Why not apply an engineering methodology when creating courses

ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2002, Pages 3033-3042

  Doré, Sylvie ^a   Basque, Josianne ^b  

^a ÉCOLE DE TECHNOLOGIE SUPÉRIEURE   (Canada)

^b Tel e University of Quebec   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; CURRICULA; HEURISTIC METHODS; KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PRODUCT DESIGN; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ENGINEERING FACULTIES; GRADUATES; INSTRUCTIONAL ENGINEERING (IE);

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 8744300974     PISSN: 01901052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Floyd, T.D., Levy, S. et Wolfman, A.B. (1993) Winning the Product Development Battle. IEEE Engineers Guide to Business series, B. Coburn, ed. New York: The Institute of Electricaland Electronics Engineers Inc.
2. Romiszowski, A. J. (1992). Designing instructional systems. Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London/New York: Kogan Page/Nichols Publishing.
3. Romiszowski, A. J. (1996). Systems approach to design and development. In T. Plomp and D. P. Ely (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 37-43). Cambridge, UK: Pergamon.
4. Di Vesta, F.J. and Rieber, L.P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 35(4), 213-230.
5. Stolovitch, H. Keeps, E. J. (1993). L'ingénierie de la formation. Montréal: Harold D. Stolovitch et Erica J. Keeps.
6. Paquette, G., Crevier, F., and Aubin, C. (1999). MISA, A knowledge-based Method for the Engineering of Learning Systems, Journal of Courseware Engineering, vol. 2.
7. Barr, R. B. and Tagg, J. (1995) From Teaching to Learning - A New Paradigm for undergraduate Education. Change, November/December, 13-25.
8. Flynn, William J. (2000). The Search for the Learning-Centered College. New Expeditions: Charting the Second Century of Community Colleges. Issues Paper No. 9. Community College Press, P.O. Box 311, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701-0311. http://www.aacc.nchc.edu/newexpeditions/White_Paper/learningwhite. htm.
9. Wilson, B. G. (1995). Metaphors for instruction: Why we talk about learning environments. Educational Technology, 35(5), 25-30.
10. Andrews, D., et Goodson, L. (1991). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 133-155). Enlewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
11. Gustafson, K. L. (1996). Instructional design models. In T. Plomp et D. P. Ely (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 27-32). Cambridge, UK: Pergamon.
12. Visscher-Voerman, J. I. A., et Plomp, T. (1996). Design approaches in training and education. In T. Plomp et D. P. Ely (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (pp. 22-26). Cambridge, UK: Pergamon.
13. Wiggins G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va.
14. Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In D. H. Jonassen. Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (PP. 151-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Sandberg, J., Barnard, Y. (1997). Deep Learning Is Difficult. Instructional Science; v25, no. 1, 15-36.
16. Chin, Christine; Brown, David E.(2000). Learning in Science: A Comparison of Deep and Surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; v37, no. 2, 109-38.
17. Falkenburg, D. (2001). E-learning in the Greenfield Coalition. International Conference on Engineering Education, Oslo, August 6-10, 6E2-11. http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/icee/papers/558.pdf
18. Norrie, D. H. and Gaines, B. R. The learning Web: A system view and an Agent-Oriented Model. http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/LearnWeb/EM95J/