Search results

Different images of teacher knowledge and of teaching are described using the conceptual structure of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999a), in which knowledge and practice are viewed as either formal, practical, or transformative. Instructional design (ID) represents a formal image of knowledge and frames the teacher as a problem-solver. Teachers, however, have been resistant to the use of ID. In a graduate ID course, students were given the task of drawing their own representation of the ID process. Two research questions framed the study, including How might these models be categorized? and What views of teaching were found in the models? From 13 deliveries of the course, 123 models and explanatory narratives were analyzed from students who were teachers. The course and ID model task are described. A recursive cycle of categorization and theme-building were used. Types of models included those characterized by Human Activity (51 models), Components (23), Artifacts (20), Organic (15), and Flow Charts (14). Views of teaching included Teacher-centered (47 models), Designer-centered (36 models), Co-centered (18), Learner-centered (16), and De-centered (6). Analysis revealed that for teachers ID activity is a human activity and the principal focus for design activity is teacher needs. Implications are summarized in terms of teacher knowledge and expertise, as well as limitations to our methodology.

Building on a proposed four-phase model of the design revolution, I outline an expanded domain to which design ideas may be applied, and offer a design theory that has general application to the expanded design domain. Numerous disciplines within the domain of design, which have been separately developed, are converging through digital devices and software such as computer-aided design programs. I refer to this “Connection” as the first phase of the design revolution. In the second “Expansion” phase of the design revolution, I expect that the domain where principles of design are applied will be expanded beyond the visual to include all five human senses. The design theory that I propose is a logical application of design principles to various disciplines in the second phase of the revolution. In the third “Application” phase of the design revolution, the design theory will be applied not only to conventional objects of design such as products and services, but also to institutions and systems such as governments, firms, and households. Finally, in the fourth “Integration” phase of the revolution, various parts of the world will be integrated into a holistic system under a single design theory.

This chapter discusses a bottom-up design strategy to support the principles of Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning adapted for online course development. The concept of Universal Design demands a holistic, bottom-up instructional design model for online course development that integrates technology, accessibility, recent instructional and learning theories, and a participatory postmodern worldview. This study is intended for faculty, instructional designers, administrators, assistive technology staff, and Web multimedia software vendors associated with higher education. The research assists these target audiences to design and develop online courses that are accessible without special adaptation or modification. The components of Universal Design for online learning support newer emergent approaches to instructional design, various programming solutions used in the software engineering field for efficiency, Universal Design for Learning, and legal guidelines associated with accessibility.

HyFlex course design is an effective instructional course design that combines active and transformative learning techniques. HyFlex course design encourages active learning by focusing on interactive activities, discussions, and collaboration. It also allows learners to collaborate effectively and flexibly as a community, providing peer support and opportunities for authentic dialogue and learning experiences. HyFlex course design provides the opportunity for transformative learning through its ability to offer personalized educational experiences to individuals. It facilitates greater customization of the learning experience, allowing individual learners to access tailored educational modules, offer personalized educational experiences to individuals, and effectively develop and build independent and critical thinking skills. This conceptual review, supported by implications from HyFlex literature and triangulated with experts' views undertaking a Delphi study, facilitates understanding the current state of research in HyFlex course design and future application strategies. Existing research has identified HyFlex courses as a promising means of engaging students in active learning. Allowing students to learn through flexibly predesigned mixed online and in-person experiences enables higher levels of student autonomy and supports students in taking more ownership of their learning. This approach can facilitate an understanding of how HyFlex courses can improve active learning practices in higher education. The review study findings identify the reported alignment issues and challenges, suggest four strategies and actions for policymakers and stakeholders, and provide a suggested research agenda for bridging identified research gaps.

Future research can provide evidence of the benefits of HyFlex course design and how flexible course design can address the challenges of traditional face-to-face courses, such as reduced student engagement, lack of student-centered approaches, and limited support for different learning styles. Further research can focus on strategies that can be used to promote active learning in HyFlex courses. Moreover, research can investigate how this kind of course design can equip educators with the skills and knowledge needed to design and implement effective and meaningful active learning experiences. Finally, research can assess the potential impact of HyFlex course design on student outcomes, including performance, satisfaction, and engagement.

Systematic reviews – that is, research reviews that are rigorous and follow scientific methods – are increasingly important for assisting stakeholders in implementing evidence-based decision making for children and adults with disabilities. Yet, systematic reviews vary greatly in quality and are therefore not a panacea. Distinguishing “good” reviews from “bad” reviews requires time and skills related to the appraisal of systematic reviews. The purpose of this chapter is to inform stakeholders (i.e., practitioners, administrators, policy makers) of evidence-based information sources that provide synopses (i.e., appraisals) of systematic reviews, to provide guidance in reading and interpreting the synopses of various sources, and to propose how to make sense of multiple synopses from different sources for the same systematic review. A secondary purpose of this chapter is to illustrate how stakeholders can conduct their own appraisals if synopses are not available.

Functional assessment-based interventions are a tertiary support that have been incorporated in many three-tiered models of prevention to support students who do not respond to more global prevention efforts. Although endorsed by host of reputable organizations (e.g., National Association of School Psychologists) and mandated in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004), concerns have been raised that this mandate may not be warranted if functional assessment-based interventions do not meet minimum criteria to establish this as an evidence-based practice. One issue contributing to this concern is variability in the functional assessment process. John Umbreit and colleagues (2007) have attempted to address this concern by introducing a systematic approach that includes (a) a Function Matrix to analyze functional assessment data and identify the hypothesized function(s) of the target behavior and (b) a Function-Based Intervention Decision Model to guide intervention planning. In this chapter, we applied the core quality indicators for single-case research developed by Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, and Wolery (2005) to studies conducted using this practice to determine the extent to which this systematic approach to functional assessment-based interventions met the standards for evidence-based practices for use in educational settings across the K-12 continuum for students with or at-risk for high incidence disabilities. If this practice is deemed to meet criteria, then this systematic approach may be particularly useful in meeting the mandate established in IDEA. Results suggest that it may be appropriate to establish this systematic method as a promising practice.

This chapter reviews the strategies, methods, and techniques used in this system of curriculum design to configure effective curricula, which translate the content and structure of a discipline into credible and trustworthy techniques of curriculum design. The impact of these design strategies is discussed as a method to facilitate, promote, and enhance learning through a differentiated design of the curriculum in any discipline.

The systematic design of curriculum presented in this text seeks to provide order and accessibility to the intended learning. The systematic configuration of the dimensions of the curriculum by adapting frameworks from the best evidence of how humans learn as codified in the theories of learning, instruction, and environmental influences achieves this goal. This approach removes the intellectual, psychological, and sociologic impediments to learning so that learners can achieve the intended goals without having to decipher the intended learning, reconcile differences between the articulated learning and the learning strategies, and overcome the social constraints imposed by a dissonant or hostile learning environment. The goal of a curriculum in this process is to structure, facilitate, and support the learning experience through evidence-based curriculum design.

The theories adapted as design templates represent the collective intelligence of the profession and the differences in perspective affirmatively differentiate the structure and processes of learning to configure the dimensions of a curriculum to align with the intellectual structure of the discipline (Gardner, 1999). This deliberate and disciplined configuration of the curricular dimensions strives to develop an “ideal” curriculum, which optimizes engagement with learning to ensure intellectual accessibility, promotes learning achievement through effective instructional processes, and enhances the learning performance of the learner by capitalizing on the drivers and constraints to learning generated by the structure of the learning environment. Collectively, these strategies seek to align the psychophysics of the human learning process with the structure and intended learning of each discipline.