You are here:

Investigating Lecturers’ use of Learning Designs to Support Technology Enhanced Course Design
PROCEEDINGS

, , , University of Wollongong, Australia

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-76-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The effective integration of technology into teaching and learning has been a focus of universities and governments for the past decade. Yet progress towards this goal has been limited to date. Knowledge of how to integrate technology has become a necessity for university lecturers and effective models of support are needed to facilitate this often challenging process. However, little is known about how the individual lecturer designs and what methods of support might best help his or her knowledge of how to integrate technology. One reason that this area has been under-researched may be the inherent challenges in investigating design processes which by its very nature is difficult to observe. This paper describes a case study methodology designed to overcome these challenges in order to study lecturers’ use of learning designs and the development of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge while designing a unit of study.

Citation

Jones, J., Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. (2009). Investigating Lecturers’ use of Learning Designs to Support Technology Enhanced Course Design. In T. Bastiaens, J. Dron & C. Xin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2009--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2719-2725). Vancouver, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 28, 2021 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Agostinho, S. (2006). The use of a visual learning design representation to document and communicate teaching ideas. In P.G.L. Markauskaite, P. Reimann (Ed.), The 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? (pp. 3-7). Sydney:
  2. Agostinho, S., Harper, B., Oliver, R., Hedberg, J., & Wills, S. (2007). A Visual Learning Design Representation to facilitate dissemination and reuse of innovative pedagogical strategies in University Teaching. In L. Botturi-2724 DASHDASH
  3. Agostinho, S., Oliver, R., Harper, B., Hedberg, J., & Wills, S. (2002). A tool to evaluate the potential for an ICTbased learning design to foster “high-quality learning”. In A. Williamson, C. Gunn, A. Young& T. Clear (Eds.), The 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Winds of change in the sea of learning. Auckland.
  4. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2005). Reusable Learning Designs in University Education. In T.C. Montgomerie& J.R. Parker (Eds.), IASTED International Conference on Education and Technology (pp. 102-106). Anaheim, CA: ACTA Press.
  5. Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., Lockyer, L., Kosta, L., Jones, J., & Harper, B. (2008). Understanding University Teachers' Approaches to Design, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3631-3637). Vienna, Austria AACE.
  6. Conole, G. (2006). The role of ‘mediating forms of representation’ in Learning Design. In S. Banks, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, B. Kemp, D. McConnell& C. Smith (Eds.), The Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning (pp. 32-40). Lancaster: Lancaster University.
  7. Forgasz, H.J., & Leder, G.C. (2006). Academic Life: Monitoring Work Patterns and Daily Activities. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(1), 1-22.
  8. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101.
  9. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131152.
  10. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a Little Help From Your Students: A New Model for Faculty Development and Online Course Design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.
  11. Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers& Education, 49(3), 740-762.
  12. Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: a qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  13. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  14. Oliver, R. (2007). Reusing and sharing learning designs in higher education, Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, The 30th HERDSA Annual Conference. Adelaide.
  15. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  16. Stark, J.S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context and form. Instructional Science, 28(5), 413-438.
  17. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed. Vol. 5). London: Sage Publications.-2725 DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections