You are here:

What Do We Mean When We “Design” e-Learning Solutions? An Analysis of Discourses on Design, Technology, and Education
PROCEEDING

, , , Arizona State University, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

Creators of e-learning solutions often call themselves “designers,” but what does it mean when they “design”? The broader educational research literature has recently seen an increase in interest around design, but the meaning of design across discourses is unclear. For example, design can refer to a process of creating something, the resulting product, or characteristics of effective products. Without a clear meaning behind the word design, designers from different disciplines struggle to communicate and integrate research findings. To better understand this issue, we conducted a content analysis of the educational research literature’s use of design in publication titles. Our analysis revealed several areas specifically related to instructional design and e-learning. In this presentation, we share the results of our analysis on the many uses of design as it pertains to e-learning and instructional design. We propose that clarifying what we mean when we use the word design can lead to a more clear and effective discourse.

Citation

Warr, M., Henriksen, D. & Mishra, P. (2018). What Do We Mean When We “Design” e-Learning Solutions? An Analysis of Discourses on Design, Technology, and Education. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 717-722). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 10, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology (1977). The definition of educational technology. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED192759.pdfAssociation for Educational Communication & Technology. (N.D.). Retrieved
  2. Boling, E., & Smith, K.M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  3. Branch, R.M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer US.
  4. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.
  5. Gagne, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C., Keller, J.M., & Russell, J.D. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Performance Improvement Advisor, 44(2), 44–46.
  6. Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. ACM Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20–20.
  7. Gee, J.P. (2009). Video games, learning, and “content.” In Games: Purpose and potential in education (pp. 43–53). Boston, MA:
  8. Kafai, Y.B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. New York, NY: Routledge.
  9. Katz, J. (2013). The three-block model of universal design for learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne de L’éducation, 36(1), 153–194.
  10. Kirschner, P.A. (2015). Do we need teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning? Instructional Science, 43(2), 309– 322.
  11. Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing, 32(2), 131–152.
  12. Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D.T. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
  13. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
  14. Reiser, R.A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1–16). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  15. Reiser, R.A., & Depsey, J.V. (Eds.). (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  16. Rieber, L.P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 43–58.
  17. Shute, V.J., Rieber, L.P., & Van Eck, R. (2012). Games...and...learning. In C.M. Reigeluth & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 321–332). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  18. Smith, K.M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature. Indiana University. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/122255/
  19. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Kirschner, P.A. (2017). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
  20. Watson, A.D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides