Team design communication patterns in e-learning design and development

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 581-605

  Rapanta, Chrysi ^a,d   Maina, Marcelo ^b   Lotz, Nicole ^c   Bacchelli, Alberto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUGANO   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITAT OBERTA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^c OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d ZAYED UNIVERSITY   (United Arab Emirates)

Author keywords

Case study; e Learning; Instructional design; Patterns; Team communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879780564     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-013-9306-5     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Allen, M. (1996). A profile of instructional designers in Australia. Distance Education, 17(1), 7-32. doi: 10. 1080/0158791960170103.
2. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (V. McGee, trans.). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-102). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3. Basque, J., Contamines, J., & Maina, M. (2010). Approches de design des environnements d'apprentissage. In B. Charlier & F. Henri (Eds.), Apprendre avec les technologies (pp. 109-119). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
4. Bichelmeyer, B. A., Misanchuk, M., & Malopinsky, L. (2001). Adapting a Master's degree course to the web: A case analysis. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(1), 49-58.
5. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1984). Reflective practice in engineering design. Design Studies, 5(3), 185-190. doi: 10. 1016/0142-694X(84)90012-7.
6. Bunt, H. (1999). Dynamic interpretation and dialogue theory. In M. M. Taylor, F. Néel, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), The structure of multimodal dialogue II (pp. 139-165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
7. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1985). Usability specifications as a tool in iterative development. In R. Hartson (Ed.), Advances in human-computer interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 1-28). New York: Ablex.
8. Clark, H. H., & Shaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259-294. doi: 10. 1016/0364-0213(89)90008-6.
9. Conole, G., Brasher, A., Cross, S., Weller, M., Clark, P., & Culver, J. (2008). Visualising learning design to foster and support good practice and creativity. Educational Media International, 45(3), 177-194. doi: 10. 1080/09523980802284168.
10. Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45-53. doi: 10. 1007/BF02763476.
11. Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Kidlington, UK: Elsevier Science.
12. Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1996). Analysing design activity. Chichester: Wiley.
13. D'Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P. N. (2004). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: A study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 25(6), 625-655. doi: 10. 1016/j. destud. 2003. 12. 002.
14. Darses, F., Détienne, F., Falzon, P., & Visser, W. (2001). A method for analyzing collective design processes. INRIA Research Report No 4258, September 2001.
15. Dicks, D., & Ives, C. (2008). Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2). Retrieved from: http://www. cjlt. ca/index. php/cjlt/article/view/495/226.
16. Dimitriadis, Y., Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2009). Design patterns for augmenting e-learning experiences [Special issue]. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 997-1188. doi: 1016/j. chb. 2009. 02. 001.
17. Dorst, C., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437. doi: 10. 1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
18. Eggersman, M., Gonnet, S., Henning, G. P., Krobb, C., Leone, H. P., & Marquardt, W. (2003). Modelling and understanding different types of process design activities. Latin American Applied Research, 33, 167-175.
19. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17-42. doi: 10. 1002/piq. 20013.
20. Fischer, G. & Scharff, E. (2000). Meta-design: Design for designers. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on DesigningInteractive Systems (DIS 2000). New York.
21. Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
22. Gero, J. S., & McNeill, T. (1998). An approach to the analysis of design protocols. Design Studies, 19(1), 21-61. doi: 10. 1016/S0142-694X(97)00015-X.
23. Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design: A theory of design structure. TechTrends, 47(5), 22-27. doi: 10. 1007/BF02763201.
24. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information-processing theory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10(1), 19-36.
25. Goldschmidt, G. (1996). The designer as a team of one. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 65-91). Chichester: Wiley.
26. Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2/3), 305-344. doi: 10. 1080/07370024. 1990. 9667. 157.
27. Hickling, A. (1982). Beyond a linear iterative process. In Evans et al. (Eds.), Changing design (pp. 275-293). Chichester: Wiley.
28. Jonassen, D. (2002). Integration of problem solving into instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in Instructional Design and technology (pp. 107-120). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
29. Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9-16.
30. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: the design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press.
31. Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional designer for new media development: A view from the practitioners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195-219.
32. Louridas, P., & Loucopoulos, P. (2000). A generic approach for reflective design. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 9(2), 199-237. doi: 10. 1145/350887. 350895.
33. MacMillan, S., Steele, J., Austin, S., Kirby, P., & Spence, R. (2001). Development and verification of a generic framework for conceptual design. Design Studies, 22(2), 169-191. doi: 10. 1016/S0142-694X(00)00025-9.
34. Maia, A. C. P., De Lucena, C. J. P., & Garcia, A. C. B. (1995). A method for analyzing team design activity. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (pp. 149-156). New York: ACM Press.
35. McDonnell, J. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. In J. McDonnell & P. Lloyd (Eds.), About: Designing. Analysing design meetings. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
36. McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About: Designing. Analysing design meetings. Leiden: CRC Press/Balkema.
37. Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Intentional change in an unpredictable world. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
38. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
39. Olson, G. M., Olson, J. S., Carter, M. R., & Storrosten, M. (1992). Small group design meetings: An analysis of collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 7(4), 347-374. doi: 10. 1207/s15327051hci0704_1.
40. Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups II: A study of multiple sequences in decision making. Communication Monographs, 50(3), 206-232. doi: 10. 1080/03637758309390165.
41. Poole, M. S., & Roth, J. (1989). Decision development in small groups IV: A typology of group decision paths. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 323-356. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1468-2958. 1989. tb00188. x.
42. Renkema, J. (2009). The texture of discourse: Towards an outline of connectivity Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1937-8327. 1992. tb00546. x.
44. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversational analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
46. Sim, S. K., & Duffy, A. H. B. (2003). Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design, 14(4), 200-223. doi: 10. 1007/s00163-003-0037-1.
47. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
48. Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17.
49. Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17(3), 277-301.
50. Stacey, M., Eckert, C., Earl, C., Bucciarelli, L. L., & Clarkson, P. J. (2002). A comparative paradigm for design research. In Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference, September 2002. London: Brunel University.
51. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams- an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473-496. doi: 10. 1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2.
53. Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement quarterly, 8, 38-55.
54. Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44. doi: 10. 1007/BF02298246.
55. Trognon, A. (1999). Eléments d' analyse interlocutoire. In M. Gilly, J.-P. Roux, & A. Trognon (Eds.), Apprendre dans l'interaction (pp. 69-94). Nancy: Presses Universitaires.
56. Trujillo, N. (1986). Toward a taxonomy of small group interaction-coding systems. Small Group Research, 17(4), 371-394. doi: 10. 1177/104649648601700401.
57. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249-271. doi: 10. 1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8.
58. Visser, W. (1994). Organization of design activities. Opportunistic with some hierarchical episodes. Interacting with Computers, 6(3), 239-274. doi: 10. 1016/0953-5438(94)90015-9.
59. Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. Bergen, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
60. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.