You are here:

Instructional Design Models for Emerging Technologies PROCEEDINGS

, University of Houston

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, ISBN 978-1-880094-28-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Over the past two decades educational course designers have used a cognitive or a systems approach for designing and developing courses. But course developers are now finding that the traditional systems approach to instructional design is not compatible with the concept of flexible learning required for distance education and online learning. Consequently, the systems approach is being challenged by constructivist theories and models which recognize that social context, roles and relationships are central to learning (Jones, Kirkup, & Kirkwood, 1993). Non-linear development models also recognize that learning is dynamic and unpredictable and that learners can and do make their own decisions about learning tasks (Thorpe, 1995).

Citation

Heath, M.J. (1998). Instructional Design Models for Emerging Technologies. In S. McNeil, J. Price, S. Boger-Mehall, B. Robin & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 1998--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 459-462). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 19, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Anglin, G. (Ed.) (1995). Instructional technology, past, present, future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
  2. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
  3. Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York:W.W. Norton.
  4. Carroll, J.M. (1992). The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dick, W. (1995, July-August). Instructional design and creativity: A response to the critics. Educational Technology, (35)4, 5-11.
  5. Dick, W., & Carey, L.M. (1990). The systematic design of instruction. Glenview:IL: Harper Collins.
  6. Gagne, R.M. (1965). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  7. Garrison, D.R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge. Gayeski, D.M. (1995, May-June). Design Station 2000: Imagining future realities in learning systems. Educational Technology. 282-286.
  8. Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  9. Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments:Critical perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49-63.
  10. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3). 5-14.
  11. Jonassen, D. (1994, April). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology. 34-37.
  12. Jones, A., Kirkup, G., & Kirkwood, A. (1993). Personal computers for distance education: The study of an educational innovation. New York: St.Martin’s Press.
  13. Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing education objectives for programmed instruction. Belmont, CA: Lake.
  14. Mandler, G. (1985). Cognitive psychology: An essay in cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  15. Massaro, D.W. (1986). The computer as a metaphor for psychological inquiry: Considerations and recommendations. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 18, 73-92.
  16. Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem-solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  17. Perkins, D.N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T.M. Duffy,. & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
  19. Perkins, D.N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T.M. Duffy,. & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Popham, W.J. (1993). Educational evaluation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn Bacon. Reigeluth, C.M. (1996, May-June). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology. 13-20.
  21. Rowland, G. (1992) Problem solving in instructional design. Cited in T.M. Duffy& D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 4555).
  22. Thorpe, M. (1995). The challenge facing course design. In F. Lockwood (Ed.), Open and distance learning today (pp. 175184).
  23. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
  24. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43-57.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.