Advertisement

Adventures and Advances in Instructional Design Theory and Practice

Chapter

Abstract

Learning is fundamentally about change – persistent change in a person’s abilities, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, mental models, and skills. In the past, technology to support learning has been touted as offering many opportunities for dramatic improvements in learning. Unfortunately, many of these so-called advanced learning technologies have not resulted in substantial and sustained improvements in learning. Critical to progress in improving learning is measuring a person’s abilities, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and so on before, during, after, and long after instruction. Such assessments are rarely made in a way that can demonstrate that learning has occurred. These assessments are even more challenging when the domain of interest involves complex and ill-structured problems. In this chapter, some progress in assessing learning in complex problem domains will be described.

Keywords

Instructional design theory Instructional technology Learning Cognitive psychology Motivation Cognitive load Complex domains Systems-based approaches Technology integration DEEP methodology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Norbert Seel and Jan Visser for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter and for their joining with me in the joint presentation between EARLI-ID and the AECT Research Symposium in 2006.

References

  1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. M., Douglass, S., Leviere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andre, T. (1986). Problem-solving in education. In G. D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.), Cognitive classroom learning (pp. 169–204). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain mind experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Christensen, D. L., Spector, J. M., Sioutine, A., & McCormack, D. (2000, August). Evaluating the impact of system dynamics based learning environments: A preliminary study. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Society Conference, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–30.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Dijkstra, E. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15(10), 859–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Why things go wrong and what we can do to make them right (R. Kimber & R. Kimber, Trans.). New York: Metropolitan Books. (Original work published in 1989)Google Scholar
  9. Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2005, March). Planning and assessing navigation in model-centered learning environments: Why learners often do not follow the path laid out for them. Presentation at the International Conference for Methods and Technologies for Teaching, Palermo, Italy, March 10.Google Scholar
  10. Ericsson, K. A. (2001). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: Insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence in education (pp. 21–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Herl, H. E., O’Neil, H. F., Jr., Chung, G. L. W. K., Bianchi, C., Wang, S., Mayer, R., & Lee, C. Y., et al. (1999). Final report for validation of problem solving measures. CSE Technical Report 501. Los Angeles: CRESST.Google Scholar
  12. Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 69–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Ifenthaler, D. (2007, October). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Paper presented at AECT, October, 2007, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Seel, N. M. (2007). The role of cognitive learning strategies and intellectual abilities in mental model building processes. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 5, 353–366.Google Scholar
  15. Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2005). The measurement of change: Learning-dependent progression of mental models. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 2(4), 317–336.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. (1999) Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Kintsch, E. (1993). Principles of instruction from research on human cognition. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida, Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 22–42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 1–19.Google Scholar
  20. Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (2004). Linking ICT, knowledge domains, and learning support for the design of learning environments. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans and process in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 239–256). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Lowyck, J., Pöysä, J., & van Merriënboer, J. (2003). Conditions of ICT-based design for learning communities. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 1(2), 153–182.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, B. (1996). About learning. Barrington, IL: Excell Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milrad, M., Spector, J. M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2003). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and teaching with technology: Principles and practices (pp. 13–27). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp.241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept mapsas facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (Eds.). (2003). Cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 63(1), Entire Issue.Google Scholar
  31. Pirnay-Dummer, P. (2007, April). Model inspection trace of concepts and relations. A heuristic approach to language-oriented model assessment. Paper presented at AERA, April 2007, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  32. Polson, M. C. (1993). Cognitive theory as a basis for instructional design. In J. M. Spector, M. C. Polson, & D. J. Muraida, Automating instructional design: Concepts and issues (pp. 5–22). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Salas, E., & Fiore, S. (Eds.). (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.Google Scholar
  34. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & McPherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Schvaneveldt, R. W. (Ed.). (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 1(1), 59–86.Google Scholar
  38. Seel, N., Al-Diban, S., & Blumschein, P. (2000). Mental models and instructional planning. In J. M. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.), Integrated & Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction & Technology (pp. 129–158). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Spector, J. M. (2000, Fall). Trends and issues in educational technology: How far we have not come. Update Semiannual Bulletin 21(2).Google Scholar
  40. Spector, J. M. (2001). A philosophy of instructional design for the 21st century? Journal of Structural learning and Intelligent Systems 14(4), 307–318.Google Scholar
  41. Spector, J. M. (2004). Problems with problem-based learning: Comments on model-centered learning and instruction in Seel (2003). Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(4), 359–374.Google Scholar
  42. Spector, J. M., & Anderson, T. M. (2000). Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology: Understanding complexity. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Spector, J. M., & Koszalka, T. A. (2004). The DEEP methodology for assessing learning in complex domains (Final report the National Science Foundation Evaluative Research and Evaluation Capacity Building). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.Google Scholar
  44. Spector, J. M., Dennen, V. P., & Koszalka, T. A. (2005, March). Individual and collaborative construction of causal concept maps: An online technique for learning and assessment. Proceedings of the International Conference for Methods and Technologies for Learning. Palermo: Institute for Educational Technology, Italian Research Council.Google Scholar
  45. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991, May). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.Google Scholar
  46. Stoyanova, N., & Kommers, P. (2002). Concept mapping as a medium of shared cognition in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(1/2), 111–133.Google Scholar
  47. Suppes, P. (1978). Impact of research on education: Some case studies. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.Google Scholar
  48. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43, 215–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taricani, E. M., & Clariana, R. B. (2006). A technique for automatically scoring open-ended concept maps. Educational Technology Research &Development, 54(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State University, Learning Systems Institute, C 4622 University CenterTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations