You are here:

Framework for Designing an OILE for Complex Dynamic Systems
PROCEEDING

, University of Bergen, Norway

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Amsterdam, Netherlands Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This paper presents the framework underlying the design of an online interactive learning environment for complex dynamic systems, including the rationale for the design and its research underpinnings. The design framework is discussed in detail, as are the three key domain elements of importance for the design: a fading scaffolding instructional method adopted in the design, instructional techniques used to implement the chosen method — storytelling, repeated trial, intensive feedback & item branching, and a web-based instructional tool developed to integrate the chosen method and techniques. The general structure of the learning environment, its online delivery, and its assessment strategies are described, including user interface and feedback formats employed. Distributions of tasks and items by problem nature and context, and according to cognitive process are specified. Results of surveys, which were conducted to assess students’ affective domains, are also included in the paper.

Citation

Tadesse, A.T. (2018). Framework for Designing an OILE for Complex Dynamic Systems. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1032-1046). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Barlas, Y. (2007). System dynamics: systemic feedback modeling for policy analysis. SYSTEM, 1, 59.
  3. Belland, B. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in STEM Education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. Springer Open.
  4. Collins, A.M., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.
  5. Collins, A.M., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 453–494.
  6. Davidsen, P.I. (1996). Educational Features of the System Dynamics Apprach to Modelling and Simulation. J. Struct. Learn., 12(4), 269-290.
  7. Diehl, E., & Sterman, J.D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 198-215.
  8. Francom, G.M., & Gardner, J. (2014). What is task-centered learning?. TechTrends, 58(5), 27-35.
  9. Francom, G.M. (2017). Principles for task-centered instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth, B.J. Beatty& R.D. Myers (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: The learner-centered paradigm of education, 4, 65-91. Taylor& Francis.
  10. Gagné, R.M., & Merrill, M.D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 23-30.
  11. Ifenthaler, D., & Eseryel, D. (2013). Facilitating complex learning by mobile augmented reality learning environments. In Reshaping learning (pp. 415-438). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  12. Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational technology research and development, 45(1), 65-94.
  13. Jonassen, D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 215-239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  14. Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), 6385.
  15. Jonassen, D.H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge. Martinez-Moyano IJ, Richardson GP. 2013. Best practices in system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review 29(2): 102– 123.
  16. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.
  17. Merrill, M.D. (2002). A pebble-in‐the‐pond model for instructional design. Performance improvement, 41(7), 41-46.
  18. Merrill, M.D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient and engaging instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer.
  19. Moxnes, E. & Jensen, L.C. (2009). Drunker than intended: Misperceptions and information treatments. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 105, 63-70.
  20. Munoz, A., & Pepper, M. (2016). Maintaining stock and flow: a constructive alignment approach to training system dynamicists. System Dynamics Review, 31(4), 271-283.
  21. Myyry, L., & Joutsenvirta, T. (2015). Open-book, open-web online examinations: Developing examination practices to support university students’ learning and self-efficacy. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 119-132.
  22. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing Success: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario’s Schools, First Edition Covering Grades 1-12. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved on 26.03.2018 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf
  23. Pea, R.D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
  24. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 2, 425-453. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Reigeluth, C.M., Myers, R.D., & Lee, D. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm of education. In C.M. Reigeluth, B.J. Beatty& R.D. Myers (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: The learner-centered paradigm of education, 4, 1-32. Taylor& Francis. Richardson G.P. 2014a. “Model” teaching. System Dynamics Review 30(1–2): 81–88.
  26. Sawicka, A., Kopainsky, B., & Gonzalez, J.J. (2008, July). Learning about dynamic problems with computer simulators: A case of system dynamics simulation models. In Advanced Learning Technologies, 2008. ICALT'08. Eighth IEEE International Conference on (pp. 569-571). IEEE.
  27. Schaffernicht, M.F., & Groesser, S.N. (2016). A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 32(1), 52-81.
  28. Spector, J.M., Christensen, D.L., Sioutine, A.V., & McCormack, D. (2001). Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: Using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(5-6), 517-545.
  29. Sterman J.D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science 35(3): 321–339.
  30. Sterman, J.D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 291-330.
  31. Sterman, J.D. (2002, May). System Dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. In Proceedings of the ESD Internal Symposium.
  32. Sterman J.D. (2010). Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review 26(4): 316–334.
  33. Sterman J.D., Sweeney L.B. (2000). Bathtub Dynamics: Preliminary Results of a Systems Thinking Inventory. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Bergen, Norway. System Dynamics Society Strategic Committee (2013). System Dynamics Society Strategy: Interim Finding and Recommendations. Retrieved on 30.12.2016 from https://www.systemdynamics.org/assets/docs/strategy-report.pdf
  34. Van Merriënboer, J.J. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers& Education, 64, 153-160.
  35. Van Merriënboer, J.J., & Kirschner, P.A. (2017). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Routledge.
  36. Wertsch, J.V., & Kazak, S. (2005). Intersubjectivity through the mastery of semiotic means in teacher-student discourse. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 27, 1–11.
  37. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

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