SemesterSpring Semester, 2020
DepartmentJunior Class of Department of Education Senior Class of Department of Education
Course NameStudy on Instructional Design of Educational Technology
InstructorHONG HUANG-YAO
Credit3.0
Course TypeElective
Prerequisite
Course Objective
Course Description
Course Schedule






















































































































 



 



Week



 



 



Topic & Reading Materials



 



 



Activities & Class Assignments/Tasks



Students Involved Time



Include Teaching Hours)



1



Introduction of this course




  1.  



Activities:




  1. What learning is?

  2. What instructional design is?

  3. What educational technology is?



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 2 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



2




  1. Design issues for learning environments

  2. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In Vosniadou, S., Corte, E. E., Glaser, R. & Mandl, H. (Eds.). International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, (pp. 347-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  3.  



Activities:




  1. Group discussion

  2. Debate



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 3 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



3



What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing?



Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.).  Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 5-31. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Exchanging ideas of instructional design



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 4 paper and post at least one question or reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



4



Epistemological foundation for instructional design



Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Introducing idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 5 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



5




  1. Introduction of learning technology



Lin, X.D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47 (3), 43-62.



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Sharing different types of learning technologies



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 6 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



6




  1. Task-driven instructional design model



Dick, A. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 55-63.



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Group discussion



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 7 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



7



Contrasting case-based instructional design model



Gick, M. L., & Paterson, E. J. (1992). Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 539-550.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Designing a case-based instructional design



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 8 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



8



Problem-Based instructional design model



Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004).  Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Designing a problem-based instructional design



Task:




  1. Prepare midterm project presentation



 



 



3+5



9



Midterm 1



Activities:




  1. Midterm paper/project presentation #1



Tasks:




  1. Upload presentation materials to Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



10




  1. Midterm 2



Activities:




  1. Midterm paper/project presentation #2



Tasks:




  1. Upload presentation materials to Knowledge Forum

  2. Reading Week 11 paper and post at least one question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



11




  1. Goal-Based and case-based instructional design model



Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 161-181. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Comparing and contrasting goal-based and



case-based instructional design



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 12 paper and post at least one



question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



12




  1. Anchored and Situated Instructional Design Model



CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Watching video

  3. Group discussion



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 13 paper and post at least one



question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



13




  1. Reflectively Adaptive Instructional Model



Schwartz. D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. To appear in C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Vol. II. (pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Analyzing the main concepts of reading materials

  3. Sharing ideas on whiteboard



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 14 paper and post at least one



question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



14




  1. Inquiry-Based Instructional Design



White, B. Y.; Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 1-33.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Designing inquiry-based instructional design



Tasks:




  1. Reading Week 15 paper and post at least one



question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



15




  1. Cultural-oriented Instructional Design Model



Lin, X. D. & Kinzer, C. (2003).  Importance of technology for making cultural values explicit. Theory In Practice, 42 (3), 234-242.



Retrieved at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/



mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442651



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Small group discussion



Task:




  1. Reading Week 16 paper and post at least one



question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum



 



 



3+5



16



Human-centered Design Model



Hong, H.-Y. & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in Physics. Journal of Educational Psychology.



 



Activities:




  1. Posing questions

  2. Visiting VR exhibition



Tasks:




  1. Prepare final project presentation



 



 



3+5



17



Final report and presentation 1



Activities:




  1. Final project presentation #1



Tasks:




  1. Upload presentation materials to Knowledge Forum

  2. Working on individual final report



 



 



3+5



18



Final report and presentation 2



Activities:




  1. Final project presentation #2



Task:




  1. Upload presentation materials to Knowledge Forum

  2. Hand in final report



 



3



Teaching Methods
Teaching Assistant

To be announced.


Requirement/Grading

Rubric















































Criteria



Overall Content Quality



30%



Overall Source Quality



30%



Organization



10%



Visual Clarity & Appeal



Pictures/Graphic



15%



Presentation Skill



15%



Exceed expectation



(A) 10~9



This paper takes a clear position supported logically by extensive, concrete detail and critical interaction with source material.



All key points are thoroughly addressed.



Material is clear, relevant, accurate and concise.



Sources are clearly integrated into and advance the argument through accurate use of quotation, paraphrase or summary.



