Instructional Design for Learner Creativity

Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology M. J. Bishop • Elizabeth Boling Jan Elen • Vanessa Svihla Editors Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology Learning Design Fifth Edition Editors M. J. Bishop Kirwan Center for Academic Innovation University System of Maryland Adelphi, MD, USA Jan Elen Education and Training KU Leuven Leuven, Belgium Elizabeth Boling Instructional Systems Technology Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA Vanessa Svihla Organization, Information & Learning Sciences University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM, USA ISBN 978-3-030-36118-1 ISBN 978-3-030-36119-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36119-8 (eBook) © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2014, 2020, Corrected Publication 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Foreword What compels people to take on a task as complex and time-consuming as editing a Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology? This is the fifth edition of these handbooks, a series that was initially conceived at the 1993 conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in New Orleans and later refined at the Professors of Instructional Design and Technology (PIDT) retreat that same year at the Shawnee Bluffs alumni camp on the shore of Monroe Lake in Indiana (Jonassen, 1996a). Although he had the assistance of such notable scholars as John C. Belland, Marcy P. Driscoll, Francis (Frank) M. Dwyer, Donald (Don) P. Ely, Robert (Bob) B. Kozma, Rhonda S. Robinson, and Robert (Bob) D. Tennyson, Dave Jonassen did by far the lion’s share of the editing on the first two editions (Jonassen, 1996b, 2004). Anyone who experienced Dave’s editorial feedback during work on the first two editions of the Handbook can attest to the painstaking rigor he applied to the task. The editors of subsequent volumes have been equally rigorous, but at least they shared “the burden” (and the honor) with others. Along with Dave Jonassen, these editors would be appropriate inclusions on anyone’s list of outstanding scholars in our field. J. Michael (Mike) Spector, M. David (Dave) Merrill, Jeroen van Merriënboer, and Marcy P. Driscoll edited the third edition, and Mike Spector, Dave Merrill, Jan Elen, and M. J. (MJ) Bishop edited the fourth edition. The fifth edition in which this Foreword appears has been edited by MJ Bishop, Elizabeth Boling, Jan Elen, and Vanessa Svihla, yet another impressive team of superb editors. Without speaking for them, our conviction is that these editors took on the complex and time-consuming task for a love of their field, the wish to make cutting-edge scholarship widely accessible to both emerging and established scholars alike, and the commitment to supporting exchange among members of our community. As have the others, we find that this volume succeeds on all three points. v vi Foreword A New Direction The editors of this fifth edition decided to take a bold new direction with the Handbook. Past Handbooks contained many chapters focused on specific technologies or things. For example, the first edition had five chapters focused on “hard technologies” such as television and ten more chapters about “soft technologies” such as “educational games and simulations.” This emphasis on specific technologies continued through the fourth edition, which includes 12 chapters on “emerging technologies” such as e-books and open educational resources. By contrast, most chapters in this new edition focus on difficult problems and how they can be addressed through innovative designs and appropriate technology. In this new Handbook, the editors have curated an excellent set of contributions that target serious educational problems such as the challenge of motivating and engaging students and the need to make learning environments more accessible for all. In addition, the new Handbook contains 13 design cases that are uniquely indexed with the research chapters focused on specific problems. Was this shift to a problem focus necessary? We certainly think so. Those living in every modern age since the development of journalism have probably concluded that they were experiencing the most calamitous times in history, but our own times certainly seem especially fraught with serious peril. Extreme nationalism is on the rise around the globe, racial and religious conflicts persist, global tensions among superpower nations are increasing, the economic gap between haves and have-nots is expanding, and climate change threatens our very existence on the planet (Harari, 2014). Arguably, the best hope for addressing these and other global problems is improving educational opportunities (Desai, Kato, Kharas, & McArthur, 2018). However, learning opportunities and the effectiveness of educational programs still lag far behind needs and expectations (Brock & Alexiadou, 2013; Malone, 2013). Research in the field of educational communications and technology illustrates the persistence of educational problems. For example, the Technological Horizons in Education Journal featured this headline in late 2017: “Most Teachers Say Classroom Tech Helps Students, but Teachers Need More Training.” In fact, the study described in the article found that “Nearly four in five – 78 percent – of teachers say they haven’t received the training they need to effectively use the technology they’re asked to in the classroom” (Bolkan, 2017, para 1). Similarly, in a Spring 2018 survey of more than 2000 K–12 teachers, PwC (2018) found that “Only 10% of US teachers surveyed feel confident teaching higher-level technology skills” (p. 2), a finding that was consistent across grade level, school affluence, and teacher experience level. Who cannot be discouraged by the fact that after decades of providing preservice and in-service technology training, most teachers still say they are ill-prepared to integrate technology into their teaching (Stallard & Cocker, 2014)? Professional development for technology integration is just one area where so much relevant research and development remain to be done. The editors of this Handbook originally defined seven major challenges as the foci for various research Foreword vii reviews, e.g., “understanding how instructional design/technology can help all learners to be successful” and “understanding how instructional design/technology contributes to learning outcomes within specific subject-matter domains.” The last of the major challenges in their organizational scheme was “understanding the role instructional design/technology plays in achieving larger educational goals.” Sadly, not a single review was completed for this challenge. For us, it is disappointing, but not surprising, that educational technology and communications researchers were unable to submit even a single review related to how our field responds to larger educational goals. After all, the bulk of the scholarship in educational technology and communications has been focused on “things” rather than on “problems.” In an attempt to summarize the history of the last two decades of educational technology, Weller (2018) identified the 20 most significant “different educational technology, theory, or concept” from 1998 to 2018. Seventeen of these referred to specific things (e.g., learning objects for 2000 and MOOCs for 2012), and none of the selections focused on a specific problem. Indeed, Weller wrote in reference to his 2017 selection, blockchain, that “its adoption [can be seen] as an end goal in itself, rather than as an appropriate solution to a specific problem.” The same can be said for virtually every educational technology introduced into schools, universities, training centers, and other locations where learning is supposed to occur over the past 60 years (Reeves, 1995; Reeves & Reeves, 2015). Online and blended learning contexts are also susceptible to having new technology tossed over their virtual walls, often with no or even detrimental effects, a factor likely contributing to the underperformance of these approaches (Bettinger & Loeb, 2017). Despite the gaps that were not able to be filled in the proposed Handbook structure, there are signs of hope throughout this volume that our field is beginning to focus less on technology per se and more to the solution of specific challenges. For example, excellent reviews are reported with respect to “enhancing self-regulated learning in online learning environments,” “developing expertise and expert performance,” “improving knowledge transfer,” and “promoting critical thinking,” among others. The focus on challenges in this edition of the Handbook is also supported by the inclusion of design cases. The editors have solicited and reviewed more than a dozen design cases to offer a range of rigorous and detailed descriptions of instructional designs being carried out in the field. These unique design cases are focused on important challenges in education and training and encompass topics as diverse as criminology, foster parent training, and military science. These original works of scholarship enable readers to walk in the shoes of real-world designers as they experience the highs and low of meeting design, development, and evaluation challenges. The integration of these original design cases with the research synthesis chapters yields an innovative Handbook replete with invaluable insights that can and should be applied to the advancement of research and practice in our field and beyond. viii Foreword Scholarship to Address Contemporary Challenges We fully appreciate scholarship that builds scientific understanding of the world around us. At the same time, we feel a sense of urgency to ensure that such understanding is put to use, with the ultimate goal of contributing to the quality and benefits of education. Given this goal, we see multiple opportunities to leverage the expertise manifested in the current Handbook. While additional possibilities abound, we describe three potential perspectives from which the Handbook might be used. First, we recommend adopting an external framework of major goals or significant problems for organizing the research literature in our field and viewing the Handbook as a toolkit for addressing them. One such candidate could be the 17 Sustainable Development Goals specified by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 to be achieved by 2030 (Dodds, Donoghue, & Roesch, 2017). Only one of these goals is directly related to education, specifically Goal 4: “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” But all 17 of the goals have obvious links to education, e.g., Goal 1 “End poverty in all its forms everywhere,” Goal 2 “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture,” Goal 3 “Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,” and Goal 5 “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.” Poverty will not be reduced, much less eradicated, unless the populace of the world is provided with excellent educational opportunities. Indeed, effective education is the key to ending hunger, improving health, empowering women and girls, and accomplishing all other Sustainable Development Goals. And if there is one lesson that the research and development efforts described in this Handbook highlights above all others, it is that learning and design must always proceed technology if effective educational programs are to be developed and sustained (Kolb, 2017). A second recommended approach involves building research agendas in collaboration with practitioners in schools, universities, businesses, and other sectors and using the Handbook’s focal areas to inspire and guide the initial dialogue. If undertaken in collaboration with a professional organization like the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), such an endeavor could establish the field of educational technology as preeminent in meeting global problems related to education. Imagine how such a collaboration could foster robust, multi-year research agendas focused on important problems and innovative solutions, the outputs of which yield direct added-value for practice. Such an approach might not only support teaching and learning in the field. It could also help develop the shared understanding, language, and eventually infrastructure so urgently needed to change the academic promotion and tenure system, which remains one of the largest obstacles to conducting research that matters. Tenure and promotion decisions must rely on evidence of impact, but current indicators to quantify impact – journal citations, impact factors, or the amount of funding researchers have attracted – focus on scholarly merit only. Foreword ix Third, we suggest viewing the focal areas of the Handbook as reminders of key issues to attend to when designing solutions to educational challenges that involve technology. This can be useful in the case of research-informed design, as well as when it comes to design-based research. This kind of work is “a genre of research in which the iterative development of solutions to practical and complex educational problems also provides the context for empirical investigation, which yields theoretical understanding that can inform the work of others” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 6). Many of the contributions within this volume can help designers of solutions to educational problems by offering analytical lenses, design considerations, or evaluation constructs. The AECT’s mission is to “provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best practices in the creation, use, and management of technologies for effective teaching and learning” (www.aect.org). As such, it seems entirely fitting that this volume of the Handbook is focused on contemporary challenges and how innovative designs and appropriate technologies can address them. Our hope is that the readers will be able to use the outstanding contributions in the Handbook for researching and developing solutions that offer added value to practice while at the same time contributing to the enrichment of theoretical knowledge. More than anything, we hope that this trend toward sharing usable knowledge evident in both the research chapters and the design cases will be continued in the future. Thomas C. Reeves The University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA Susan McKenney University of Twente Enschede, The Netherlands References Bettinger, E., & Loeb, S. (2017). Promises and pitfalls of online education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bolkan, J. (2017, October). Most teachers say classroom tech helps students, but teachers need more training. THE Journal: Technological Horizons in Education. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2017/10/26/most-teachers-say-classroom-tech-helps-students-but-teachers-need-more-training.aspx Brock, C., & Alexiadou, N. (2013). Education around the world: A comparative introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Desai, R. M., Kato, H., Kharas, H., & McArthur, J. W. (2018). From summits to solutions: Innovations in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Dodds, F., Donoghue, A. D., & Roesch, J. L. (2017). Negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals: A transformational agenda for an insecure world. London: Routledge. Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York: Harper. x Foreword Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (1996a). Preface. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. xiii-xiv). New York: Macmillan. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (1996b). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan. Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.) (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kolb, L. (2017). Learning first, technology second: The educator’s guide to designing authentic lessons. Portland, OR: International Society for Technology in Education. Malone, H. J. (Ed.). (2013). Leading educational change: Global issues, challenges, and lessons on whole-system reform. New York: Teachers College Press. McKenney, S. & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. PwC (2018). Technology in US schools: Are we preparing our kids for the jobs of tomorrow? Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/about-us/corporate-responsibility/assets/pwc-arewe-preparing-our-kids-for-the-jobs-of-tomorrow.pdf Reeves, T. C. (1995). Questioning the questions of instructional technology research. In M. R. Simonson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual conference of the association for educational communications and technology, research and theory division (pp. 459-470), Anaheim, CA. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Educational technology research in a VUCA world. Educational Technology, 55(2), 26-30. Stallard, C. K., & Cocker, J. (2014). Education technology and the failure of American schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Contents PART 1 Research Chapters Introduction to Research Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan Elen and M. J. Bishop Section I 3 Understanding How Instructional Design/Technology Can Help All Learners Be Successful Motivating and Engaging Students Using Educational Technologies . . . Brett D. Jones Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining Motivation and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antecedents and Consequences of Motivation and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . Motivation Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessing Motivation and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behavioral Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ratings by Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Physiological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Instruction to Motivate and Engage Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empowerment Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Usefulness Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Success Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interest Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caring Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evidence for the MUSIC Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Motivating Effects of Current Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues in the Study of Motivation and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construct Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpretation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 xi xii Contents Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technologies to Enhance Self-Regulated Learning in Online and Computer-Mediated Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jaclyn Broadbent, Ernesto Panadero, Jason M. Lodge, and Paula de Barba What Is Self-Regulated Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Regulated Learning in Traditional Versus Digitally Mediated Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technologies to Support and Foster SRL in Online Environments . . . . . . . . The Use of Non-SRL Tools for SRL Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A New and Promising Area for SRL Research: Learning Analytics . . . . . . . Current Challenges to Enhance Students’ Self-Regulation in Online and Computer-Mediated Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Expertise and Expert Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter J. Fadde and Patricia Sullivan Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues and Considerations in the Design of Expertise Training . . . . . . . . . . . Who Can Benefit from Expertise Training? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mental Functions for Expertise Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Recognition Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Intuitive Decision-Making and Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Design Models for Expertise Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expertise-Based Training (XBT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert-Performance-Based Training (ExPerT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ShadowBox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrative Pedagogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example: Training Classroom Noticing Via Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enhancing Knowledge Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nina Bonderup Dohn, Lina Markauskaite, and Roland Hachmann Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaches to Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behaviorist Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situated Cognition Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participationist Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developmental Practices Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main Strategies for Enhancing Transfer with Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paradigmatic Learning Designs for Facilitating Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behaviorist Approach: Transfer Through Computer-Based Skills Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 37 39 40 41 44 