Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 876-884

  Der Thanq, Chen ^a,b   Hung, David ^a,b   Wang, Yu Mei ^c,d  

^a National Institute of Education

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^c Instructional Design and Educational Technology

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

LEARNING DESIGN TOOLS; TASK ANALYSIS;

E-LEARNING;

EID: 34548075282     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00675.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Barab, S. A., Kling, R. Gray, J. (Eds 2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.
2. Browser-Brown, A., Pace, J., Reschke, D. Sullivan, A. (1990). Rapid prototyping. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38, 1, 31 44.
3. Collins, A., Joseph, D. Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1, 15 42.
4. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 31, 1, 5 8.
5. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: what we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 1, 105 121.
6. Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed New York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7. Gagne, R. (1987). Instructional technology foundations. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Gee, J. P. (2000). Communities of practice in the new capitalism. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 4, 515 523.
9. Hung, D. (1999). Activity, apprenticeship, and epistemological appropriation: implications from the writings of Michael Polanyi. Educational Psychologist, 34, 4, 193 205.
10. Hung, W. L. Chen, D-T. (2003). Learning within the context of communities of practices: a re-conceptualization of tools, rules, and roles of the activity system. Educational Media International, 39, 3/4, 247 255.
11. Jonassen, D. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-cantered learning environments. In D. Jonassen S. Land (Eds Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89 121). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition and epistemic cognition: a three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 4, 222 232.
13. Reigeluth, C. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory Vol. 2 (pp. 5 30). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Reigeluth, C. (2004). Comparing beans and potatoes, or creating a balanced diet? Different purposes and different approaches. Educational Technology, 44, 1, 53 56.
15. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334 370). New York : Macmillan Publications.
16. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 4, 293 319.
17. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York : Basic Books.
18. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158 177.