Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science vs Art in the History of Learning, Design, and Technology

  • Column: History Corner
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M. J. (2014). Instructional message design: Past, present, and future relevance. In J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 373–383). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Changing conceptions of design. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 323–330). Pearson.

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1st ed., pp. 46–69). New York: Simons & Schuster/MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, N. A. (1959). Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 109–116). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., & Bowman, C. (2004). Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 158–165). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, H. T. (1962). Teaching machines: a demurrer. The School Review, 70(3), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(2), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (Vol. 2, pp. 53–65). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye, teacher…. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendler, H. H. (1961). Stimulus-response psychology and audiovisual education. Audiovisual communication review, 9(5), 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus, D. (1965). An analysis of programming techniques. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & the ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 211–227). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. MA: Danvers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice (pp. 3–7). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2009). Three trends in instructional design. In Constructivist instructional design (C-ID): Foundations, models, and examples (pp. 11–45). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research educational communications and technology (pp. 112–142). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Tong Li

Authors
  1. Tong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tong Li.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, T. Science vs Art in the History of Learning, Design, and Technology. TechTrends 64, 190–192 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00475-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00475-7

Search

Navigation