The paper consistently and accurately uses appropriate documentation style.



Source material fits smoothly into the writer’s own text.



The organization is logical, paragraphs are unified, exceptionally coherent and contain effective topic sentences, and transitions are effective.



There is a clear and easy-to-follow sequence of ideas.



There is no unnecessary duplication of ideas or information.



The project has an excellent design, layout; it is neat and easy to understand the content.



Pictures and graphics are clear and relevant.



Speaks clearly and confidently.



Meaningfully connects to audience.



Uses inflections, pauses, and accentuation and word choices strategically.



Professional dress and appearance.



Meets standard



(B) 8~7



This paper takes a clear position supported by moderate but logical detail and critical interaction with source material.



All key points are addressed.



Material is clear, relevant and accurate, but may be lacking conciseness.



Sources are clearly related to and advance the argument through accurate and appropriate use of quotation, paraphrase or summary.



There is accurate use of appropriate documentation style.



Source material fits smoothly into the writer’s own text.



The organization is logical, paragraphs are unified, coherent and contain topic sentences, and transitions are effective.



There is an easy-to-follow sequence of ideas.



There is little unnecessary duplication of ideas or information.



The project has a nice design, layout; it is neat and easy to read.



Most pictures and graphics are clear and relevant.



Speaks clearly.



Connects to audience.



Uses inflections, pauses, accentuation and appropriate word choices.



Neat and appropriate appearance.



Near standard



(C) 6~5



This paper takes an apparent position supported by adequate detail and source material, some vagueness in example or relationship of sources to the argument or lapses in logic may be present.



Material is appropriate, but may lack a clear connection to the purpose.



There may be some irrelevant information.



Source material may be used non-critically.



Variety of sources is mostly limited and relies on quotation, paraphrase or summary.



There are occasional lapses in accurate documentation style but they do not interfere with the reader’s ability to check sources.



The organization is generally clear, transitions are clear but mechanical.



The sequence of ideas may be somewhat difficult to follow.



Some unnecessary duplication of ideas or information may be present.



The project needs improvement in design, layout and neatness.



Few of the pictures and graphics are clear and relevant.



Speaks somewhat clearly.



Has some connection with the audience.



Uses some inflections, pauses, accentuation but word choices are sometimes inaccurate or inappropriate.



Somewhat neat and appropriate appearance.



Below standard



(D) 4~3



In this paper, the position is confused, vague or uses illogical supporting details.



Little evidence of appropriate content.



Source material is misquoted, used out of context, poorly paraphrased, used non-critically, or has an unclear relationship to the argument.



Variety of sources is extremely limited and relies heavily on quotation, paraphrase or summary.



Inaccurate use of documentation style interferes with the reader’s ability to check sources.



The organization is unclear, paragraphs are incoherent or underdeveloped, and transitions are unclear or missing.



The sequence of ideas is difficult to follow.



Discussion branches off into topics that are not clearly related to the central question.



The project needs significant improvement in design, layout and neatness.



The student’s pictures are not clear or relevant.



Speaks with little clarity.



Has limited connection with the audience.



Uses little inflections, pauses, accentuation and work choice is frequently inaccurate or inappropriate.



Inappropriate or sloppy appearance.




 


Textbook & Reference

  1. Collins, A. (1996). Design issues for learning environments. In Vosniadou, S., Corte, E. E., Glaser, R. & Mandl, H. (Eds.). International perspectives on the design of technology-supported learning environments, (pp. 347-361). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  2. CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.

  3. Dick, A. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 55-63.

  4. Gick, M. L., & Paterson, E. J. (1992). Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 539-550.

  5. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.

  6. Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.

  7. Hong, H.-Y. & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in Physics. Journal of Educational Psychology.

  8. Lin, X. D. & Kinzer, C. (2003). Importance of technology for making cultural values explicit. Theory In Practice, 42 (3), 234-242 Retrieved at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442651

  9. Lin, X.D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development., 47 (3), 43-62.

  10. Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community: Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24-32). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

  11. Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 5-31. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  12. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 161-181. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  13. Schwartz. D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. To appear in C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Vol. II. (pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  14. White, B. Y.; Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2); 1-33.


Urls about Course
https://kf6.rit.albany.edu/
Attachment