Reflection Tools in Teaching the Design of Interactive Learning Objects: A Case Study

Öğrencilerin farklı öğrenme gereksinimleri ve farklı öğrenme tercihleri, öğretim tasarımcılarının hem yerleşik yöntemleri hem de yaratıcı yaklaşımları kullanmalarını gerektirmektedir. Ayrıca, öğretim tasarımcılarının kendi bireysel tercihlerinden etkilenmeksizin farklı görüşleri dikkate almaları gerekir. Öğretim tasarımı eğitiminde yansımayı öğretmek ve yansıtıcı süreçleri artırmak amacıyla, bu araştırma aşağıdaki araç ve süreçlerin öğretim tasarımı öğrencilerinin öğrenme nesnesi tasarım ve geliştirmelerine etkisini incelemiştir: (a) yansıtıcı eylemsel öğretim tasarımı (RAID) soruları, (b) öğrenme nesnesi değerlendirme aracı (LORI), (c) sınıf içi ve çevrimiçi tartışma, (d) öğrenme stili. Araştırma, (1) katılımcıların tasarım kararlarını verirken RAID sorularına verdikleri yanıtlardan elde ettikleri yansımaları, (2) öğrenme nesnesi tasarımları geliştirilirken LORI aracının rolünü, (3) katılımcıların öğrenme stilleri ile K-12 öğrencileri için geliştirdikleri öğrenme nesnelerinin nitelikleri arasındaki ilişkileri incelemiştir. Etkileşim ve değerlendirme araçlarının öğretim tasarımı öğrencilerinin karar verme süreçlerine etkisi nitel ve nicel yöntemlerle incelenmiştir. Veri analizleri, yansıtıcı araçların öğrenme nesnesi geliştirmeyle ilgili nesnel karar verme sürecine büyük ölçüde yardımcı olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, yansıtıc

Etkileşimli Öğrenme Nesneleri Tasarımı Öğretiminde Yansıma Araçları: Bir Pilot Çalışma

To help learners with varying learning needs and preferences requires instructional designers to follow both prescribed methodologies and creative approaches. It also requires considering variety of viewpoints without being influenced by individual preferences. To encourage and teach reflection in instructional design education, this research experimentally studied the effects of reflective action instructional design (RAID), a learning object review instrument (LORI), classroom and online discussions, and learning style on senior instructional design students’ design and development of learning objects (LOs). In this regard, the study examined: (1) the participants’ reflections through RAID questions in making design decisions, (2) the role of the LORI in improving LO design and (3) interactions between the participants’ learning styles and quality of their designed LOs for K-12 learning units. The effect of interaction and evaluation tools on prospective instructional designers’ decision making was analyzed both through statistical tests and qualitative methods. The data analysis showed that reflection tools, to a large extend, assist teaching objective design decisions in learning object development. The paper discussed how the reflective toolkits contributed learning of designing learning objects.

PDF

___

Akpinar, Y. & Hartley, J. R. (1996). Designing interactive learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12(1), 33-46.
Akpinar, Y. & Simsek, H. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ learning object development: A case study in K-12 setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 197-217
Akpinar, Y. (2007). Liberating learning object design from the learning style of student instructional designers. Performance Improvement, 46(10), 32-39.
Baldwin, L., & Sabry, K. (2003). Learning styles for interactive learning systems. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(4), 325-340.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37-52.
Baud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & Y. D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 18-40). London: Kogan Page.
Botturi, L. (2005). A framework for the evaluation of visual languages for instructional design: The case of e2ml. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16 (4), 329-351.
Choi, I., Lee, S., & Jung, J. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based instruction accommodating students’ diverse learning styles. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 5-25.
Conanan, D. M., & Pilkard, N. (2001). Students’ perceptions of giving and receiving design critiques in an online learning environment. In Proceedings of European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning, Maastricht, 22-24 March. pp. 165-172.
Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43, 17-33.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process. Boston. Heath.
Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (1989). Learning style inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems.
Ellmers, G. (2006). Reflection and graphic design pedagogy. Presented at Annual National Conference of Australian Council of University Art & Design Schools, Melbourne, Australia.
Entwistle, N. J. (1979). Motivation, styles of learning and the academic environment. Edinburgh, The University of Edinburgh, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 190 636.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London, The Falmer Press.
Ertmer, P. & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4) p. 43-58.
Felder R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. E. (2005). Applications, reliability, and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103-112.
Felder, R. M. (1993). Teaching the second tier: Learning and teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(5), 286-290
Fuchs, C. (2007). Towards a dynamic theory of virtual communities. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(4/5), 372-405.
Guldberg, K. K. & Pilkington, R. M. (2006). A community of practice approach to the development of nontraditional learners through networked learning. Journal of Computers Assisted Learning, 22(3), 159-172.
Guldberg, K. K., & Pilkington, R. M. (2007). Tutor roles in facilitating reflection on practice through online discussions. Educational Technology & Society. 10(1), 61-72.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33-49.
Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments. In T. M. Duffy, J. Lowyck, D. H. Jonassen, & T. M. Welsh (Eds.), Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87-107). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual difference, learning, and instruction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style: Theory and practice. Reston, VA, National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kinzie, M. B., Hrabe, M. E., & Larsen, V. A. (1998). Exploring professional practice through an instructional design team case competition. Educational Technology Research & Development, 46(1), 53-71
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. NJ. Prentice Hall,
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory. Boston: McBer.
Laboskey, V. K. (1994). Development of reflective practice. NY, Teachers College Press.
Laghos, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2007). Social network analysis of self-taught e-learning communities. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(4/5), 465-482.
Lee, Y. B. B. (1992). Effects of learning style in a hypermedia instructional system. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the convention of the AECT. Washington, DC. 505-509.
Lovelace, M. K. (2005). Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research Based on the Dunn and Dunn Model. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 176-183.
Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design (RAID): A designer’s aid. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 75–82,
McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 222-241.
Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Multilingual matters. Philadelphia. Clevedon.
Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37–64.
Nesbit, J. C., & Li, J. (2004). Web-based tools for learning object evaluation. In Proceedings of the international conference on education and information systems. Orlando, FL, 2, 334-339.
Pilkington, R. M., & Walker, S. A. (2003). Using CMC to develop a knowledge building community amongst post-graduates. International Journal of Continuing engineering Education and Life-long Learning, 13(3/4), 318-335.
Quayle, M., & Paterson, D. (1989). Techniques for encouraging reflection in design. Journal of Architectural Education, 42(2), 30-42
Richey, R., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. Syracuse, NY. ERIC.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.
Rowntree, D. (1992). Exploring open and distance learning materials. London: Kogan page.
Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: A case of information seeking on the web. Computers & Education, 49, 214-229.
Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London. Kogan Page.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. CA. Jossey-Bass.
Shambaugh, N., & Magliaro, S. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 69-92.
Tonkinwise, C. (2005). The Idealist practice of reflection: Typologies, techniques and ideologies for design researchers. Futureground: Design research society international conference, 17 November, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Valkenburg, A. C., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19, 249-694.
Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 34-41.