewers were required to indicate the predominant mode of representationfor each of the conceptual models. The other measures were objective (CS, SDA, MR and IF) andwere preinserted in the forms for each of the learning objects in the collection. The data wereprocessed using IBM SPSS (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, U.S.) statistical analysissoftware to obtain values for correlations between various measures. Outcomes are shown inTable 2.

Interpretation of correlation coefficients was informed by Cohen (1988), who gives the followingguidelines for effect sizes: small effect size, r = 0.1 - 0.23; medium, r = 0.24 - 0.36; large,r = 0.37 or larger. In addition, statistical analysis was applied to obtain differences in means in PQbetween learning objects with visual as the predominant mode of representations and otherlearning objects.

Processing and analysis of data resulted in a set of recommendations for presentation design. Theanalysis of data was conducted, and conclusions were reached in collaboration and discussionswith the reviewers. The team discussed contradictions and differences in opinions in order tointerpret the data and to develop assertions and articulate final recommendations. The team alsoarticulated some general observations about features of the designs and some unique aspects ofdesign that hinted at PQ. The following categories of recommendations were explicated in the

Table 2: Summary of correlation coefficients and p-values

Measures r p

PQ/MMQ 0.079 0.57PQ/CS -0.12 0.391PQ/SDA -0.017 0.905PQ/MR 0.132 0.342PQ/IF 0.454 0.001

PQ, pedagogical quality; MMQ, multimedia quality; CS, content struc-ture; SDA, screen display area; MR, modes of representation; IF, inter-active features.



study: present information visually, design for interaction, design a holistic scenario, design for asingle screen, design for small space, use audio and video only if they are the only option, use colorin moderation, avoid unnecessary decorative elements, design with a single font, and use framesto logically divide the screen area. These recommendations emerging from the data are discussedin the following section.

Recommendations for presentation designA major aim of this study was to develop recommendations by linking features of design to theperceived PQ of the conceptual models. The author’s intention at this stage was to providesufficient description of the recommendations in order to allow readers to examine whether theseare useful in their own educational media development practices. The following recommendationemerged:

Present information visuallyThe study results showed a small correlation between the level of perceived PQ (as judged by thereviewers) and the quantity of MR (r = 0.132, p = 0.342). However, when the PQ of learningobjects with visual as predominant mode of representations (n = 41, M = 10.24, SD = 3.277)was compared with that of learning with other predominant modes (n = 13, M = 7.62,SD = 2.959), significant differences were observed (t = 4.6, p = 0.013). These differences werealso substantive as indicated by a large effect size (d = 1.48). The differences suggest that thecontent of a conceptual model should be presented predominantly through visual representa-tions (eg, photographs, illustrations, diagrams, graphs, colors, icons and symbols). Sometimes,the same information can be presented in a number of modes simultaneously (eg, as text, visuallyand via audio). However, results strongly suggest that visuals should be the central mode ofrepresentation. Representing the same information through multiple modalities should be care-fully managed (see redundancy principle [Mayer, 2001]).

Design for interactionThe result of this study shows that there is a large correlation between PQ and the total numberof IFs used in the designs of the conceptual models under review (r = 0.454, p = 0.001). Thissuggests that the more IFs a conceptual model has, the higher its PQ. Relationships and propertiesshould be displayed in interactive ways to allow the user of a conceptual model to manipulateparameters and observe outcomes (eg, by manipulating sliders, clicking on buttons or inputtingtext/numbers). Outcomes of the manipulation can be presented in a single mode or in severalmodes at the same time (eg, as a number or a graph); however, visuals emerged in this study as themost pedagogically effective representation.

Design a holistic scenarioDesign elements should be arranged in such a way that bits of content are integrated into aholistic presentational scenario depicting the concept that is represented. In other words, all areasof the screen need to integrate into a holistic scenario that supports multimedia representation ofa concept. This recommendation emerged from the observation that CS had a small correlationwith PQ (r = -0.12, p = 0.391). Distributing content across multiple screens will add complexityto the development of a conceptual model without any significant increase in PQ.

Design for a single screenA conceptual model can be designed for presentation in a single screen. Single screen presenta-tion is likely to allow a learner to have a holistic focus on all elements of the required conceptualknowledge. Furthermore, a single screen is likely to enable a learner to manipulate relationshipsand properties and to access outcomes of this manipulation all in one place. At the same time, asingle interactive screen can be easily meshed with other media into structures such as web pages.CS had a small correlation with PQ. The review provided an additional hint that conceptual



models designed on a single screen might be sufficiently effective in terms of the PQ, and designingconceptual models for presentation in more than one screen might not have any positive effect onPQ; rather, this might have a negative effect by causing split attention and increased cognitiveload (see Mayer, 2001).

Design for small spaceThe design of a conceptual model should utilize only the screen space necessary to present all therequired information, properties, relationships and interactive elements. From the review, it wasobserved that most of the conceptual models were designed in a screen space that does not exceed640 ¥ 480 pixels. The data from the study did not produce any significant correlation between PQand sizes of the SDA (r = -0.017, p = 0.905). This recommendation might lead to two importantimplications. First, a smaller screen area would enable students to concentrate their attention ona smaller space, thus reducing split attention. Second, a conceptual model designed for a smallscreen might later serve as a media object that can be embedded into larger screen displays suchas in blog posts, instructional products and presentation slides.

Use audio, animations and video only if they are the only optionsAudio should only be used if it is effective for a representational purpose or to enhance realismwhen required (eg, a specific sound indicating a faulty machine), or to offload cognitive processingfrom the visual channel (see modality principle [Mayer, 2001]). Similarly, video should only beused when, for example, manipulation of relationships requires different segments from a video tobe presented based on the configuration of parameters. Often, content from a video might bepresented as several images of the key frames, with short blocks of text explaining each of theframes (which might support the temporal contiguity principle [Mayer, 2001]). Qualitative obser-vations in the study suggested that use of video, animations and audio had no effect on PQ; rather,these only increased the complexity of a conceptual model in terms of effort required for learningas well as in term of efforts required for development of a conceptual model.

Use color in moderationAnother qualitative observation suggested that in order to present the content clearly, colorshould be used in moderation. On the other hand, quantitative data suggested that there is aninsignificant correlation between PQ and the MMQ of a conceptual model design (r = 0.079,p = 0.57). Often, color was found in the reviewed cases of conceptual models to be effective whenused as visual content and to connect related information (eg, connecting a positive numericalvalue displayed in red with a red bar on a bar graph). Different shades of color can be effectivelyused, but the use of sharply contrasting colors must be avoided. The focus should be on simplicityand clarity of presentation and support for learning, rather than on the pursuit of gratuitousartistic and multimedia beautification of the display.

Avoid unnecessary decorative elementsThis is another recommendation emerging from understanding that there is no correlationbetween PQ and MMQ. Unnecessary decorative elements can add complexity to the representa-tion and result in increased extraneous cognitive load (Mayer, 2001). They should be used inmoderation, or not at all. All elements of the design should serve the purpose of representing aconcept (or should facilitate this representation) and allow a student to manipulate its propertiesand explore relationships. In addition, cartoon-like characters should be avoided unless theyserve some representational purpose. Many designers assume that cartoon-like characters willmotivate students by making learning fun; however, such graphics are less than productive forlearning. For Collins (1996), designers should not assume that fun is a desirable component ofpresentation, because there is a risk that students might not take such learning seriously; thus, a“fun” presentation might impede learning. Motivation lies in a learning task that engages a



student in the use of a conceptual model, rather than in the model itself. A conceptual model isa strategy for effective representation of educationally useful concepts, and unless its designelements support this representation, they should not be included.

Design with a single fontIn order to keep the presentation simple, a single font style should be used (eg, Arial font indifferent sizes, shades and styles). The same color fonts can be used to relate pieces of information.Using multiple font types might increase extraneous cognitive load and have a negative effect onlearning. Similar to the previous two recommendations, this recommendation is connected to theabsence of a correlation between PQ and MMQ.

Use frames to logically divide the screen areaReview of the collection of conceptual models indicated that frames can be useful in dividing thepresentation screen into functional and logical areas and groupings. For example, interactiveelements such as sliders and buttons can be grouped together in one area of the display, whereasanother area can be used to display output information. Such areas might support visual atten-tion (as a student focuses attention on one framed area at a time) and positively affect the utilityof the essential cognitive load required to process information (Mayer, 2001).

