Learning Design and Technology:

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Learning Design and Technology: by Mind Map: Learning Design and Technology:

1. A History of Instructional Media

1.1. instructional design and technology

1.2. the effects media have had on instructional practices

1.2.1. A prediction digital media will have on such practices over the next decade.

1.3. instructional technology

1.3.1. learning process

1.3.2. learning and performance in classrooms and in the workplace

1.3.3. a definition of field for instructional design and technology

1.3.3.1. performance problems

1.3.3.1.1. design

1.3.3.1.2. development

1.3.3.1.3. utilization or implementation

1.3.3.1.4. management

1.3.3.1.5. evaluation

1.3.3.1.6. analysis

1.3.3.2. current definition has a relation to processes and resources for learning and focuses on research and theory.

1.3.3.2.1. extended 1994 AECT definition

1.4. physical means

1.4.1. instructional medium

1.4.2. other than the teacher,chalkboard and textbook

1.5. School Museums

1.5.1. Saettler's indication of the museums

1.5.2. the IDT field

1.6. The Visual Instruction Movement and Instructional Films

1.6.1. visual instruction

1.6.2. visual education

1.6.3. the motion picture projector

1.7. The Audiovisual Instruction Movement and Instructional Radio

1.7.1. Hereto is the Audiovisual Instruction Movement

1.7.2. technological advances

1.7.3. AECT maintained a leadership role

1.7.4. Visualizing the Curriculum

1.7.5. In 1946 Edgar Dale

1.7.5.1. Cone of Experience

1.7.5.1.1. ability to present concepts in a concrete manner

1.8. World War II

1.8.1. audiovisual devices in military services and in industry

1.9. Post-World War II Developments and Media Research

1.9.1. Solve a training problem

1.9.2. audiovisual research

1.9.2.1. facilitate learning in given situations

1.9.3. media comparison studies

1.10. Theories of Communication

1.10.1. models of communication

1.10.2. communication process

1.11. Instructional Television

1.11.1. by the mid-1960s, interest in instructional television abated

1.11.2. instructional quality

1.11.3. Ford Foundation

1.11.4. public television

1.12. Shifting Terminology

1.12.1. educational technology and instructional technology

1.12.2. the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

1.12.3. Educational Communications and Technology Journal

1.12.4. minimal impact on educational practices

1.13. Computers: From the 1950s to 1995

1.13.1. CAI at IBM

1.13.2. Gordon Pask

1.13.2.1. adaptive teaching machines

1.13.3. Richard Atkinson

1.13.4. Patrick Suppes

1.13.5. development of CAI systems

1.14. Recent Developments

1.14.1. Use of Internet increased

1.14.2. reasons for this increased usage

1.14.2.1. performance support

1.14.2.2. a relatively low cost

1.14.2.3. job tasks

1.14.2.4. increased interactive capabilities

1.14.2.4.1. three types of interactions

1.14.2.5. a constructivist perspective

1.15. Conclusion

1.15.1. recently media have had a minimal impact on instructional practices in that environment

