Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Atlanta, GA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-52-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA
In this paper, first, we will propose two types of design: Type I design - Static Design, and Type II design - Dynamic Design. Both types of design strategically determine the rules, principles, structures, and macro processes that apply to educational designs such as program design, course design, instructional design, technology integration design, or design of any educational applications. Then, particular examples will be presented in which the two types of design were employed for making decisions on online course development. Designs of course delivery, course structure, information delivery, interactive communication, and course assignment will be introduced. Furthermore, the influence of the two types of designs on students' learning is examined, and the results suggest that an online course that follows Type II design principles positively influence students' perception of learning, motivation to learn, and learning outcomes.
Liu, L. & Johnson, L. (2004). Static and Dynamic Design in Online Course Development. In R. Ferdig, C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2004--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2946-2951). Atlanta, GA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/13298/.
- Aviv, R., & Golan, G. (1998). Pedagogic communication patterns in collaborative telelearning. Journal of Education Technology Systems, 2 6 (3), 201-201.
- Barnard, J. (1997). The WorldWide Web and higher education: The promise of virtual universities and online libraries. Educational Technology, 37(3), 30-35.
- Berge, Z. (1997). Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3 (1), 3-21.
- Berge, Z.L., Collins, M., & Dougherty, K. (2000). Design guidelines for Web-based courses. In A. Beverly (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education (pp. 32-40). Hershey, PA: Idea Group
- Bonk, C.J., Cummings, J.A., Hara, N., Fischler, R.B., & Lee, S.M. (2000). A ten-level Web integration continuum for higher education. In A. Beverly (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-Based Education (pp. 56-77). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
- Coombs, S.J., & Rodd, J. (2001). Using the Internet to deliver higher education: A cautionary tale about achieving good practice. Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 67-90.
- Fishman, B.J. (1997, March). Student traits and the use of computer-mediated communication tools: What matters and why? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
- Liu, L. (2003). Communication design for online courses: Effects of a multi-layer approach. In G. Marks, and A. Rodssett (Eds.), E-Learn inCorporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education Annual 2003 (pp.1699-1702). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
- Liu, L., & Johnson, L. (1998). A computer achievement model: Computer attitude and computer achievement. Computers in the Schools, 14(3-4), 33-54.
- Liu, L., & Maddux, C. (2003). Online course design and research. In G. Marks, and A. Rodssett (Eds.), ELearn inCorporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education Annual 2003 (pp.1078-1081). Charlottesville,
- Schweizer, H., Whipp, J., & Hayslett, C. (2002). Quality control in online courses: Using a social constructivist framework. Computers in the Schools, 19(3/4), 143-158.
- Trentin, G. (2001). Designing online education courses. Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 47-66.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact email@example.com.