Advertisement

The Impact of Technology and Theory on Instructional Design Since 2000

  • Scott Joseph Warren
  • Jennifer Lee
  • Anjum Najmi
Chapter

Abstract

The impact of shifting epistemologies in the field of instructional design during the last century has had a major impact on how we design instruction. The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of important shifts in ideas about what knowledge is, how it can be produced or constructed, and what it has meant for instructional design in the last decade. We discuss how technology has influenced instructor, learner, and designer beliefs about knowledge, instruction, and learning. Furthermore, we look at the changing landscape of theory and research that supports and questions these perspectives, and the implications it has on instructional practices.

Keywords

Conceptual age learning Multiuser virtual environment Epistemology 

References

  1. Aldrich, C. (2003). Simulations and the future of learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P., Zimand, E., Schmertz, S., & Ferrer, M. (2007). Usability and utility of a computerized cognitive-behavioral self-help program for public speaking anxiety. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 14(2), 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacherman, D. M. (2007). The use of students’ first language in second-language learning in a computer-based environment. Mineapolis, MN: Walden University.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, C. (2008). Trying to design a truly entertaining game can defeat even a certified genius. Wired, 16(4).Google Scholar
  6. *Barab, S., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., et al. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305–320.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (in press). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development.Google Scholar
  9. Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Conceptual Play as a Curricular Scaffold: Using Videogames to Support Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305–320. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5Google Scholar
  10. Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S. J., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bares, W., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lester, J. (1998). Habitable 3D learning environments for situated learning. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-98), San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  12. *Baylor, A. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.Google Scholar
  13. Baylor, A. (2002). Agent-based learning environments as a research tool. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baylor, A. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1).Google Scholar
  16. Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problems: the search for methods of group instructions as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Research, 13(6), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boling, E., & Soo, K.-S. (1999). CALL issues: Designing CALL software. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 442–456). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Bordnick, P., Copp, H., Brooks, J., Ferrer, M., & Logue, B. (2004). Utilizing virtual reality to standardize nicotine crazing research: A pilot study. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1889–1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bordnick, P., Copp, H., Traylor, A., Walton, A., & Ferrer, M. (2009). Reactivity to cabbabis cues in virtual reality environments. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 41(2), 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bordnick, P., Traylor, A., Copp, H., Graap, K., Carter, B., Ferrer, M., et al. (2008). Assessing reactivity to virtual reality alcohol based cues. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  22. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brown, E., Hobbs, M., & Gordon, M. (2008). A Virtual World Environment for Group Work. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 3(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 393–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. *Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based historical inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and historical reasoning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  27. Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 412–433.Google Scholar
  30. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.Google Scholar
  32. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). The relationship between situated cognition and anchored instruciton: A response to Tripp. Educational Technology, 34(8), 28–32. Retrieved from http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu~biswas/Research/ile/home.htmlGoogle Scholar
  33. Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on aptitude-treatment interactions. New York: Irvington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cuban, L. (1988). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. *Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.Google Scholar
  37. De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated?. Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. de Jong-Derrington, M., & and Homewood, B. (2008). Get real - this isn’t real, it’s second life teaching ESL in a virtual world. Paper presented at the Learning in Virtual Environments International Conference, Open University, Milton Keynes. 106–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dijkstra, S. (2005). Cognition and Instructional Design for Problem-Based Learning. In Spector, M., Ohrazda, C., Van Schaack, A., Wiley, D (Eds), Innovations in Instructional Technology, 187–206. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dondlinger, M. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.eduquery.com/jaet/index.htm Google Scholar
  42. Dondlinger, M., & Warren, S. J. (2009). Alternate reality games as simulations to support capstone learning experiences. In D. Gibson & Y. K. Baek (Eds.), Digital simulations for improving education: Learning through artificial teaching environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  43. Edasaw, Y., & Kabata, K. (2007). An ethnographic study of a key-pal project: Learning a foreign language through bilingual communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. *Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.Google Scholar
  45. *Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers’ composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  46. Entertainment Software Association. (2011). 2010 sales, demographic, and usage data: Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.Google Scholar
  47. *Foster, A. (2008). Games and motivation to learn science: Personal identity, applicability, relevance and meaningfulness. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 597–614.Google Scholar
  48. Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. *Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Gee, J. P. (2004). Video games: Embodied empathy for complex systems. Paper presented at the E3, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  51. Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45(1), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76.Google Scholar
  53. Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Group, S. R. D. (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning: Something for boys and girls. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  55. Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hannafin, M., & Hannafin, K. (1995). The status and future of research in instructional design and technology revisited. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 314–321). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  57. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Hooper, S., Rieber, L., & Kini, A. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Hardre, P., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. *Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion (Technical Report No. 2005-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division.Google Scholar
  61. Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hewitt, J. (2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 210–238). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed., 1996). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology, Vol. 2 (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kafai, Y., Quintero, M., & Feldon, D. (2010). Investigating the “Why” in Whypox: Casual and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games and Culture, 5(1), 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Personalized instruction: Changing classroom practice. Eye On Education, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. *Kirkley, J. (2004). Using theory-based approahces to architext online collaborative problem-based learning: Lessons learned from Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In T. Duffy & J. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education (pp. 321–339). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  70. *Kolodner, J. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.Google Scholar
  71. *Land, S., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanation in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.Google Scholar
  72. Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’ cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lee, J. (2009, March). Fads and Facts in Technology-Based Learning Environments. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 1957–1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mager, R. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.Google Scholar
  75. Makki, B., & Makki, B. (2012). The impact of integration of instructional systems technology into reearch and educational technology. Creative Education, 3(2), 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nieborg, D. B. (2005). Changing the rules of engagement: Tapping into the popular culture of Americas Army, the official US Army computer game. Unpublished Study, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  78. O’Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL, 19(2), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. O’Donnell, E. (1996). Integrating computers into the classroom (2001st ed.). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  80. Olson, D. R. (1988). On the origins of beliefs and other intentional states in children. In J. Astington, P. Harris, & D. Olson (Eds.), Developing theories of mind (pp. 414–426.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Owens, R. H. J., & Teale, W. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616–625.Google Scholar
  82. Peterson, C., Caverly, D., & MacDonald, L. (2003). Techtalk: Developing academic literacy through WebQuests. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 38–39.Google Scholar
  83. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. *Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  86. *Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  88. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  89. Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. *Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  91. Schneider, M., Carley, K., & Moon, I.-C. (2005). Detailed comparison of Americas Army game and Unit of Action experiments. USA: United States Army.Google Scholar
  92. Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  93. Slagle, M. (2004). Educational group to label video games that teach. RedNova. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=56983
  94. Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  95. Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Digital Education Review, 3, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. *Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.Google Scholar
  97. Squire, K. (2008). Video game-based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Squire, K., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Generating cyberculture/s: The case of star wars galaxies. In Cyberlines: Languages and cultures of the internet. Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers.Google Scholar
  99. Steinkuehler, C. (2004). The literacy practices of massively multiplayer online gaming. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  100. Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a ­constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3), 297–318.Google Scholar
  101. Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, K. C. C. Lanskear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  102. *Tuzun, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  103. Vaney, A., & Butler, R. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Voices of the founders: Early discourse in educational technology (pp. 3–45). New York, NY: McMillan.Google Scholar
  104. Vilmi, R. (1999). CALL issues: Language learning over distance. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 427–441). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.Google Scholar
  105. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interactions, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Walker, A., & Shelton, B. (2008). Problem-based educational games: Connections, prescriptions, and assessment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 663–684.Google Scholar
  108. *Warren, S. J., Barab, S., & Dondlinger, M. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113–140.Google Scholar
  109. Warren, S. J., & Dondlinger, M. J. (2008). Designing games for learning. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (Vol. 12, pp. 1183–1185). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference: IGI Global. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753637Google Scholar
  110. Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M., Stein, R., & Barab, S. (2009). Educational game as supplemental learning tool: Benefits, challenges, and tensions arising from use in an elementary school classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(4), 487–505.Google Scholar
  111. Warren, S. J., & Jones, J. (2008). Yokoi’s Theory of Lateral Innovation: Applications for learning game design (Special Issue on Educational Games). i-managers. Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 32–43.Google Scholar
  112. Warren, S. J., & Lin, L. (2012). Ethical considerations for learning game, simulation, and virtual world design and development. In S. C. Yang, H. H., & Yuen (Eds.), Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environments (pp. 1–18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-762-3.ch001Google Scholar
  113. Warren, S. J., Stein, R., Dondlinger, M., & Barab, S. (2009). A look inside a design process: Blending instructional design and game principles to target writing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. *Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice : A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  115. *Wimberly, A. T. (2007). Analyzing computer applications in English as a second language acquisition tool. Unpublished dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA.Google Scholar
  116. *Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.Google Scholar
  117. Yanchar, S., & Gabbitas, B. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 59, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Joseph Warren
    • 1
  • Jennifer Lee
    • 2
  • Anjum Najmi
    • 2
  1. 1.College of InformationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations