Principles of Learning

Sample Syllabus

Principles of Learning Syllabus  – Spring 2018

Selected Readings

  • 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 Development54(3), 245–263.
  • Gadamer, H.-G. (2001). Education is Self-Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education35(4), 529–538.
  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology, Research and Development39(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 Development53(2), 84–98.
  • Phillips, D. C. (1995). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism. Educational Researcher24(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 Researcher27(2), 4–13.
  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Internaional Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning2(1).
  • Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant Behavior. American Psychologist18, 503–515.
  • Thomas, G. (1997). What’s the Use of Theory? Harvard Educational Review67(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 Psychology33(4), 216–232.

The instructional design studio as an example of model-centered instruction

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.

Abstract:

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

At Academia.edu

At ResearchGate

Direct link