1.15.2. aforementioned reasons

1.15.3. greater changes

2. A History of Instructional Design

2.1. instructional design models in the 1960s and 1970s

2.2. interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism

2.3. instructional systems design

2.3.1. the analysis of instructional problems

2.4. The Origins of Instructional Design:World War II

2.4.1. instructional design procedures

2.4.2. based on instruction, learning, and human behavior

2.4.3. knowledge of evaluation and testing

2.4.4. Psychological Principles in System Development, edited by Gagne

2.5. More Early Developments: The Programmed Instruction Movement

2.5.1. The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching, Skinner

2.5.1.1. learners be positively reinforced

2.5.1.2. formative evaluation

2.6. The Popularization of Behavioral Objectives

2.6.1. specific objectives

2.6.2. Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction, Robert Mager

2.6.3. Ralph Tyler the father of the behavioral objectives movement

2.6.4. behavioral terms, the basis for evaluating

2.6.5. In the 1950s, cognitive domain

2.6.6. hierarchical relationship

2.7. The Criterion-Referenced Testing Movement

2.7.1. assess student entry-level behavior

2.7.2. determine the extent students had acquired the behaviors

2.7.3. a central feature

2.8. Robert M. Gagne:Domains of Learning, Events of Instruction, and Hierarchical Analysis

2.8.1. Five domains of learning outcomes

2.8.1.1. verbal information

2.8.1.2. intellectual skills

2.8.1.3. psychomotor skills

2.8.1.4. attitudes

2.8.1.5. cognitive strategies

2.8.2. nine events of instruction

2.8.3. hierarchical analysis had a significant impact

2.8.3.1. master subordinate skills before a superordinate one

2.9. Sputnik: The Indirect Launching of Formative Evaluation

2.9.1. summative evaluation

2.10. Early Instructional Design Models

2.10.1. processes or models

2.11. The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in the Systems Approach

2.11.1. many new models:

2.11.1.1. 1970s

2.11.1.1.1. the United States military adopted an instructional design model

2.11.1.1.2. many graduate programs in instructional design were created

2.11.1.1.3. Educational Technology Research and Development

2.11.1.2. 1980s

2.11.1.2.1. Growth and Redirection, interest burgeoned

2.11.1.3. 1990s

2.11.1.3.1. Changing Views and Practices

2.12. Conclusion

2.12.1. instructional media

2.12.2. instructional design

2.12.3. effective use of media requires models of instructional design

2.12.4. a positive influence on future developments

3. Searching for Learner-Centered,Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools

3.1. instructional strategies and tools must be based on some theory of learning and cognition

3.1.1. collaborative education

3.1.1.1. behavioral, cognitive information processing, humanistic, and sociocultural theory

3.1.1.1.1. Problems

3.1.1.1.2. Cunningham's three models of mind that guide our conceptions of learning and cognition

4. The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media

4.1. students can learn more deeply from well-designed multimedia messages consisting of words and pictures than from more traditional modes of communication involving words alone.

4.1.1. a multimedia effect

4.1.2. a coherence effect: extraneous material is excluded rather than included

4.1.3. a spatial contiguity effect

4.1.4. a personalization effect

4.1.5. the same instructional design methods are effective across different media

4.1.6. Introduction

4.1.6.1. analysis of verbal-only method of instruction

4.1.6.1.1. positive side

4.1.6.1.2. negative side

4.1.6.1.3. two formats: words and pictures

4.1.6.2. What is the promise of multimedia learning

4.1.6.3. What is a multimedia instructional message?

4.1.6.3.1. words: printed or spoken text

4.1.6.3.2. pictures: static graphics

4.1.6.3.3. meaningful learning

4.1.6.4. How does multimedia learning work?

4.1.6.4.1. limited capacity

4.1.6.5. Do methods work across media?

4.1.6.5.1. the multimedia effect can occur across two different media environments

4.1.6.6. Coherence effect

4.1.6.7. Multimedia effect

4.1.6.8. Contiguity effect

4.1.6.9. Personalization effect

4.1.6.10. Conclusion

4.1.6.10.1. The principles of instructional design do not necessarily change when the learning environment changes

5. Blueprints for Complex Learning:The 4C/ID-Model

5.1. description of the four-component instructional design system(4C/ID-Model)

5.1.1. training programs for complex skills

5.1.1.1. instructional methods

5.1.1.1.1. four interrelated components

5.2. instructional design enterprise

5.2.1. complex knowledge

5.2.2. one important goal

5.2.2.1. gradual evolution of design theory to accommodate complex learning.

5.3. addresses at least three deficits

5.3.1. on the integration and coordinated performance

5.3.2. specifies the performance

5.3.3. recommends a mixture

5.4. a European project called ADAPT-Interactive Tools

5.4.1. cognitive task analysis as a method

5.5. Complex Learning

5.5.1. integrated sets of learning goals

5.5.2. the whole is clearly more than the sum of its parts

5.5.3. skills hierarchy

5.5.3.1. a horizontal relationship

6. Second Generation Instructional Design(ID2)

6.1. First Generation Instructional Design(ID1)

6.1.1. Limitations of ID1

6.1.2. From ID1 we retain Gagne's fundamental assumption.

6.2. an open system

6.3. the components of ID2

6.4. Analyzing and Representing Knowledge for Integrated Goals

6.4.1. mental models, cognitive psychology

6.5. Classes of Knowledge Representations

6.5.1. KRr is a class of representation for the purpose of retrieving the knowledge in various formats.

6.5.2. KRe is the class most often used in artificial intelligence

6.5.3. KRi is the class of interest

6.5.4. Knowledge Representation for ID2

6.5.4.1. elaborated frame network

6.5.4.1.1. three fundamental frame types

6.5.4.1.2. three types of elaborations

6.5.4.1.3. two principal means

6.5.5. Knowledge analysis and acquisition system(KAAS)

6.5.6. Instructional Strategies and Transactions

6.5.6.1. Transactions and Transaction Classes.

6.5.6.1.1. Instructional strategy

6.5.6.1.2. strategy Analysis

6.5.6.1.3. Strategy Analysis System(SAS)

6.5.6.1.4. Transaction Configuration

6.5.6.1.5. An Intelligent Advisor System(IADV)

6.5.6.1.6. An Open System-Mini-Experts

6.5.7. Integration of the ID Phases- A Single Knowledge Representation

6.6. Comparison with Other Approaches

6.7. Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Micro-worlds.

7. Instructional Design & Learning Theory

7.1. Various learning theories and associated instructional design strategies

7.2. difficulty to differentiate between three basic theories of learning.

7.3. Investigation into the available literature on learning theories and implications

7.4. theories and models

7.4.1. The Basics of Behaviorism

7.4.1.1. "Memory" focused on associations being made between events.

7.4.1.2. overt behaviors that can be observed and measured

7.4.1.2.1. Pavlov's Experiment

7.4.1.3. Thorndike's Connectionism

7.4.1.3.1. law of effect

7.4.1.3.2. law of exercise

7.4.1.3.3. law of readiness

7.4.1.4. Watson' Experiment

7.4.1.5. Skinner

7.4.1.5.1. difference between classical and operant conditioning

7.4.1.5.2. Skinner and Behavioral Shaping

7.4.1.5.3. Reinforcement Schedules

7.4.2. The Basics of Cognitivism

7.4.2.1. Edward Tolman

7.4.2.2. Bandura and Walters

7.4.2.3. Jean Piaget's cognitivism

7.4.2.4. Key concepts of cognitive theory

7.4.2.4.1. schema

7.4.2.4.2. three-stage information processing model

7.4.3. The Basics of Constructivism

7.4.3.1. Bartlett as pioneer

7.4.3.2. Jonassen: Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model.

7.4.3.3. Realistic vs. Radical Construction

7.4.3.4. The Assumptions of Constructivism- Merrill

7.4.4. Comparison of Atomic Theory Development to Learning Theory Development

7.4.4.1. Connection what between the three theories

7.5. The History of Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design

7.5.1. Paul Saettler's book

7.5.1.1. six areas

7.5.2. Behavioral Objectives Movement

7.5.2.1. Taxonomic Analysis of Learning Behaviors

7.5.2.2. Mastery Learning

7.5.2.3. Military and Industrial Approach

7.5.3. Accountability Movement

7.5.3.1. Franklin Bobbitt

7.5.4. Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction Movement

7.5.5. Early Use of Programmed Instruction

7.5.6. Individualized Approaches to Instruction

7.5.7. Computer-Assisted Instruction(CAI)

7.5.8. Systems Approach to Instruction

7.5.9. Cognitivism and Instructional Design

7.5.9.1. a shift

7.5.10. Cognitivism and Computer-Based Instruction

7.5.10.1. Artificial intelligence

7.5.11. Constructivism and Instructional Design

7.5.11.1. Jonasson

7.5.12. Learning Theories and the Practice of Instructional Design

7.5.13. Learning Theories - Some Strengths and Weaknesses

7.5.14. Is There One Best Learning Theory for Instructional Design?

7.5.14.1. Why bother with Theory at all?

7.5.14.2. An Eclectic Approach to Theory in Instructional Design

7.5.14.3. What Works and How Can We use It?

7.5.14.4. Ertmer and Newby's suggestion

7.6. Conclusion

7.6.1. The distinction between "training" and "education".

7.6.2. a thorough understanding of learning theories

7.6.3. Advancements in technology make branched constructivist approaches to learning possible.

8. Instructional Transaction Theory: An Instructional Design Model based on Knowledge Objects

8.1. Merrill,Li & Jones

8.2. What is Instructional Design Theory?

8.2.1. Instructional Systems Development(ISD)

8.2.1.1. Instructional Design Theory

8.2.1.1.1. Instructional Transaction Theory

8.2.1.1.2. Gagne conditions of learning

8.2.1.1.3. Merrill component display theory

8.2.1.1.4. Architecture for Instructional Transaction Theory

8.2.1.1.5. Component transactions

8.2.1.1.6. Abstraction transactions

8.2.1.1.7. Association transactions

8.2.1.1.8. Sequence transactions

8.2.1.1.9. Enact transactions

9. Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices

9.1. explores current applications for handheld devices and questions

9.2. facilitate learning in a pedagogically sensible manner

9.3. presents a functional framework

9.3.1. Three categories: data collection, location aware and collaborative

9.4. deserve further research and create new learning opportunities

9.5. the growth of pervasive, ubiquitous, computing will have a large impact on learning.

9.5.1. a certain naive degree of optimism

9.5.2. a simply technological determinist viewpoint

9.5.3. have a role to play in the way we learn

9.6. Related work

9.6.1. The most popular applications for handhelds are referential or presentational in nature.

9.6.1.1. rapid changes in the PDA and mobile phone markets

9.6.1.2. devise classifications for this emerging field.

9.6.2. Pedagogical underpining

9.6.2.1. educationally appropriate pedagogical considerations.

9.7. Functionality framework: categorising handheld educational applications in terms of both application function and pedagogical underpinning.

9.7.1. Administration

9.7.2. Reference

9.7.3. Interactive

9.7.4. Microworld

9.7.4.1. encourage creation and exploration in learners

9.7.4.2. adopt a constructionist approach to learning.

9.7.4.3. limitations on mobile devices result in a restricted version.

9.7.5. Data collection

9.7.6. Location aware

9.7.7. Collaborative

9.8. Collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications

9.8.1. TxtIT:

9.8.2. Mapping challenge:

9.8.3. SortIT:

9.9. Conclusion

9.9.1. depend on how the technology is used

9.9.2. Firstly

9.9.3. Secondly

9.9.4. open source VLE Moodle

10. Web 2.0 and Possibilities for Educational Applications

10.1. novel applications

10.2. new ways of understanding the Internet

10.3. paradigm shift

10.4. benefit, challenges and opportunities

10.5. What is Web 2.0?

10.5.1. novel technological possibilities

10.5.2. Read-Write Web

10.5.2.1. A blog

10.5.2.2. Wiki

10.5.3. Emerging tools

10.5.4. flexible systems

10.6. Subscribing to Information

10.6.1. Internet-based service

10.7. Social Spaces

10.7.1. Resources sharing and referencing systems

10.7.2. Internet-based information retrieval methodology

10.7.2.1. access recommendations

10.7.2.2. collective perception

10.8. The Internet as a Platform

10.8.1. an example: Google Docs

10.9. Open Source

10.9.1. Wikipedia

10.9.2. hackability and remixability

10.10. The Wide Spread of Web 2.0

10.10.1. discover new knowledge from a pool of collective intelligence existing in these environments.

