Advertisement

Pedagogic Designs, Technology and Practice-Based Education

  • Peter Goodyear
  • Lina Markauskaite
Part of the Practice, Education, Work and Society book series (PEWS, volume 6)

Abstract

This chapter introduces a design-led way of thinking about practice-based education (PBE). It offers an overview of activity-centred educational design, sketching the principal design components that constitute a supportive environment for PBE. It describes how tasks, tools and people co-configure productive learning environments and it sets limits on what it is legitimate to try to design. The chapter then traces the development of some ideas about pedagogy and technology that have been evolving in our research and in our PBE designs over the last 20 years.

Keywords

Instructional Design Tacit Knowledge Design Pattern Lesson Plan Professional Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baumard, P. (1999). Tacit knowledge in organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 863–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.) (2011). Exploring the theory, pedagogy and practice of networked learning. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Jones, C., & Lindstrom, B. (Eds.) (2009). Analysing networked learning practices in higher education and continuing professional development. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  9. Dohn, N. (2009). Affordances revisited: Articulating a Merleau-Pontian view. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.) (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects.’ Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010). Actor network theory in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Goodyear, P. (1995). Situated action and distributed knowledge. Educational and Training Technology International, 32(1), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodyear, P. (2000). Environments for lifelong learning: Ergonomics, architecture and educational design. In J. M. Spector & T. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction & technology: Understanding complexity (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2010). Expanding conceptions of study, context and educational design. In R. Sharpe, H. Beetham, & S. de Freitas (Eds.), Rethinking learning for a digital age: How learners are shaping their own experiences (pp. 100–113). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2009). Teachers’ design knowledge, epistemic fluency and reflections on students’ experiences. In H. Wozniak & S. Bartoluzzi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference: The Student Experience (pp. 154–162). Milperra, NSW: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  21. Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (Eds.). (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  22. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1992). IT-based open learning: Tasks and tools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 8, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1993). Computer-mediated communication in the professional development of workers in the advanced learning technologies industry. In J. Eccleston, B. Barta, & R. Hambusch (Eds.), The computer-mediated education of information technology professionals and advanced end-users (pp. 239–247). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1998). Creating shareable representations of practice. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 6(3), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodyear, P., & Steeples, C. (1999). Asynchronous multimedia conferencing in continuing professional development: Issues in the representation of practice through user-created videoclips. Distance Education, 20(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodyear, P., & Zenios, M. (2007). Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(4), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.) (2004). Advances in research on networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in activity. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary perspective for innovation in instructional design. Tech Trends, 52(6), 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Horn, I., & Little, J. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Keppell, M. (Ed.) (2007). Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice. London: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  34. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Law, J., & Mol, A. (Eds.) (2002). Complexities: Social studies of knowledge practices. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts: Technology-rich, learner-centred ecologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, M. (2011). Travelling facts. In P. Howlett & M. Morgan (Eds.), How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge (pp. 3–39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Piskurich, G. (2006). Rapid instructional design. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  41. Rabardel, P., & Beguin, P. (2005). Instrument mediated activity: From subject development to anthropocentric design. Theoretical issues in ergonomic science, 6(5), 429–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reigeluth, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. (Eds.) (2009). Instructional design theories and models. Volume 3. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Saljo, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Sgouropoulou, C., Koutoumanos, T., Goodyear, P., & Skordalakis, E. (2000). Acquiring working knowledge through asynchronous multimedia conferencing. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3).Google Scholar
  45. Sorensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.) (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Sternberg, R., & Horvath, J. (Eds.) (1999). Tacit knowledge in professional practice: Researcher and practitioner perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. van Merrienboer, J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  51. Voigt, C. (2010). A pattern in the making: The contextual analysis of electronic case-based learning. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 107–122). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  52. Wartofsky, M. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  53. Wisner, A. (1995). Understanding problem building: Ergonomic work analysis. Ergonomics, 38(3), 595–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Goodyear
    • 1
  • Lina Markauskaite
    • 2
  1. 1.CoCo, Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.CoCo, Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations