Lynette Johnson

lynette_72@yahoo.com

IT500

Design Project Rough Draft

Manners/Etiquette for Children

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to take the reader on my voyage of IT500 – Major Principles of Instructional Technology.  When I first enrolled in this class, I had no idea what to expect.  I thought we’d cover the history of Instructional Technology, but I really didn’t have any other preconceived ideas regarding anything else that would be taught.  At the beginning of the class, we were assigned to choose topics for projects, and I decided to do mine on Manners/Etiquette for Children.  This paper will illustrate the different stages that I went through in designing this project as my thinking evolved due to the required readings.  The beginning of this paper will show my initial plan for how I wanted to carry out my project.  The second section will show the revisions I made as a result of the literature I read.  The third section will give my metaphorical representation of design, and in the fourth section, I will give an overall discussion of what I’ve learned.  So, come on and take this journey with me through my brain as I attempt to decipher what I used to think, how that thinking evolved, and what I think now.

Initial Design- Part 1

[I believe that Dave asked that this section of the paper be past tense.]

This section of the paper will illustrate my initial design plan.  This plan was created prior to any literature readings for this class; however, I did write my plan using information that I had learned in a previous class - IT510 – Instructional Systems Design.

My idea for the course design project is Manners/Etiquette for Children. When you finish reading this section of the paper, you will see that I believe that teaching my learners information and then having them role-play different scenarios is the best approach to my design. 

I would like to design the project using interactive role-playing exercises. In this project, I would like to have children in various situations where they can be taught to exhibit good manners/etiquette. Situations will include, but may or may not be limited to:

•     Communication (using such words as: please, may I, excuse me, yes, no)

•     Being polite (offering seats to the elderly, offering help, opening and holding doors)

•     Showing respect (not making fun of others, respecting differences, not spreading rumors, keeping your hands to yourself, using the right tone  [Later, you said, correct tone. I liked correct tone better. I also thought that “appropriate” might be a good word…but I like that word a lot.] of voice)

•     Showing gratitude (sending thank you notes, expressing thanks) 

My goal is to teach children to stop being so rude. We live in a technology age where children no longer know how to interact with real people and thus we have a generation of teens with very few to no manners. Through the role-playing exercises, I want the learner to experience the different situations that are listed above. I want to know what their response will be and then let them know and have them practice what the correct response/behavior should be and why.

The learners that I have in mind are children ages 5-13. Using the list of topics from above, I would like to create goals for each topic and objectives for each of those goals. After I develop my objectives, I will begin creating the role-playing exercises. 

The strengths of this design plan are that it will be interactive, will involve real-world situations, and won’t just tell the learner if they are right or wrong, but will present the learner with strategies to see if they have really “gotten” the information. Lastly, the learner will be given the correct answers and why. 

The influence that shaped my design plan was my IT510, Instructional Systems Design class in which I learned to use the Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp’s (2011) model of Instructional Design.  In using the Morrison et al. model, I have learned the importance of including goals, objectives, and generative strategies to ensure the learner is learning what I expect them to learn.  [consider revising so it doesn’t have “learn” so much] As a result, that is the model that I plan to use for this project, and below is the lesson plan that I will use:

Lesson Plan

Title: Manners/Etiquette for Children 

Overview: Learners will be taught the importance of good manners and etiquette. They will participate in different role-playing exercises to ensure information is being retained and correctly understood. [Should your goals and objectives have periods at the end of them? I don’t know if this breaks that rule or not.]

Goals:  

 1. Learners will exhibit polite communication

  2. Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly

 3. Learners will exhibit respect for themselves and others

 4. Learners will exhibit gratitude  

Objectives: 

Goal 1. Learners will exhibit polite communication

1.1 Learners will exhibit polite communication by using the words may I, and please

1.2 Learners will exhibit polite communication in situations such as when they need to get by a person, need to say something to someone that is already talking, or accidentally bumps someone by using the words, excuse me

1.3 Learners will exhibit polite communication by refraining from nodding or shaking their heads and instead using the words, yes and no 

Goal 2. Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly

2.1 Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly by offering them their seat if their elder is standing, and/or offering them help if it looks like they are in need

2.2 Learners will exhibit polite behavior to the elderly by opening and/or holding the door when the elderly are entering or exiting a building

Goal 3. Learners will exhibit respect for themselves and others

3.1 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by refraining from making fun of others

3.2 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by learning about and respecting differences (such as cultural, handicapped, etc.)

3.3 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by learning the dangers of spreading rumors and taking steps to refrain from spreading rumors

3.4 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by keeping their hands to themselves 

3.5 Learners will show respect for themselves and others by using the correct tone of voice

Goal 4. Learners will exhibit gratitude  

4.1 Learners will exhibit gratitude by saying thank you when something nice is done/said for or to them

4.2 Learners will exhibit gratitude by writing and sending a thank you note when they receive a gift 

Generative Strategies/Role Playing

After each objective, the learner will participate in role-plays as generative strategies.  Morrison & colleagues (2011) state that designers must consider how to accurately convey the information to the learner in a manner he or she can comprehend and keep a focus on the problem and objectives to ensure the instruction supports the resolution of the problem (p. 232).  My project teaches young people interpersonal skills.  Role-plays can serve the same purpose as generative strategies because Morrison and colleagues also state that, " Models of the interpersonal behavior are usually presented as live demonstrations, role plays, videos, or printed scenarios.   As part of the observation process, the learner's attention may need to be directed to identify key steps of the behavior as a generative activity." (p.163)

Materials and Resources

Paper and pencil, partners

This section of the paper attempted to demonstrate my plan based on my thinking when first joining this class.  The next section will show revisions to my project and changes in my thought process after exploring classroom literature.

Revisions and Rethinking Based on Literature – Part 2

In this section of the paper, I will talk about revisions to my project and the evolution of my thinking based on the literature readings as mentioned above.  In the previous section of this paper, I outlined my original plan.  I was going to use goals and objectives to teach my learners information and then to ensure that learning had occurred, I was going to introduce generative strategies using role-plays.  After devising that plan, I read several things that helped me to see that that might not be the best way to deliver my project. 

The first thing I had to do was determine if I wanted to keep my current mode of delivery for my project.  My plan was to have the learners break up into groups after learning information to do the generative strategies/role-plays.  But then, I began to wonder if it wouldn’t be better to change my mode of delivery.  Should I present the information using PowerPoint slides, the Internet, or some other fancy form of media?  After reading a few of the literature, I decided I would not focus on some form of fancy media, but rather focus on ironing out my generative strategies.  One reason I made this decision was due reading on the History of Instructional Technology when Cuban (1986) pointed out, “as you look back over the past century of media history, you are likely to note a recurrent pattern of expectations and out-comes. As a new medium enters the educational scene, there is a great deal of initial interest and much enthusiasm about the effects it is likely to have on instructional practices. However, enthusiasm and interest eventually fade, and an examination reveals that the medium has had a minimal impact on such practices.”  Clark (1983) seemed to agree with Cuban’s views when he stated, “that the novelty of new media always results in a temporary peak in learning, but the levels of learning seen decrease as that media becomes less novel to the learner.” Opposing views do exist on the topic, such as those views of B.F. Skinner [citation] and Kozma (2001), who believe that media do help to reinforce student learning. However, I at this point found that I aligned more with Cuban and Clark and decided to stick with my original mode of delivery and spend more time focusing on creating good instruction.

In further thinking of my instruction, I again had to revisit my thought process after reading about Bloom’s Six Levels of Learning.  According to Bloom’s Original Six Levels of Learning, learning occurs in these steps from lowest to highest:

·         Knowledge or recall of data,

·         Comprehension or the ability to grasp meaning

·         Application, or using learned material in new situations

·         Analysis or separating material into component parts and showing relationships between parts

·         Synthesis or the ability to put together separate ideas to form new wholes

• Evaluation or the ability to judge the worth of material against stated criteria [citation]

When looking at these levels of learning, I had to decide how I could help my learner to advance from the lowest level, to the higher levels of learning and not just memorize a bunch of information.  As a result, I decided to discard the objectives and focus more on my generative strategies. Now that I had a clear focus of the “skeleton” of my plan, I could now read further to begin to shape the body of this plan.  The plan began to take shape first in deciding upon a learning theory.

