Type of Credit: Elective
Credit(s)
Number of Students
This course is intended as an introduction to the theoretical and practical issues related to the creation of effective instructional activities and e-learning environments that help shape learning and the educational world. Throughout history, human beings engage in design by improving existing or creating new things, such as new tools, symbols, processes, organizations, systems. Similarly, new ideas for designing instructional activities are created. To come up with an initial idea, and then to increase its value, utility, and coherence, is at the core of such instructional design and technology activity. This class is about instructional design theory and activity, and the related instructional technologies.
能力項目說明
Course Objectives & Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan as following:
|
Assessment Tools & Criteria
Course Objectives & Learning Outcomes |
Assessment Tools |
Assessment Criteria |
||||
|
Quiz/ Exam |
Report/ Presentation |
Learning Reflection Diary |
Learning Profile |
Quiz Map |
Rubric |
|
|
Be able to experience the contrasts brought by the good and bad instructions. |
|
|
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
|
Be able to have a solid grasp of some of the best literature in design and learning. |
|
※ |
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
|
Be able to develop an awareness of how underlying epistemology affects design. |
|
※ |
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
|
Be able to expose to a wide variety of instructional frameworks that you can use to guide the future design and implementation of instruction. |
|
※ |
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
|
Be able to critically analyze an instructional design model and decompose it into several critical events or challenges. |
|
※ |
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
|
Be able to think about research issues of instructional design. |
|
※ |
※ |
※ |
|
※ |
| 教學週次Course Week | 彈性補充教學週次Flexible Supplemental Instruction Week | 彈性補充教學類別Flexible Supplemental Instruction Type |
|---|---|---|
|
Week |
Topic & Reading Materials |
Activities & Class Assignments/Tasks |
Students Involved Time （Include Teaching Hours） |
|
1 |
Introduction of this course |
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
2 |
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
3 |
What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). What is instruction-design theory and how is it changing? In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 5-31. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
4 |
Epistemological foundation for instructional design Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). An idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 613-627.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
5 |
Lin, X.D., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C., & Secules, T. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47 (3), 43-62. |
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
6 |
Dick, A. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(3), 55-63. |
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
7 |
Contrasting case-based instructional design model Gick, M. L., & Paterson, E. J. (1992). Do contrasting examples facilitate schema acquisition and analogical transfer? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 539-550.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
8 |
Problem-Based instructional design model Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
|
Activities:
Task:
|
3+5 |
|
9 |
Midterm 1 |
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
10 |
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
11 |
Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R. & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In Reigeluth, C. (Eds.). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Pp. 161-181. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
|
Activities:
case-based instructional design Tasks:
question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum |
3+5 |
|
12 |
CTGV (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 3, 2-10.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum |
3+5 |
|
13 |
Schwartz. D.L., Lin, X.D., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J.D. (1999). Toward the development of flexibly adaptive instructional designs. To appear in C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, Vol. II. (pp. 183-213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum |
3+5 |
|
14 |
White, B. Y.; Shimoda, T. A. & Frederiksen, J. R. (1999). Enabling students to construct theories of collaborative inquiry and reflective learning: Computer support for metacognitive development. The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(2), 1-33.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum |
3+5 |
|
15 |
Lin, X. D. & Kinzer, C. (2003). Importance of technology for making cultural values explicit. Theory In Practice, 42 (3), 234-242. Retrieved at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442651
|
Activities:
Task:
question or a reflection note in Knowledge Forum |
3+5 |
|
16 |
Human-centered Design Model Hong, H.-Y. & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in Physics. Journal of Educational Psychology.
|
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
17 |
Revision and Summary |
Activities:
Tasks:
|
3+5 |
|
18 |
Final report |
Activities:
Task:
|
3 |
Rubric
|
Criteria |
Overall Content Quality 30% |
Overall Source Quality 30% |
Organization 10% |
Visual Clarity & Appeal Pictures/Graphic 15% |
Presentation Skill 15% |
|
Exceed expectation (A) 10~9 |
This paper takes a clear position supported logically by extensive, concrete detail and critical interaction with source material. All key points are thoroughly addressed. Material is clear, relevant, accurate and concise. |
Sources are clearly integrated into and advance the argument through accurate use of quotation, paraphrase or summary. The paper consistently and accurately uses appropriate documentation style. Source material fits smoothly into the writer’s own text. |
The organization is logical, paragraphs are unified, exceptionally coherent and contain effective topic sentences, and transitions are effective. There is a clear and easy-to-follow sequence of ideas. There is no unnecessary duplication of ideas or information. |
The project has an excellent design, layout; it is neat and easy to understand the content. Pictures and graphics are clear and relevant. |
Speaks clearly and confidently. Meaningfully connects to audience. Uses inflections, pauses, and accentuation and word choices strategically. Professional dress and appearance. |
|
Meets standard (B) 8~7 |
This paper takes a clear position supported by moderate but logical detail and critical interaction with source material. All key points are addressed. Material is clear, relevant and accurate, but may be lacking conciseness. |
Sources are clearly related to and advance the argument through accurate and appropriate use of quotation, paraphrase or summary. There is accurate use of appropriate documentation style. Source material fits smoothly into the writer’s own text. |
The organization is logical, paragraphs are unified, coherent and contain topic sentences, and transitions are effective. There is an easy-to-follow sequence of ideas. There is little unnecessary duplication of ideas or information. |
The project has a nice design, layout; it is neat and easy to read. Most pictures and graphics are clear and relevant. |
Speaks clearly. Connects to audience. Uses inflections, pauses, accentuation and appropriate word choices. Neat and appropriate appearance. |
|
Near standard (C) 6~5 |
This paper takes an apparent position supported by adequate detail and source material, some vagueness in example or relationship of sources to the argument or lapses in logic may be present. Material is appropriate, but may lack a clear connection to the purpose. There may be some irrelevant information. |
Source material may be used non-critically. Variety of sources is mostly limited and relies on quotation, paraphrase or summary. There are occasional lapses in accurate documentation style but they do not interfere with the reader’s ability to check sources. |
The organization is generally clear, transitions are clear but mechanical. The sequence of ideas may be somewhat difficult to follow. Some unnecessary duplication of ideas or information may be present. |
The project needs improvement in design, layout and neatness. Few of the pictures and graphics are clear and relevant. |
Speaks somewhat clearly. Has some connection with the audience. Uses some inflections, pauses, accentuation but word choices are sometimes inaccurate or inappropriate. Somewhat neat and appropriate appearance. |
|
Below standard (D) 4~3 |
In this paper, the position is confused, vague or uses illogical supporting details. Little evidence of appropriate content. |
Source material is misquoted, used out of context, poorly paraphrased, used non-critically, or has an unclear relationship to the argument. Variety of sources is extremely limited and relies heavily on quotation, paraphrase or summary. Inaccurate use of documentation style interferes with the reader’s ability to check sources. |
The organization is unclear, paragraphs are incoherent or underdeveloped, and transitions are unclear or missing. The sequence of ideas is difficult to follow. Discussion branches off into topics that are not clearly related to the central question. |
The project needs significant improvement in design, layout and neatness. The student’s pictures are not clear or relevant. |
Speaks with little clarity. Has limited connection with the audience. Uses little inflections, pauses, accentuation and work choice is frequently inaccurate or inappropriate. Inappropriate or sloppy appearance. |
本課程可否使用生成式AI工具：
本課程無涉及AI使用。
https://kf6.nccu.edu.tw