10.10.2. YouTube

10.11. Education and Web 2.0

10.11.1. E-learning 2.0

10.12. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms

10.12.1. new forms of assessment such as digits portfolios

10.12.2. use of Internet-mediated social learning spaces

10.12.3. new models and methods for design of learning objects

10.12.4. new models for resources sharing and support for technology integration of communities of teachers

10.12.5. new generations of learning management systems (LMS), or possibly no LMS at all

10.12.6. (a) use of a blog to support teaching and learning in a graduate university course, and (b) social spaces and repositories ior teachers.

10.12.6.1. serve as a novel and powerful collective intervention strategy,

10.13. emerging innovative applications of the Internet

10.13.1. changing the culture o i lnternet users.

10.13.2. also a danger

10.13.3. to explore possible implications of Web 2.0

10.13.4. test applications of these technologies in teaching and learning.

10.13.5. mobile phones

11. Teaching and Learning in Digital Environments: The Resurgence of Resource-Based Learning

11.1. EVOLUTION OF RESOURCES FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

11.2. Predigital perspectives

11.2.1. static nature, visual cues, aural cues

11.2.2. with established curriculum objectives

11.2.3. physical location

11.2.4. pragmatic concerns

11.2.5. Packaging

11.3. Emerging perspectives

11.3.1. A resource

11.3.1.1. by the diversity

11.3.1.2. locating potentially

11.3.2. Intact resources(i.e., a single resource such as a book, videotape, etc.)

11.3.3. Emerging systems

11.3.4. Contemporary systems

11.4. Toward Resource-Based Teaching and Learning

11.4.1. AN RBLE PRIMER

11.4.1.1. Components of RBLEs

11.5. Resources

11.5.1. Static

11.5.2. Dynamic

11.5.3. Contexts

11.5.3.1. Externally directed

11.5.3.2. Learner generated

11.5.3.3. Negotiated

11.5.3.3.1. Combination

11.5.4. Tools

11.5.4.1. Searching tools

11.5.4.2. Processing tools

11.5.4.2.1. copy-paste function

11.5.4.2.2. construct and revise representations

11.5.4.3. Manipulating tools

11.5.4.3.1. test beliefs, ideas, and theories.

11.5.4.3.2. explore relationships among motion, force, speed, energy, and mass

11.5.4.3.3. propose and test potential solutions.

11.5.4.3.4. meet specific needs.

11.5.4.4. Communicating tools.

11.5.4.4.1. asynchronous communication tools

11.5.4.5. Scaffolds

11.5.4.5.1. Conceptual scaffolds

11.5.4.5.2. Metacognitive scaffolds

11.5.4.5.3. Procedural scaffolds

11.6. CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS

11.6.1. Standards and conventions for creating and distributing digital resources remain inconsistent.

11.6.2. the software used to distribute the resources is frequently changed

11.6.3. Resource credibility, content validity and reliability are unregulated.

11.6.4. Directed approaches tend to engender compliance and reliance over independent thinking.

11.6.5. Contemporary school accountability standards

11.6.6. Generative learning goals require varied rather than singular learning strategies.

12. Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments

12.1. Constructivist approaches to learning are clearly based on distinctly different epistemic and pedagogical assumptions

12.2. Activity theory

12.2.1. learning must precede activity

12.2.1.1. goals

12.2.1.2. objects

12.3. Activity System

12.3.1. subject, individual or group,designer

12.3.2. object

12.4. Tools

12.4.1. used in the transformation process

12.4.2. goal-directed hierarchy of actions

12.4.2.1. Activity(e.g., designing instructional materials)

12.4.2.2. needs assessment

12.5. Assumptions of Activity Theory

12.5.1. Minds in Context

12.5.1.1. interactive

12.5.1.1.1. objective world

12.5.1.1.2. conscious activities

12.5.2. Consciousness in the World

12.5.3. Intentionality

12.5.3.1. individuals perceive

12.5.4. Object-Orientedness

12.5.4.1. learning and doing are inseparable

12.5.4.2. they are initiated by an intention.

12.5.4.3. asymmetry between people (subjects) and objects.

12.5.5. Community: A Dialectic Context

12.5.6. Historical-Cultural Dimension

12.5.7. Tool Mediation

12.5.7.1. artifacts

12.5.8. Collaboration

12.5.9. Summary

12.6. Method

12.6.1. Methodological Assumptions of Activity Theory

12.6.1.1. data collection

12.7. Constructivist Learning Environments

12.7.1. Problem-Project Space.

12.7.1.1. problem context, problem presentation, simulation, problem manipulation space.

12.7.2. Related Cases

12.7.3. Information Resources

12.7.3.1. Provide information banks

12.7.4. Cognitive Tools

12.7.5. Conversation and Collaboration Tools.

12.8. PROCESS FOR APPLYING ACTIVITY THEORY FOR DESIGNING CLES

12.8.1. Step One: Clarify purpose of activity system

12.8.2. Step Two: Analyze the Activity System

12.8.3. Step Three: Analyze the Activity Structure

12.8.4. Step Four: Analyze Tools and Mediators

12.8.5. Step Five: Analyzing the Context

12.8.6. Step Six: Analyzing Activity System Dynamics

12.8.6.1. Outcome

13. Teachers’ private theories and their design of technology-based learning

13.1. Introduction

13.1.1. cognitive constructs,beliefs,guiding principles,theories or preconceptions

13.1.2. four major areas of teachers’ private theories

13.1.2.1. learning, students, teacher and technology

13.1.2.2. knowledge of curriculum and pedagogical content

13.1.2.3. learning ability

13.1.2.4. knowledge acquisition.

13.1.2.5. epistemology

13.1.3. methodology

13.1.3.1. qualitative multicase study

13.1.3.1.1. shift

13.1.3.1.2. effective technology integration in learning

13.1.3.2. Study questions

13.1.3.3. Procedure

13.1.3.3.1. The orientation of the prototypes

13.1.3.3.2. prototypes

13.1.3.3.3. Changes

13.1.4. Results: private theories of the four cases in the study

13.1.4.1. Participant one: Tom

13.1.4.1.1. the final discussion

13.1.4.2. Participant two: Eleanor

13.1.4.3. Participant three: Nicole

13.1.4.4. Participant four: Jane

13.1.5. Discussion of results and recommendations

13.1.5.1. Areas of the participants’ private theories

13.1.6. Emerging area of constraints to student-centred design practice

13.1.7. Reflections

13.1.8. Summary and recommendations for further studies

13.1.8.1. six broad areas:

13.1.8.1.1. Four of these six areas were found to be dominant:

14. On the Role of Concepts in Learning and Instructional Design

14.1. Concepts represent a primary learning outcome, without necessarily considering how the concepts are used.

14.1.1. building blocks of higher-order skills without necessarily considering how the concepts will be used.

14.2. Similarity View of Concepts

14.3. Prototype or Probablistic View of Concepts

14.3.1. people actually encode concepts in memory, however, they still treat concepts as isolated and unconnected entities.

14.4. Exemplar View of Concepts

14.5. Other Views of Concepts

14.5.1. Actional View of Concepts

14.5.2. Theory-Based Views of Concepts

14.5.2.1. concepts are organized by theories.

14.5.3. Concepts and Conceptual Change

14.5.4. Others of conceptual change are more revolutionary.

14.5.5. Implications for Assessment: Propositions

14.5.6. Eliciting Conceptual Patterns

14.5.6.1. Free word associations

14.5.6.2. Similarity ratings

14.5.6.3. Card sort

14.5.7. Representing Conceptual Patterns

14.5.7.1. Cognitive maps

14.5.8. Concept Maps

14.5.9. Implications for Instruction: Propositions

14.6. Implications for Assessment: Concepts-in-Use

14.7. Semistructured Interviews

14.8. Think-Aloud Problem Solving

14.9. Implications for Instruction: Concepts-in-Use.

14.10. Summary