Aprovechar la toma de decisiones dinámica y el análisis ambiental para respaldar experiencias de aprendizaje auténticas en entornos digitales

Autores/as

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/red.412171
Palabras clave: authentic learning, contextual analysis, decision-making practices, instructional design, online instruction

Resumen

Authentic learning is a pedagogical approach that situates students in real-world settings. Authentic learning experiences in online environments allow learners to solve real-world problems when they immerse in real-world settings. It thereby requires instructional designers to make contextualized design decisions to enhance students’ online authentic learning experiences. The purpose of this paper is to provide instructional designers with a conceptual framework to help guide their instructional design decisions for authentic learning experiences in online environments. We purport that these design decisions should be guided by three constructs: authentic learning, decision-making, and contextual analysis. We also provide recommendations for future research on decision-making practices and processes in instructional design contexts.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Authors (2014)

Authors (2017)

Authors (2018a)

Authors (2018b)

Authors (2019)

Authors (2020)

Al Mamun, M. A., Lawrie, G., & Wright, T. (2020). Instructional design of scaffolded online

learning modules for self-directed and inquiry-based learning environments. Computers

& Education, 144, 103695.

anak Marcus, V. B., Atan, N. A., Jumaat, N. F., Junaidi, J., & Said, M. N. H. M. (2018).

Improving student’s learning outcomes through e-service learning based on authentic

learning strategy. Innovative Teaching and Learning Journal, 2(1), 8-16.

Arias, S., & Clark, K. A. (2004). Instructional technologies in developing countries: A

contextual analysis approach. TechTrends, 48(4), 52-55.

Arthur, W. B. (1994). Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American Economic

Review, 84(2), 406-411.

Baaki, J., & Tracey, M.W. (2019). Weaving a localized context of use: What it means for

instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 8(1), 1-13.

Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Y. Coello & M.

H. Fischer (Eds.), Perceptual and emotional embodiment: Foundations of embodied

cognition (pp. 19–45). New York, NY: Routledge.

Colton, A. B., & Sparks-Langer, G. M. (1993). A conceptual framework to guide the

development of teacher reflection and decision making. Journal of Teacher Education,

(1), 45-54.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. New York, NY: Berg.

Cui, G., Lockee, B., & Meng, C. (2013). Building modern online social presence: A review of

social presence theory and its instructional design implications for future trends.

Education and information technologies, 18(4), 661-685.

Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2016). An instructional design framework for fostering

student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends, 60(6), 532-539.

De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational

decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684-687.

Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human

Factors, 37(1), 65-84.

Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship

model. Performance improvement quarterly, 8(4), 43-58.

Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of

the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5),

-636.

Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses:

The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content.

Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157.

Ertmer, P.A., Stepich, D.A., York, C., S., Stickman, A., Wu, X.L., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y.

(2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-

structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17-42.

García-Cabrero, B., Hoover, M. L., Lajoie, S. P., Andrade-Santoyo, N. L., Quevedo-Rodríguez,

L. M., & Wong, J. (2018). Design of a learning-centered online environment: a cognitive

apprenticeship approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(3),

-835.

Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In D.J.

Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making

(pp.62-88). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated

learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20-30.

Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral‐Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., ... & Boling,

E. (2015). Judgment and Instructional Design: How ID Practitioners Work In Practice.

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25-49.

Hall, A.D., & Fagen, R.E. (1975). Definition of system. In B.D. Ruben & J.Y. Kin (Eds.),

General systems theory and human communication (pp. 52-65). Rochelle Park, NJ:

Hayden Book Company, Inc.

Herrington, J. (2006, October). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for

authentic learning environments and tasks. In E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 3164-3173). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning

environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online

learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1).

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In

Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 401-412).

New York, NY: Springer.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Immersive learning technologies: Realism and

online authentic learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 80-99.

Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design model for well-structured and ill-structured problem-

solving learning outcomes. ETR&D, 45(1), 65-95.

Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. ETR&D, 48(4), 63-85.

Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving

learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 60(2), 341-359.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality.

American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.

Keengwe, J., & Kidd, T. T. (2010). Towards best practices in online learning and teaching in

higher education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 533-541.

Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United

States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1), 21-34.

Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456-460.

Kopcha, T.J., Neumann, K.L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over

product: The next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational

Technology, Research, and Development.

Lai, P. K., Portolese, A., & Jacobson, M. J. (2017). Does sequence matter? Productive failure

and designing online authentic learning for process engineering. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 48(6), 1217-1227.

Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning:

research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137-140.

Luo, H., Koszalka, T. A., Arnone, M. P., & Choi, I. (2018). Applying case-based method in

designing self-directed online instruction: a formative research study. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 66(2), 515-544.

Meloncon, L.K. (2017). Patient experience design: Expanding usability methodologies for

healthcare. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(2), 20-28.

Nutt, P.C. (2008). Investigating the success of decision-making processes. Journal of

Management Studies, 45(2), 425-455.

Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Parker, J., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2013). Authentic online learning: Aligning learner needs,

pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 227.

Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 57, 511-528.

Perkins, R. A. (2003). The role of context in instructional design: A case study examining the re-

purposing of Web-based master's degree courses for use in Malawi (Doctoral

dissertation, Virginia Tech).

Perkins, R. A. (2008). Challenges and questions concerning “culturally-sensitive

design.”TechTrends, 52(6), 19-21.

Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to

students' satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers

in Human Behavior, 71, 402-417.

Richardson, J. C., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Relationship between types of question

prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Educational communities of

inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 197-222). Hershey, PA: IGI

Global.

Richey, R.C., & Tessmer, M. (1995). Enhancing instructional systems design through contextual

analysis. In B.B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp.

-199). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Rule, A. C. (2006). The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3(1),

-10.

Sanga, M. W. (2017). Closing gap between learning and use: Operationalizing the situated

cognition construct to create authentic online learning contexts. The Online Journal of

Distance Education and E-Learning, Contents, 5(3).

Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2004). Scaffolding critical thinking in an online course: An

exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 181-208.

Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161-176.

Simonson, M. (2005). Entering the mainstream: Distance education and higher education.

Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), VII.

Spector, J. M. (2018). Future trends of designing learning in the global context. In Authentic

Learning Through Advances in Technologies (pp. 205-216). Springer, Singapore.

Stark, R., Kopp, V., & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Case-based learning with worked examples in

complex domains: Two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education.

Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 22-33.

Stone, M. T., & Perumean-Chaney, S. (2011). The benefits of online teaching for traditional

classroom pedagogy: A case study for improving face-to-face instruction. MERLOT

Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 393-400.

Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of

interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55-64.

Tessmer, M. (1991). Back to the future: The environment analysis stage of front-end analysis.

Performance and instruction, 30(1), 9-12.

Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1990). Beyond instructional effectiveness: Key environmental

decisions for instructional designers as change agents. Educational Technology, 30(7),

-20.

Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1992). Decision‐making factors and principles for selecting a

layer of instructional development activities. Performance+ Instruction, 31(4), 1-6.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context‐sensitive instructional design models: A response to

design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38-54.

Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional

design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383-398.

Publicado
30-09-2020
Cómo citar
Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020). Aprovechar la toma de decisiones dinámica y el análisis ambiental para respaldar experiencias de aprendizaje auténticas en entornos digitales. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), 20(64). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.412171
Número
Sección
Theories of learning and instructional theory for digital education