Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 3–18 | Cite as

Instructional design for tele-learning

  • Sanne Dijkstra
  • Betty Collis
  • Deniz Eseryel
Article

Abstract

IN ANY COURSE IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN, the design principles should not only be covered in the course content, but also demonstrated by the structure of the course itself. Telematics applications of various sorts can bring new dimensions into the instructional design of the course to better illustrate the subject matter. In this article we describe the design of a WWW-based course-support environment for a course in instructional design, given an overview of how the environment was used as part of the course experience, and summarize the student evaluation of the course. We call such an augmented learning process a “tele-learning” situation because telematics applications are involved. We conclude that such a course-support environment can extend the teaching and learning process, if well designed, by bringing added opportunities for communication and coaching, and by increasing student self-responsibility. We do not see such a tool as replacing the instructor, but enhancing instruction. The design of the environment should reflect this. Although the article describes a particular course on instructional design, we argue that the conclusions can be valid for a variety of disciplines and instructional approaches.

Keywords

Instructional design WWW communication coaching self-responsible learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Collis, B., & De Boer, W. (1998). The TeleTOP Decision Support Tool (DST). In J. van den Akker, N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.),Design methodology and development research in education and training, (in press).Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Collis, B., Knezek, G., Lai, K.W., Pelgrum, H., Plomp, T.J., & Sakamoto, T. (Eds.). (1996).Children and computers in school.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Dijkstra, S., Seel, N., Schott, F. & Tennyson, R.D. (Eds). (1997).Instructional Design: International Perspectives, (Vol. 2).Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997).Survey of instructional design models. (3rd ed.)Syracuse, NY:ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  5. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher,27(2), 4–13.Google Scholar
  6. Tennyson, R.D., Schott, F., Seel, N., & Dijkstra, S. (Eds). (1997).Instructional Design: International Perspectives, (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanne Dijkstra
    • 1
    • 2
  • Betty Collis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Deniz Eseryel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of TwenteThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Educational Science and TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations