R2D2: Difference between revisions

The educational technology and digital learning wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 31: Line 31:
* Chen, Hui-Hui (2005), Selecting Computer Mindtools: Usability Of A Web Tool For Constructiivist Learning - A Qualitative Perspective, PhD. Dissertation, Texas Tech University. [http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07262005-040138/unrestricted/Chen_HuiHui_diss.pdf PDF]
* Chen, Hui-Hui (2005), Selecting Computer Mindtools: Usability Of A Web Tool For Constructiivist Learning - A Qualitative Perspective, PhD. Dissertation, Texas Tech University. [http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07262005-040138/unrestricted/Chen_HuiHui_diss.pdf PDF]


* Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instr5uctional design model based on constructivist-interpretist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-23.p
* Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27. [http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf PDF]
 
* Tam, Maureen (2000), Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning, Educational Technology & Society 3(2) ISSN 1436-4522 [http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html PDF]
 
* Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-23
 
* Willis, J. (1998). Alternative instructional design paradigms: What\u2019s worth discussing and what isn\u2019t. Educational Technology, 38 (3), 5-16.


[[Category: Instructional design models]]
[[Category: Instructional design models]]
[[Category: Instructional design methods]]
[[Category: Instructional design methods]]

Revision as of 12:56, 3 October 2006

Draft

Definition

The model

According to Willis (1995) defines the following characteristics of a typical constructivist-interpretivist instructional design model

  1. The ID process is recursive, non-linear, and sometimes chaotic.
  2. Planning is organic, developmental, reflective, and collaborative.
  3. Objectives emerge from design and development work.
  4. General ID experts don't exist.
  5. Instruction emphasizes learning in meaningful contexts.
  6. Formative evaluation is critical.
  7. Subjective data may be the most valuable

In contrast to many instructional systems design models, Willis claims in particular that objectives do not guide lesson development, rather that they emerge during development. The main components of his development method are:

  • Define
  • Design
  • Develop
  • Disseminate

Links

References

  • Chen, Hui-Hui (2005), Selecting Computer Mindtools: Usability Of A Web Tool For Constructiivist Learning - A Qualitative Perspective, PhD. Dissertation, Texas Tech University. PDF
  • Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27. PDF
  • Tam, Maureen (2000), Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning, Educational Technology & Society 3(2) ISSN 1436-4522 PDF
  • Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-23
  • Willis, J. (1998). Alternative instructional design paradigms: What\u2019s worth discussing and what isn\u2019t. Educational Technology, 38 (3), 5-16.