44 46 49 50 53 53 55 56 58 58 60 60 61 62 63 64 65 67 68 73 73 74 75 75 76 78 79 80 81 84 Contents xiii Cognitive Approach: Model-Based Learning for Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situated Cognition Approach: Transfer by Playing Epistemic Games . . . . Participationist Approach: Transfer Through Mediational Practices . . . . . Developmental Practices Approach: Transfer as Knowledge Co-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 87 88 Section II 90 91 92 Understanding How to Accommodate Differences Among Learners Through Instructional Design/Technology Using Technology to Address Individual Differences in Learning . . . . . . Pavlo D. Antonenko, Kara Dawson, Li Cheng, and Jiahui Wang Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual Differences as States and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promising Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressing State-Level Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pretraining Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressing Process-Level Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translating Research on Individual Differences to Educator Practice: Universal Design for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Technology: Social Context and Intersectionality . . . . . . . . Katy Campbell A Turn in the Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Meaning of Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Meaning of Intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Is Socially Situated, and So Is Gender: A Context for Emerging Trends in Educational Technology Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Cultural Deficit Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Learning Research Circa 1980–2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Learning Research Circa 2005–2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Typical Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture and Gender Stereotypes: Bias and Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Psychosocial Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Generational Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Digital Access Divide to Social Inclusion: Gender and Digital Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 99 100 101 102 103 103 105 105 108 109 111 115 116 116 117 118 120 121 121 122 126 132 133 134 139 148 152 xiv Contents Gender Online: Social Media, Age, and Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Pedagogical Practices: Schools and Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and the Post-secondary Learning Environment: Disciplinary Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender in STEM Workplaces: Intersections with Race and Culture . . . . . Emerging Challenges and Research Directions Beyond 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . Gender and Design Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing for Accessibility: The Intersection of Instructional Design and Disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michele D. Estes, Cheryl L. Beverly, and Marco Castillo Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Research Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persons with Disability Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Technology Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Research Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Universal Design for Learning (UDL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inclusive Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adult Learners: Accommodation and Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Instructional Design to Facilitate Access to, and through, Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategies and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflective Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intellectual Development and Aging of Adults in Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eunjung Grace Oh and Yi-Chun Hong Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lifelong Learning and Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intellectual Development in Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Recent Literature on Educational Technology and the Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Development of Online Learning for Adult Learners . . . . . . . . . . Factors Influencing Adults’ Adoptions of Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . External Agents to Support Older Adults’ Learning of New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technologies Collecting Older Adults with the Societies and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 163 167 171 178 180 190 205 205 206 209 209 210 211 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 219 222 223 229 229 230 232 235 235 238 238 239 240 242 243 Contents xv Equity-Centered Approaches to Educational Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . . Antero Garcia and Clifford H. Lee Understanding Contexts of Equity and Contesting “Gaps” in Student Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Allure of Technology as an Educational Panacea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing, Sustaining, and Researching Equity-Centered Approaches to Educational Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Cultural Implications in Educational Technology: A Survey . . . . . . . . . . Patricia A. Young and Tutaleni I. Asino Web-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Web 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOOCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 Using Technology to Facilitate Second Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . Yanghee Kim, Sherry Marx, and Joshua Thoms Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Educational Need of Second Language Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent SLL Research and Contributions of Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providing Systematic Instruction and Collaborative Activities . . . . . . . . . Addressing SLL Learners’ Unique Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Balanced Second Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating Supportive Language Learning Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Learners’ Native Language and Culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Research Questions and Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Sustainable and Scalable Technologies for SLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 Section III 249 250 253 257 258 264 265 265 266 267 268 270 271 273 275 276 277 278 279 285 286 286 287 288 289 289 290 291 292 294 Understanding the Role Instructional Design/Technology Plays in Achieving Broader Learning Outcomes Insights and Development of Non-cognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeffrey Pedersen Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-cognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 301 301 xvi Contents Distinguishing the Terms Cognitive, Non-cognitive, and Skills . . . . . . . . . Non-cognitive Skills Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-cognitive Skills in the Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature and Nurture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formal Educational Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educators and Non-cognitive Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Instructional Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meaningful and Active Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emotion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment and Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Understanding Learners’ Challenges and Scaffolding their Ill-structured Problem Solving in a Technology-Supported Self-Regulated Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victor Law, Xun Ge, and Kun Huang Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert Model of Self-Regulated, Ill-Structured Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . Learners’ Challenges in Solving Ill-Structured Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learners’ Challenges Within Problem Representation and Solution Generation Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learners’ Challenges Navigating Between Problem Representation and Solution Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designing Technology-Supported Learning Environments to Support Ill-Structured Problem Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design of Problem Scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scaffolding and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitating Ill-Structured Problem Solving in Technology-Supported Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert/Instructor Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peer Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tying Together: An Illustration of Holistic Scaffolding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 302 302 303 304 305 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 314 315 321 321 322 323 325 325 328 328 329 329 332 332 334 336 337 338 A Systematic Review on E-learning Environments for Promoting Critical Thinking in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Blanca Puig, Paloma Blanco Anaya, and Inés M. Bargiela Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Learning to Think Critically in Higher Education. Teaching Approaches, Interventions, and Learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 Contents xvii Thinking Critically in E-learning Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characterization of E-learning Environments for Promoting Critical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Thinking in E-learning: Assessment, Good Practices, and Difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Challenges for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348 350 351 Supporting Sociocultural Learning in Online and Blended Learning Environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casey Frechette Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Sociocultural Learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facilitating Sociocultural Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Relevant Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Design for Learner Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jason K. McDonald, Richard E. West, Peter J. Rich, and Brad Hokanson Understanding Learner Creativity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divergent and Convergent Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creative Self-Efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improvisation and Playfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willingness to Accept Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abstract Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fostering Creativity in Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Individual Creative Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improving Learners’ Holistic Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translating Creativity Research into Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fostering Creativity Through Instructional Design and Technology . . . . . . . Makerspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robotics Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studio Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Creativity Through System and Space Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching That Nurtures Creativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promoting Holistic Creative Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 354 357 359 363 363 363 365 366 373 373 375 376 377 378 378 379 379 380 380 380 381 382 383 384 385 387 389 389 390 391 392 393 xviii Contents Educating with Technology for Youth’s Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . Lesley S. J. Farmer Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizen and Civic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizen Education Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linking the Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact of Technology on Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology and Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology and Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issues with Technology for Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Youth-Specific Attitudes About Technology and Civic Engagement . . . . . Research Questions and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology Support of Civic Education for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Practices in Technology’s Role in Citizen Education for Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Action Civics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community-Based Civic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizen Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizen Journalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section IV 401 401 402 402 403 403 404 405 405 405 406 407 409 410 412 413 414 414 415 415 416 417 418 Understanding How Instructional Design/Technology Contributes to Learning Outcomes Within Specific Subject-Matter Domains Minding the Gap: Lacking Technology Inquiries for Designing Instruction to Retain STEM Majors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phillip Andrew Boda and Vanessa Svihla Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barriers and Drivers of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engaging Learners in Agentive Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Building on Students’ Cultural Practices and Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting STEM Learning with Educational Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . Future Directions for More Equitable Technology-Enhanced STEM Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Instructional Design in Supporting the Transfer of Mathematical Knowledge and Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fatih Ari, Ismahan Arslan-Ari, Fethi A. Inan, and Raymond Flores Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quantitative Literacy, Mathematical Literacy, and More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 423 424 426 427 428 429 431 437 437 438 Contents The Issues with Teaching and Learning for Mathematical Literacy . . . . . . . . Decontextualized Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Individualized Instruction and Scaffolding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students’ Perceptions, Attitudes, Motivation, and Confidence . . . . . . . . . . Role of Instructional Design in Addressing the Issues of Mathematical Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situating the Mathematics Learning in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individualizing the Mathematics Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enhancing Motivational Outcomes and Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Educational and Communications Technologies Play a Role in Arts and Humanities Teaching and Learning . . . . . . . . . . Erica Rosenfeld Halverson, Anna Jordan-Douglass, Jessie Nixon, and Emily Schindler What Theoretical Ideas Guide the Use of ECT in Arts and Humanities Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Counts as ECT in the Arts and the Humanities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaboration and Community Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Have ECTs Been Taken Up in Arts and Humanities-Based Educational Settings? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informal Learning Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Do ECTs Matter for the Arts and Humanities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vocational and Technical Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian S. Horvitz, Regina L. Garza Mitchell, Lisa R. Garcia, and Cherrelle D. Singleton Needs and Problems in Vocational and Technical Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Relevant Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem-Solving Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Employability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupation-Specific Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Resource Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Approaches and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix 440 440 440 441 441 442 444 445 447 448 451 452 454 454 455 456 457 457 458 459 461 462 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 xx Section V Contents Understanding the Role Instructional Design/Technology Plays in Different Learning Contexts The Digital Divide in Formal Educational Settings: The Past, Present, and Future Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Albert D. Ritzhaupt, Li Cheng, Wenjing Luo, and Tina N. Hohlfeld Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brief History of Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Definition of Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Digital Divide Problem and Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1: School Infrastructure and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 2: Classrooms and Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 3: Individual Students and Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Recent Empirical Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 2 Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 3 Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridging the Three Levels of Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 1 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 2 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Level 3 Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Educational Technology in Informal Learning Environments: Making and Tinkering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peter Wardrip and Jean Ryoo Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Informal Learning and “Making and Tinkering” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Technology and Learning in Informal Making and Tinkering . . Addressing Issues of Inequity in Learning with Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section VI 483 483 484 485 486 487 487 488 489 490 492 493 494 494 496 498 499 500 505 505 507 509 514 515 515 Understanding the Role Instructional Design/Technology Plays in Measuring and Communicating Learning Outcomes Assessing Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randall Davies Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Objectives and Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Formative and Summative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Objectively Scored Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning Objectives Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 521 522 522 522 522 523 523 Contents Problems Associated with Assessing Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difficulty in Assessing Higher-Level Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Instrument that Do Not Align with the Test Purpose or Learning Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Inappropriate Types of Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Writing Quality Test Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solving the Assessment Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative Assessment: A Pedagogical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology-Enabled Assessment Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer-Assisted Language Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reporting Assessment Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competencies in Context: New Approaches to Capturing, Recognizing, and Endorsing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daniel T. Hickey, Suraj L. Uttamchandani, and Grant T. Chartrand Definition of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comprehensive Responses to this Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Relatively Specific Response to this Problem: Open Digital Badges . . . . . Open Digital Badges in the Assessment BOOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples Badges from the Assessment BOOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Measuring Achievement to Capturing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capturing Richer Evidence of Learning Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capturing Broader Evidence of Individual Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capturing Evidence of Social Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capturing Evidence from Learning Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Credentialing Graduates to Recognizing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognizing Learning Openly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognizing a Broader Range of Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognizing a Broader Range of Proficiency of a Competency . . . . . . . . . Recognizing Opportunities for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recognizing Evidence to Motivate Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Accrediting Schools to Endorsing Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Endorsing Learning with Peer Endorsement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Endorsing Learning with Peer Promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledging All Learning: Alternative, Micro, and Open Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Richard E. West, Timothy Newby, Zui Cheng, Alyssa Erickson, and Kyle Clements Definitions and Affordances of Alternative Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amount of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi 524 525 526 526 527 527 527 529 533 535 536 537 547 547 549 551 553 554 557 558 561 562 566 567 567 570 572 574 574 575 579 580 581 584 593 594 594 595 xxii Contents Shareability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Verifiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs and Challenges with Educational Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Credential Interpreters (Marketplace) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Credential Earners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Credential Issuers (Educational Institutions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Research Findings into Open Microcredentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on Microcredentials as Effective Credentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on Microcredentials as Motivational Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research on Microcredentials from a Pedagogical Perspective . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Chapters Afterword: What Role Could and Should Instructional Designers and Technologists Play in Achieving Larger Educational Goals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbara A. Bichelmeyer PART 2 595 595 595 596 597 599 600 601 603 605 607 608 615 Design Case Chapters Introduction to Design Case Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vanessa Svihla and Elizabeth Boling What Is this Section? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Are Design Cases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is this Section Doing in a Research Handbook? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How this Section of the Handbook Might Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspective: Context and Focus of the Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspective: Curators’ Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WASH by Design: A Design Case on the Collaborative Curriculum Project for Elementary Schools in Rural Papua New Guinea . . . . . . . . . Khendum Gyabak Context: Situating the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making Up the Design Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My Role as a Researcher and Designer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifying Stakeholders in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Know WASH: Curating Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale for Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629 629 630 631 632 633 637 643 644 647 647 648 648 649 650 650 651 654 656 658 Contents xxiii Designing with Forgiveness in Mind for the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camille Dickson-Deane Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating Opportunities to Share Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Decisions Considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Showing My Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Redesigned Course and Its Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intended Experience for the Redesigned Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedagogical Design of Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distinctive Aspects of the Redesigned Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conflicting Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Underlying Aspects That Influenced the Redesigning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned: Moving Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 A Design Case of an Enterprise-Wide Learning Management System . . Michael C. Johnson, Larry L. Seawright, and Jason K. McDonald Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Design Considerations and Guiding Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effects of the Shortened Timeline on the Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Implementation of Learning Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 675 Finding Junctures in Learning Design and Entrepreneurship: A Case of Experiential Learning in Online Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana-Paula Correia The Case for a Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So, What Is the Problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design and Implementation Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants’ Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Key Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . My Igniting First Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Course Initiation, Promotion, Content, and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contribute to Elevate Social Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Work as a Member of a Geographically Distributed Design Team . . . . . . Address Real Educational Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Explore Entrepreneurial Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Join a Professional Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Were the Design Decisions Impactful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Difficulties Encountered During the Design Case’s Enactment . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 662 663 663 665 666 667 668 668 669 671 671 672 675 676 677 679 684 686 688 689 689 690 691 692 693 694 694 696 700 701 704 707 709 709 711 712 xxiv Contents Expanding the Reach to First-Generation Students: A Collaborative Learning Experience Between Criminology Students in Sweden and the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julaine M. Fowlin, Carina Gallo, and My Lilja Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Conception and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning and Key Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Institutional-Level Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task Design and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Interaction and Sense of Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incentive and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Successes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reinventing Military Science in Higher Education: Using Service Learning and Cloud Computing to Develop Future Leaders . . . . . . . . . . Robert Monk, Carrie Lewis Miller, and Hunter King Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem-Based Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service-Learning Project Design and Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Project Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology Tool Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fall 2013: Mesa Community Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spring 2014: Operation Smoke the Kids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Project Feasibility and Over-/Underestimating Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . Span of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fall 2013 Mesa Community Service Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spring 2014 Operation Smoke the Kids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service-Learning Project Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflections on the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future of ROTC and Instructional Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Activity-based Design Case for Step-by-step Teaching of Programming to Secondary School Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ali Kürşat Erümit How the Idea Came Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forming the Design Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713 713 715 715 717 719 720 722 723 726 728 728 731 732 735 735 736 736 737 737 738 739 739 740 741 744 747 748 749 749 749 750 750 751 751 753 753 754 Contents xxv Defining the Problem and Understanding Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identifying Topics for Lesson Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Choosing Steps for Teaching Algorithmic Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Initial Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review and Refinement Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Design Team Refinement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Feedback and Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Testing of Lesson Plans and Further Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754 757 757 760 760 760 763 766 767 767 Supports for Digital Science Games: Visualizing and Mapping Analogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wendy Martin, Megan Silander, Katherine McMillan Culp, Cornelia Brunner, and John Parris Integrating Digital Games into Instruction to Dislodge Science Misconceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Rationale for the Design of the Digital Games and Instructional Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evolution of the Possible Worlds Digital Game Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evolution of the Design of the Possible Worlds Instructional Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructional Material Design Guided by a New Theory: Analogy Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lessons Learned over Ten Years of Game and Materials Design and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Case for Asynchronous Online Professional Development in Primary Grades Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drew Polly and Christie Martin Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Decisions in Our Design Process of the Professional Learning Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reflections on Distinctive Aspects of the Design and Plans for Future Design Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evolutional and Technological Influences in Design: A Longitudinal Examination of the PRIDE Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robin A. Medley, Charles Nolley, Tony Labriola, Yevette Brown, Mick Polowy, Victoria Lloyd, Cindy S. York, and Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where Our Story Begins: The Time, Place, and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 769 770 772 773 781 783 785 787 789 789 790 791 794 796 797 799 799 800 xxvi Contents The PRIDE Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thinking Long-Term During a Rapidly Changing Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Available Technologies Influenced Our Media Selection and Early Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collaboration Challenges Within the Design and Development of the First Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Designated” Design Team and Marathon Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . Balancing Language, Culture, and Character Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documenting a Shared Coding System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples of Our Navigational Designs and the Rationales Behind Them. . . . Letting Learners See Their Progress Through Content Pages and Progress Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guiding Learners Through the Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letting Learners Know the Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How the Look of Our Training Changed over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in Our Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Challenges with Creating Videos for the Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . Keeping Score: Our Thoughts on Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Final Take on What We Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Situated Learning Through Situating Learners as Designers . . . . . . . . . Jonan Phillip Donaldson, Amanda Barany, and Brian K. Smith Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designers’ Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Course Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Product and Student Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designer Perceptions and Reflections on the Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Cross-Cultural Instructional Design Case Situated in a Global Workplace Learning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeroen Breman and Lisa A. Giacumo Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artifact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performance Support Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Design Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 801 802 803 804 804 805 807 808 808 810 811 812 812 814 815 817 819 819 819 820 820 821 822 822 824 829 832 833 834 837 838 839 840 840 841 846 846 Contents xxvii Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilot Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847 848 851 853 Reconciliation as Design: A Design Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diane P. Janes, Janice Makokis, and Kathryn Campbell The Context of the Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855 Design Case Chapters Afterword: The Challenges and Opportunities of Sharing Design Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joshua Danish 855 857 858 858 859 862 865 865 867 Correction to: An Activity-based Design Case for Step-by-step Teaching of Programming to Secondary School Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875