Instructional Design for Business and Non-Profits Syllabus – Fall 2018
Textbooks I Use/Have Used
Design For How People Learn, by Julie Dirksen
This course is an undergraduate version of my graduate introduction to instructional design. For topics and other materials please see what I’ve posted there: course materials for Introduction to Instructional Design.
Principles of Learning Syllabus – Spring 2018
- Barab, S. A., & Dodge, T. (2007). Strategies for Designing Embedded Curriculum. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology(3rd ed., pp. 97–110). New York: Routledge.
- Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating the Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 245–263.
- Gadamer, H.-G. (2001). Education is Self-Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(4), 529–538.
- Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
- McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning from Programmed Instruction: Examining Implications for Modern Instructional Technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.
- Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12.
- Schank, R. C., & Berman, T. R. (2002). The Pervasive Role of Stories in Knowledge and Action. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations(pp. 287–313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
- Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Internaional Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1).
- Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant Behavior. American Psychologist, 18, 503–515.
- Thomas, G. (1997). What’s the Use of Theory? Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75–104.
- Yanchar, S. C., & South, J. B. (2008). Struggling with Theory? A Qualitative Investigation of Conceptual Tool Use in Instructional Design.
- Yanchar, S. C., Spackman, J. S., & Faulconer, J. E. (2013). Learning as embodied familiarization. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 216–232.
This is an analysis of the attributes of various design studio cases that have been published in various fields. My intent was to situate the aspects of studio pedagogy in some kind of framing that would allow people interested in the studio to more intentionally plan how they implement different studio components.
This was the first paper I wrote when I came back to the university, but it took two years of reviews and revisions (and three different journals) before it found a home. There’s a lesson in that somewhere, I suppose.
This study describes how instructional design (ID) educators can better understand and implement design studio pedagogy, by comparing the approach to the principles of model-centered instruction (MCI). I studied this issue through a focused literature review of recent cases of ID studio implementations, comparing features and activities in each case to the conceptual principles of MCI. In aggregate, this analysis provides seventeen individual options for how educators can structure the ID studio. Additionally, comparing studio practice to MCI may also help ID educators experiment with their own studio improvements in a more systematic manner.
At BYU Scholars Archive