An example of a conceptual model design reflecting the recommendationsThe conceptual model featured in Figure 3 was designed to support secondary school students’learning of the concept of volcano. This concept includes issues such as lava types, how theyaffect the structure of eruptions and the effects of eruptions on the environment.

A learner can select one of the following types of lava: runny with little water, runny with lots ofwater, sticky with little water or sticky with lots of water. After selecting the lava type, the learnerwill be able to explore the structure of eruption and the effect that it has on the environment. Thiswill allow the learner to compare changes in structure and differences in the effects betweendifferent volcanoes and eruption types.

Visual and animated information will be

displayed dynamically based on the selected

lava type.

A learner can select a volcano to explore

according to the lava types.

These buttons allow a learner to explore a

volcano structure or the effects of an eruption.

The labels will be displayed dynamically based on the selected

lava type.

Figure 3: “Volcano” conceptual model (developed by a talented student of the Master of Science in InformationTechnology in Education, at The University of Hong Kong)



Design features of this conceptual model illustrate the usefulness of the recommendations dis-cussed in this paper. This is elaborated in Table 3, which links each of the recommendations tosome specific feature of the “Volcano” conceptual model. The conceptual model reflects most ofthe recommendations.

Call for further empirical studiesThe development of a conceptual model requires: (1) the ability to identify a suitable concept froma discipline for development into a conceptual model, (2) deep knowledge of the concept that is tobe represented, (3) an understanding of pedagogically appropriate ways of representing theconcept, (4) creativity in representing through interactive multimedia art, and (5) an under-standing of effective design for delivery via a specific technology. This paper is focused on this lastpart of the development requirements. The aspect of design discussed in this paper is “presenta-tion design.” Other aspects of design should include “design for learning uses” (see Churchill,2011b), and design for implementation via a specific technology, eg, design for mobile deviceswith small screens (see Churchill & Hedberg, 2008b).

This study of the presentation design features of a conceptual model resulted in an understand-ing of a number of useful recommendations as follows: present information visually, design forinteraction, design a holistic scenario, design for a single screen, design for small space, use audioand video only if they are the only options, use color in moderation, avoid unnecessary decorativeelements, design with a single font, and use frames to logically divide the screen area. Although

Table 3: Design features from the “Volcano” conceptual model (cm)

Recommendations Design features from the “Volcano” conceptual model (CM)

Design forpresentation

• Present informationvisually

• Information in the CM is presented mostly visually (eg,cross-section of the volcano, and changes in eruptions).Text is used for buttons, labels and instruction.

• Design for interaction • The CM allows a learner to manipulate parametersthrough a pull-down menu (to select type of lava forexploration). Outcomes of manipulations are presentedvisually and numerically (eg, cross-section of thevolcano, effects and animation of the eruption).

• Design a holisticscenario

• Elements such as the cross-section of the volcano and theeffects are arranged in a way that integrate into a singlescenario.

• Design for a singlescreen

• Content of the CM is presented in a single screen.

• Design for small space • The CM is designed for effective presentation in a640 ¥ 480 pixel screen area.

• Use audio and videoonly if it is the onlyoption

• No audio or video content is present in the CM. Althoughaudio could add some realism (eg, explosion in eruptionof the volcano), its presence is not necessary. Animationis used to add illustrative realism to the visual output.

• Use color inmoderation

• Color use is limited in the design. Colors include gray,blue, maroon, black, green and yellow.

• Avoid unnecessarydecorative elements

• No decorative elements are used in the CM. All elementsare related to essential content.

• Design with a singlefont

• Only Arial font is used in the CM.

• Use frames to logicallydivide the screen area

• The screen is divided into functional areas. Left side of thescreen contains control elements (pull-down menu, hotspots and buttons). Right side of the screen displaysessential content.



these recommendations for design for presentation should prove useful to designers of conceptualmodels and other forms of learning objects, other aspects of design must be explored further.Future empirical study might further explore links between PQ and specific design features. Forexample, correlation between specific interaction used in the design and PQ might lead to furtherrecommendation. In addition, more might be done in relation to understanding specific multi-media screen arrangements and effects on the cognitive effort required for conducting visualsearch.

