Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 119–131 | Cite as

Constructing a deconstructed campus: instructional design as vital bricks and mortar

  • Steven M. Ross
  • Gary R. Morrison
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this rejoinder to Mazoué (J Comput High Educ, 2012) article, “the deconstructed campus,” we react to his arguments regarding the replacement of face-to-face teaching on college campuses with computer-supported approaches, including on-line learning, intelligent cognitive tutors, and open-ended learning environments where, rather than being confined to standard degree programs, students act increasingly as “free agents” in constructing and selecting learning experiences that interest them. While agreeing that such changes are inevitable and potentially beneficial in improving teaching and learning in higher education for the twenty-first century, we take issue with Mazoué’s strident criticism and dismissal of the contributions of human teachers to student development via coaching, modeling, and selected uses of didactic instruction. More fundamentally, we caution against embracing technology solutions lacking credible evidence of effectiveness for learning and implementation feasibility. We argue instead that instructional design processes, not media, need to form the anchor for course and experiential learning design, both older and cutting edge forms.

Keywords

Instructional design Adaptive instruction Autonomous learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. J. (1992). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery learning: Theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmatt, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, A., Phillmann, K.-B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of short, in-class writing exercises (article). Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., & Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2011).Charter school performance in Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdf.
  11. Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of education technology for enhancing reading achievement: A meta-analysis. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research and Reform in Education.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  15. Clemmitt, M. (2011). Digital education: Can technology replace classroom teachers? CQ Researcher, 21(42), 1001–1024.Google Scholar
  16. Corbalan, G., Kester, I., & van Merrienboer, J. J. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DaRosa, D. A., Kolm, P., Follmer, H. C., Pemberton, L. B., Pearce, W. H., & Leapman, S. (1991). Evaluating the effectiveness of the lecture versus independent study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 14(3), 141–146. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(91)90048-l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., Heaviside, S. N., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  19. Geisert, P. G., & Futtrell, M. K. (2000). Teachers, computers, and curriculum: Microcomputers in the classroom (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiated instruction in the regular classroom. Theory and Practice, 44, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glass, G. V., & Welner, K. G. (2011). Online K-12 schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain private ventures in need of public regulation. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, J. P., & Foster, G. (2003).Public high school graduation and college readiness rates in the United States. Education working paper no. 3. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Web site: http://www.manhattan-institute.org.
  23. Hess, J., & Smythe, M. J. (2001). Is teacher immediacy actually related to student cognitive learning. Communication Studies, 52(3), 197–219.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, F. S., & Sherman, J. G. (1982). The PSI handbook: Essays on personalized instruction. Lawrence, KS: International Society for Individualized Instruction.Google Scholar
  25. Klionsky, D. J. (2004). Points of view: Lectures: can’t learn with them, can’t learn without them talking biology: learning outside the book—and the lecture. Cell Biology Education, 3, 204–211. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kopcha, T. J., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner-controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  28. Kozma, R. B. (1994a). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kozma, R. B. (1994b). The influence of media on learning: The debate continues. School Library Media Quarterly, 22(4), 233–239. Accessed at http://www.ala.org/aasl/SLMR/slmr_resources/select_kozma.html in July of 2001.
  30. Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  31. Kulik, C. L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An update analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1–2), 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laaser, W. (2008). Economics of distance education reconsidered. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(3). Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde31/pdf/article_10.pdf.
  33. Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2), Article 5.2.5. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/189.
  34. Mazoué, J. (2012). The desconstructed campus. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s12528-012-9054-2.
  35. Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2006). An instructional design approach for effective shovel ware: Modifying materials for distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 63–74.Google Scholar
  36. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Nagoaka, J., Roderick, M., & Coca, V. (2009). Barriers to college attainment: Lessons from Chicago. The Center for American Progress, 16.Google Scholar
  38. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–07 (NCES 2009–044). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Peters, O. (1993). Distance education in a postindustrial society. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 39–58). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Postlethwait, S. N., & Hurst, R. N. (1972). The audio-tutorial system: Incorporating minicourses and mastery. Educational Technology, 12(9), 35–37.Google Scholar
  41. Radford, A. W. (2011). Learning at a distance: Undergraduate enrollment in distance education and degree programs (NCES 2012-154). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  42. Rovai, A. P. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online programs. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1016/s1096-7516(02)00158-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. E. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  44. State Auditor. (2006).Online Education: Department of Education Performance Audit. Retrieved from http://www.cde.state.co.us/onlinelearning/download/2006%20Report%20of%20the%20State%20Auditor.pdf.
  45. What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). “Carnegie Learning Curriculum and Cognitive Tutor Software”, high school math. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_cogtutor_083110.pdf.
  46. Wilke, R. R. (2003). The effect of active learning on student characteristics in a human physiology course for nonmajors. Advances in Physiology Education, 27, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, P. E., & Hellman, C. M. (2004). Differences in self-regulation for online learning between first- and second-generation college students. Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options