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. The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media
2.1. 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.
2.1.1. a multimedia effect
2.1.2. a coherence effect: extraneous material is excluded rather than included
2.1.3. a spatial contiguity effect
2.1.4. a personalization effect
2.1.5. the same instructional design methods are effective across different media
2.1.6. Introduction
2.1.6.1. analysis of verbal-only method of instruction
2.1.6.1.1. positive side
2.1.6.1.2. negative side
2.1.6.1.3. two formats: words and pictures
2.1.6.2. What is the promise of multimedia learning
2.1.6.3. What is a multimedia instructional message?
2.1.6.3.1. words: printed or spoken text
2.1.6.3.2. pictures: static graphics
2.1.6.3.3. meaningful learning
2.1.6.4. How does multimedia learning work?
2.1.6.4.1. limited capacity
2.1.6.5. Do methods work across media?
2.1.6.5.1. the multimedia effect can occur across two different media environments
2.1.6.6. Coherence effect
2.1.6.7. Multimedia effect
2.1.6.8. Contiguity effect
2.1.6.9. Personalization effect
2.1.6.10. Conclusion
2.1.6.10.1. The principles of instructional design do not necessarily change when the learning environment changes
3. Blueprints for Complex Learning:The 4C/ID-Model
3.1. description of the four-component instructional design system(4C/ID-Model)
3.1.1. training programs for complex skills
3.1.1.1. instructional methods
3.1.1.1.1. four interrelated components
3.2. instructional design enterprise
3.2.1. complex knowledge
3.2.2. one important goal
3.2.2.1. gradual evolution of design theory to accommodate complex learning.
3.3. addresses at least three deficits
3.3.1. on the integration and coordinated performance
3.3.2. specifies the performance
3.3.3. recommends a mixture
3.4. a European project called ADAPT-Interactive Tools
3.4.1. cognitive task analysis as a method
3.5. Complex Learning
3.5.1. integrated sets of learning goals
3.5.2. the whole is clearly more than the sum of its parts
3.5.3. skills hierarchy
3.5.3.1. a horizontal relationship
4. Instructional Design & Learning Theory
4.1. Various learning theories and associated instructional design strategies
4.2. difficulty to differentiate between three basic theories of learning.
4.3. Investigation into the available literature on learning theories and implications
4.4. theories and models
4.4.1. The Basics of Behaviorism
4.4.1.1. "Memory" focused on associations being made between events.
4.4.1.2. overt behaviors that can be observed and measured
4.4.1.2.1. Pavlov's Experiment
4.4.1.3. Thorndike's Connectionism
4.4.1.3.1. law of effect
4.4.1.3.2. law of exercise
4.4.1.3.3. law of readiness
4.4.1.4. Watson' Experiment
4.4.1.5. Skinner
4.4.1.5.1. difference between classical and operant conditioning
4.4.1.5.2. Skinner and Behavioral Shaping
4.4.1.5.3. Reinforcement Schedules
4.4.2. The Basics of Cognitivism
4.4.2.1. Edward Tolman
4.4.2.2. Bandura and Walters
4.4.2.3. Jean Piaget's cognitivism
4.4.2.4. Key concepts of cognitive theory
4.4.2.4.1. schema
4.4.2.4.2. three-stage information processing model
4.4.3. The Basics of Constructivism
4.4.3.1. Bartlett as pioneer
4.4.3.2. Jonassen: Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model.
4.4.3.3. Realistic vs. Radical Construction
4.4.3.4. The Assumptions of Constructivism- Merrill
4.4.4. Comparison of Atomic Theory Development to Learning Theory Development
4.4.4.1. Connection what between the three theories
4.5. The History of Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism in Instructional Design
4.5.1. Paul Saettler's book
4.5.1.1. six areas
4.5.2. Behavioral Objectives Movement
4.5.2.1. Taxonomic Analysis of Learning Behaviors
4.5.2.2. Mastery Learning
4.5.2.3. Military and Industrial Approach
4.5.3. Accountability Movement
4.5.3.1. Franklin Bobbitt
4.5.4. Teaching Machines and Programmed Instruction Movement
4.5.5. Early Use of Programmed Instruction
4.5.6. Individualized Approaches to Instruction
4.5.7. Computer-Assisted Instruction(CAI)
4.5.8. Systems Approach to Instruction
4.5.9. Cognitivism and Instructional Design
4.5.9.1. a shift
4.5.10. Cognitivism and Computer-Based Instruction
4.5.10.1. Artificial intelligence
4.5.11. Constructivism and Instructional Design
4.5.11.1. Jonasson
4.5.12. Learning Theories and the Practice of Instructional Design
4.5.13. Learning Theories - Some Strengths and Weaknesses
4.5.14. Is There One Best Learning Theory for Instructional Design?
4.5.14.1. Why bother with Theory at all?
4.5.14.2. An Eclectic Approach to Theory in Instructional Design
4.5.14.3. What Works and How Can We use It?
4.5.14.4. Ertmer and Newby's suggestion
4.6. Conclusion
4.6.1. The distinction between "training" and "education".
4.6.2. a thorough understanding of learning theories
4.6.3. Advancements in technology make branched constructivist approaches to learning possible.
5. Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices
5.1. explores current applications for handheld devices and questions
5.2. facilitate learning in a pedagogically sensible manner
5.3. presents a functional framework
5.3.1. Three categories: data collection, location aware and collaborative
5.4. deserve further research and create new learning opportunities
5.5. the growth of pervasive, ubiquitous, computing will have a large impact on learning.
5.5.1. a certain naive degree of optimism
5.5.2. a simply technological determinist viewpoint
5.5.3. have a role to play in the way we learn
5.6. Related work
5.6.1. The most popular applications for handhelds are referential or presentational in nature.
5.6.1.1. rapid changes in the PDA and mobile phone markets
5.6.1.2. devise classifications for this emerging field.
5.6.2. Pedagogical underpining
5.6.2.1. educationally appropriate pedagogical considerations.
5.7. Functionality framework: categorising handheld educational applications in terms of both application function and pedagogical underpinning.
5.7.1. Administration
5.7.2. Reference
5.7.3. Interactive
5.7.4. Microworld
5.7.4.1. encourage creation and exploration in learners
5.7.4.2. adopt a constructionist approach to learning.
5.7.4.3. limitations on mobile devices result in a restricted version.
5.7.5. Data collection
5.7.6. Location aware
5.7.7. Collaborative
5.8. Collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications
5.8.1. TxtIT:
5.8.2. Mapping challenge:
5.8.3. SortIT:
5.9. Conclusion
5.9.1. depend on how the technology is used
5.9.2. Firstly
5.9.3. Secondly
5.9.4. open source VLE Moodle
6. Teaching and Learning in Digital Environments: The Resurgence of Resource-Based Learning
6.1. EVOLUTION OF RESOURCES FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
6.2. Predigital perspectives
6.2.1. static nature, visual cues, aural cues
6.2.2. with established curriculum objectives
6.2.3. physical location
6.2.4. pragmatic concerns
6.2.5. Packaging
6.3. Emerging perspectives
6.3.1. A resource
6.3.1.1. by the diversity
6.3.1.2. locating potentially
6.3.2. Intact resources(i.e., a single resource such as a book, videotape, etc.)
6.3.3. Emerging systems
6.3.4. Contemporary systems
6.4. Toward Resource-Based Teaching and Learning
6.4.1. AN RBLE PRIMER
6.4.1.1. Components of RBLEs
6.5. Resources
6.5.1. Static
6.5.2. Dynamic
6.5.3. Contexts
6.5.3.1. Externally directed
6.5.3.2. Learner generated
6.5.3.3. Negotiated
6.5.3.3.1. Combination
6.5.4. Tools
6.5.4.1. Searching tools
6.5.4.2. Processing tools
6.5.4.2.1. copy-paste function
6.5.4.2.2. construct and revise representations
6.5.4.3. Manipulating tools
6.5.4.3.1. test beliefs, ideas, and theories.
6.5.4.3.2. explore relationships among motion, force, speed, energy, and mass
6.5.4.3.3. propose and test potential solutions.
6.5.4.3.4. meet specific needs.
6.5.4.4. Communicating tools.
6.5.4.4.1. asynchronous communication tools
6.5.4.5. Scaffolds
6.5.4.5.1. Conceptual scaffolds
6.5.4.5.2. Metacognitive scaffolds
6.5.4.5.3. Procedural scaffolds
6.6. CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND IMPLICATIONS
6.6.1. Standards and conventions for creating and distributing digital resources remain inconsistent.
6.6.2. the software used to distribute the resources is frequently changed
6.6.3. Resource credibility, content validity and reliability are unregulated.
6.6.4. Directed approaches tend to engender compliance and reliance over independent thinking.
6.6.5. Contemporary school accountability standards
6.6.6. Generative learning goals require varied rather than singular learning strategies.
7. Teachers’ private theories and their design of technology-based learning
7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. cognitive constructs,beliefs,guiding principles,theories or preconceptions
7.1.2. four major areas of teachers’ private theories
7.1.2.1. learning, students, teacher and technology
7.1.2.2. knowledge of curriculum and pedagogical content
7.1.2.3. learning ability
7.1.2.4. knowledge acquisition.
7.1.2.5. epistemology
7.1.3. methodology
7.1.3.1. qualitative multicase study
7.1.3.1.1. shift
7.1.3.1.2. effective technology integration in learning
7.1.3.2. Study questions
7.1.3.3. Procedure
7.1.3.3.1. The orientation of the prototypes
7.1.3.3.2. prototypes
7.1.3.3.3. Changes
7.1.4. Results: private theories of the four cases in the study
7.1.4.1. Participant one: Tom
7.1.4.1.1. the final discussion
7.1.4.2. Participant two: Eleanor
7.1.4.3. Participant three: Nicole
7.1.4.4. Participant four: Jane
7.1.5. Discussion of results and recommendations
7.1.5.1. Areas of the participants’ private theories
7.1.6. Emerging area of constraints to student-centred design practice
7.1.7. Reflections
7.1.8. Summary and recommendations for further studies
7.1.8.1. six broad areas:
7.1.8.1.1. Four of these six areas were found to be dominant:
8. A History of Instructional Design
8.1. instructional design models in the 1960s and 1970s
8.2. interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism
8.3. instructional systems design
8.3.1. the analysis of instructional problems
8.4. The Origins of Instructional Design:World War II
8.4.1. instructional design procedures
8.4.2. based on instruction, learning, and human behavior
8.4.3. knowledge of evaluation and testing
8.4.4. Psychological Principles in System Development, edited by Gagne
8.5. More Early Developments: The Programmed Instruction Movement
8.5.1. The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching, Skinner
8.5.1.1. learners be positively reinforced
8.5.1.2. formative evaluation
8.6. The Popularization of Behavioral Objectives
8.6.1. specific objectives
8.6.2. Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction, Robert Mager
8.6.3. Ralph Tyler the father of the behavioral objectives movement
8.6.4. behavioral terms, the basis for evaluating
8.6.5. In the 1950s, cognitive domain
8.6.6. hierarchical relationship
8.7. The Criterion-Referenced Testing Movement
8.7.1. assess student entry-level behavior
8.7.2. determine the extent students had acquired the behaviors
8.7.3. a central feature
8.8. Robert M. Gagne:Domains of Learning, Events of Instruction, and Hierarchical Analysis
8.8.1. Five domains of learning outcomes
8.8.1.1. verbal information
8.8.1.2. intellectual skills
8.8.1.3. psychomotor skills
8.8.1.4. attitudes
8.8.1.5. cognitive strategies
8.8.2. nine events of instruction
8.8.3. hierarchical analysis had a significant impact
8.8.3.1. master subordinate skills before a superordinate one
8.9. Sputnik: The Indirect Launching of Formative Evaluation
8.9.1. summative evaluation
8.10. Early Instructional Design Models
8.10.1. processes or models
8.11. The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in the Systems Approach
8.11.1. many new models:
8.11.1.1. 1970s
8.11.1.1.1. the United States military adopted an instructional design model
8.11.1.1.2. many graduate programs in instructional design were created
8.11.1.1.3. Educational Technology Research and Development
8.11.1.2. 1980s
8.11.1.2.1. Growth and Redirection, interest burgeoned
8.11.1.3. 1990s
8.11.1.3.1. Changing Views and Practices
8.12. Conclusion
8.12.1. instructional media
8.12.2. instructional design
8.12.3. effective use of media requires models of instructional design
8.12.4. a positive influence on future developments
9. Searching for Learner-Centered,Constructivist, and Sociocultural Components of Collaborative Educational Learning Tools
9.1. instructional strategies and tools must be based on some theory of learning and cognition
9.1.1. collaborative education
9.1.1.1. behavioral, cognitive information processing, humanistic, and sociocultural theory
9.1.1.1.1. Problems
9.1.1.1.2. Cunningham's three models of mind that guide our conceptions of learning and cognition
10. Second Generation Instructional Design(ID2)
10.1. First Generation Instructional Design(ID1)
10.1.1. Limitations of ID1
10.1.2. From ID1 we retain Gagne's fundamental assumption.
10.2. an open system
10.3. the components of ID2
10.4. Analyzing and Representing Knowledge for Integrated Goals
10.4.1. mental models, cognitive psychology
10.5. Classes of Knowledge Representations
10.5.1. KRr is a class of representation for the purpose of retrieving the knowledge in various formats.
10.5.2. KRe is the class most often used in artificial intelligence
10.5.3. KRi is the class of interest
10.5.4. Knowledge Representation for ID2
10.5.4.1. elaborated frame network
10.5.4.1.1. three fundamental frame types
10.5.4.1.2. three types of elaborations
10.5.4.1.3. two principal means
10.5.5. Knowledge analysis and acquisition system(KAAS)
10.5.6. Instructional Strategies and Transactions
10.5.6.1. Transactions and Transaction Classes.
10.5.6.1.1. Instructional strategy
10.5.6.1.2. strategy Analysis
10.5.6.1.3. Strategy Analysis System(SAS)
10.5.6.1.4. Transaction Configuration
10.5.6.1.5. An Intelligent Advisor System(IADV)
10.5.6.1.6. An Open System-Mini-Experts
10.5.7. Integration of the ID Phases- A Single Knowledge Representation
10.6. Comparison with Other Approaches
10.7. Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Micro-worlds.
11. Instructional Transaction Theory: An Instructional Design Model based on Knowledge Objects
11.1. Merrill,Li & Jones
11.2. What is Instructional Design Theory?
11.2.1. Instructional Systems Development(ISD)
11.2.1.1. Instructional Design Theory
11.2.1.1.1. Instructional Transaction Theory
11.2.1.1.2. Gagne conditions of learning
11.2.1.1.3. Merrill component display theory
11.2.1.1.4. Architecture for Instructional Transaction Theory
11.2.1.1.5. Component transactions
11.2.1.1.6. Abstraction transactions
11.2.1.1.7. Association transactions
11.2.1.1.8. Sequence transactions
11.2.1.1.9. Enact transactions
12. Web 2.0 and Possibilities for Educational Applications
12.1. novel applications
12.2. new ways of understanding the Internet
12.3. paradigm shift
12.4. benefit, challenges and opportunities
12.5. What is Web 2.0?
12.5.1. novel technological possibilities
12.5.2. Read-Write Web
12.5.2.1. A blog
12.5.2.2. Wiki
12.5.3. Emerging tools
12.5.4. flexible systems
12.6. Subscribing to Information
12.6.1. Internet-based service
12.7. Social Spaces
12.7.1. Resources sharing and referencing systems
12.7.2. Internet-based information retrieval methodology
12.7.2.1. access recommendations
12.7.2.2. collective perception
12.8. The Internet as a Platform
12.8.1. an example: Google Docs
12.9. Open Source
12.9.1. Wikipedia
12.9.2. hackability and remixability
12.10. The Wide Spread of Web 2.0
12.10.1. discover new knowledge from a pool of collective intelligence existing in these environments.
12.10.2. YouTube
12.11. Education and Web 2.0
12.11.1. E-learning 2.0
12.12. Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms
12.12.1. new forms of assessment such as digits portfolios
12.12.2. use of Internet-mediated social learning spaces
12.12.3. new models and methods for design of learning objects
12.12.4. new models for resources sharing and support for technology integration of communities of teachers
12.12.5. new generations of learning management systems (LMS), or possibly no LMS at all
12.12.6. (a) use of a blog to support teaching and learning in a graduate university course, and (b) social spaces and repositories ior teachers.
12.12.6.1. serve as a novel and powerful collective intervention strategy,
12.13. emerging innovative applications of the Internet
12.13.1. changing the culture o i lnternet users.
12.13.2. also a danger
12.13.3. to explore possible implications of Web 2.0
12.13.4. test applications of these technologies in teaching and learning.
12.13.5. mobile phones
13. Activity Theory as a Framework for Designing Constructivist Learning Environments
13.1. Constructivist approaches to learning are clearly based on distinctly different epistemic and pedagogical assumptions
13.2. Activity theory
13.2.1. learning must precede activity
13.2.1.1. goals
13.2.1.2. objects
13.3. Activity System
13.3.1. subject, individual or group,designer
13.3.2. object
13.4. Tools
13.4.1. used in the transformation process
13.4.2. goal-directed hierarchy of actions
13.4.2.1. Activity(e.g., designing instructional materials)
13.4.2.2. needs assessment
13.5. Assumptions of Activity Theory
13.5.1. Minds in Context
13.5.1.1. interactive
13.5.1.1.1. objective world
13.5.1.1.2. conscious activities
13.5.2. Consciousness in the World
13.5.3. Intentionality
13.5.3.1. individuals perceive
13.5.4. Object-Orientedness
13.5.4.1. learning and doing are inseparable
13.5.4.2. they are initiated by an intention.
13.5.4.3. asymmetry between people (subjects) and objects.
13.5.5. Community: A Dialectic Context
13.5.6. Historical-Cultural Dimension
13.5.7. Tool Mediation
13.5.7.1. artifacts
13.5.8. Collaboration
13.5.9. Summary
13.6. Method
13.6.1. Methodological Assumptions of Activity Theory
13.6.1.1. data collection
13.7. Constructivist Learning Environments
13.7.1. Problem-Project Space.
13.7.1.1. problem context, problem presentation, simulation, problem manipulation space.
13.7.2. Related Cases
13.7.3. Information Resources
13.7.3.1. Provide information banks
13.7.4. Cognitive Tools
13.7.5. Conversation and Collaboration Tools.
13.8. PROCESS FOR APPLYING ACTIVITY THEORY FOR DESIGNING CLES
13.8.1. Step One: Clarify purpose of activity system
13.8.2. Step Two: Analyze the Activity System
13.8.3. Step Three: Analyze the Activity Structure
13.8.4. Step Four: Analyze Tools and Mediators
13.8.5. Step Five: Analyzing the Context
13.8.6. Step Six: Analyzing Activity System Dynamics
13.8.6.1. Outcome
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