The study reported in this paper used perceived PQ as a key measure to understand the effectivefeatures of a multimedia design. Further study might attempt to replicate this procedure. Ratherthan using a measure of perceived PQ as given by expert reviewers, measured achievement oflearning outcomes is an option. However, this would require a huge amount of effort to collectsuch data. A large number of students would be required to use a significant number of learningobjects and then be tested to obtain such measures. Furthermore, this might require that atten-tion be given to an additional variable of learning task; that is, the specific ways in which alearning object was used in a learning context when data were collected.

Lately, there has been an increase in conceptual models and other learning objects available viamobile technologies such as iPods. Consideration needs to be given to design when a conceptualmodel is to be delivered via devices whose screen size and interactions are different as comparedwith computers. Furthermore, these recommendations for design for presentation do not provideideas regarding instructional uses of a conceptual model and therefore, although useful todesigners, are of little use to teachers. Applying these recommendations alone will result in aconceptual model design that is not necessarily optimized for instructional use. Further inquiry isrequired in order to develop more comprehensive recommendations that incorporate specificfeatures of design for small screen and learning uses. This paper calls for researchers to pay moreattention to various aspects in the design of conceptual models and other forms of learningobjects as well as to their instructional uses.

AcknowledgementSpecial thanks to Mark King and Beverly Webster from The University of Melbourne for adviceand to colleagues who assisted in the review of the conceptual models.

ReferencesAnderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of

bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Education Technology Research and

Development, 55, 5, 479–497.Churchill, D. (2008). Mental models. In L. Tomei (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information technology curriculum

integration (pp. 575–582). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.Churchill, D. (2011a). Conceptual model learning objects and design recommendations for small screens.

Educational Technology & Society, 14, 1, 203–216.Churchill, D. (2011b). Conceptual model design and learning uses. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14.

doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.547203.Churchill, D. & Hedberg, J. (2008a). Learning objects, learning tasks and handhelds. In L. Lockyer, S.

Bennett, S. Agostinho & B. Harper (Eds), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects: issues,applications and technologies (pp. 451–469). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Churchill, D. & Hedberg, J. (2008b). Learning object design considerations for small-screen handhelddevices. Computers & Education, 50, 3, 881–893.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte & R. Glasser (Eds),

International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments (pp. 347–361).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Dawson, M. R. (2004). Minds and machines: connectionism and psychological modeling. Oxford: BlackwellPublishing.



De Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., Van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P. et al (1998). Acquiringknowledge in science and mathematics: the use of multiple representations in technology-based learningenvironments. In A. Van Someren (Ed.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9–40). Oxford: ElsevierScience Ltd.

Foo, S. Y., Ho, J. & Hedberg, J. (2005). Teachers’ understanding of technology affordances and their impacton the design of engaging learning experiences. Educational Media International, 42, 4, 297–316.

Fraser, A. (1999). Web visualization for teachers. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from http://fraser.cc/WebVis/

Gibbons, A. (2008). Model-centered instruction, the design and the designer. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Piarnay-Dummer & J. M. Spector (Eds), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 161–173). New York:Springer.

Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J. & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds),Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Johnson, T. & Lesh, R. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on technology-based representationalmedia. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds), Beyond constructivism: a models and modeling perspectives on mathematicsproblem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Lesh, R. & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modelling perspective on mathematics teaching,learning and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds), Beyond constructivism: a models and modelingperspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earl-baum.

Mayer, R. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mayer, R., Dow, G. & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment:

what works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 4, 806–813.Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1, 43–64.Mayer, R. E. (2002). Understanding conceptual change: a commentary. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds),

Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice (pp. 101–111). Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methodsacross different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.

Merrill, D. M., Tennyson, R. D. & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: an instructional design guide. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observation on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds), mentalmodels (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning,1, 1, 59–85.

Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A. & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis ofknowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 2, 115–163.

van Someren, A., Boshuizen, P. A., de Jong, T. & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In A. van Someren (Ed.),Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1–5). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction,4, 1, 45–69.



presentation design for “conceptual model” learning objects

Documents