Learning Theories

As I turned my attention to focus more on my generative strategies, the first topic I began to consider was learning theories.  In looking at the three learning theories of cognitivism, behaviorism, and constructivism, I originally thought that I would use cognitivism, however the discussion boards helped me to see that cognitivism might not be the best option for my learners.  After going back over the three, I decided that constructivism [Here you show that you plan to use constructivism] would be the best option because the constructivist approach includes:

• Learning by completing real world tasks that are meaningful to learners
• Social interaction
• Allowing individual students to construct meaning by developing ideas from the tasks they complete. (Knowlton, 2011)

Constructivism seemed to work perfectly as my learning theory.  My generative strategies were going to be in the form of placing my learners in groups to do role-plays and then participate in group discussions to help them as Knowlton (2011) described, “develop ideas from the tasks that they completed.” [shows evolving from only thinking of generative strategies to a more cohesive theory in constructivism]

Now, that I had decided upon my learning theory, I could now turn my focus to choosing a micro-theory.

Micro-Theories

In reading the literature about micro-theories, I decided to use Anchored Instruction and Situated Learning.  What is Anchored Instruction? According to Bransford, et al.,  (1990) "Anchored instruction [clear anchored instruction is one of your theories] begins with a focal event or problem situation that provides an anchor for students' perceptions and comprehension".  They go on to state, "the major goal of anchored instruction is to enable students to notice critical features of problem situations and to experience changes in their perception and understanding of the anchor as they view the situation from the new points of view".  At this point, I decided that I would use Anchored Instruction, with my anchor or problem situation being rudeness or poor etiquette in various forms. The goal, according to the writers is for the learners to develop knowledge that will be useful to them, so that they won't view and dismiss the information as things that they already knew.  [citation] The writers further state that, "at the heart of the model is an emphasis on the importance of creating an anchor or focus that generates interest and enables students to identify and define problems and to pay attention to their own perception and comprehension of these problems. They can then be introduced to information that is relevant to their anchored perceptions." [citation]  So, I have now decided that I know I want to use Anchored Instruction to show everyday situations that occur in which rudeness or lack of etiquette is exhibited. [new paragraph?] I then turned my attention also to Situated Learning.  [clear that you chose situated learning] According to Lave (1988), “social interaction is a critical component of situated learning -- learners become involved in a ‘community of practice’ which embodies certain beliefs and behaviors to be acquired.”  After looking at Bransford’s (1990) description of Anchored Instruction and Lave’s (1988) description of Situated Learning, I found that they meshed well with Knowlton’s (2011) description of constructivism.  As a result of these readings, I became clear that I wanted to use Constructivism as my learning theory and both Situated Learning and Anchored Instruction as my micro-theories, but now I must determine how I want to begin to pull it all together. 

Pulling it all Together Using the CREATES Brainsets

I’ll start with defining the CREATES brainsets according to Dr. Shelly Carson (2010).  Dr. Carson states that, “The CREATES brainsets model is a set of seven brain activation states (or “brainsets”) that have relevance to the creative process…. Each brain state has the potential to influence how you think, approach problems, and perceive the world..” [citation]  In looking at how I could infuse my approach of Situated Learning, Anchored Instruction and Constructivism into the CREATES brainsets, I came up with the following generative strategies: [it may be helpful to show how adding the creates brainsets helped your design become stronger from your part 1]

Connect – To help my learner connect to my Manners/Etiquette for Children project, I will take my learners on a field trip. Half of the group will exhibit good manners and the other half won’t.  Upon our return, I will have them discuss the following in groups: What were responses from others when each was exhibited? How could they have improved their action(s)? Did the response from others have any impact on current actions?

Reason- Learners will be broken up into small groups. Each group will videotape role-playing exercises based on topics that I give them.  Each group will watch the other groups’ tapes and afterward will discuss how the situations were handled and different ways they could have been handled. 

Envision – Learners will pull a topic (of a list that I write) from a hat. Based on the topic, the learners will be asked to envision a scenario where bad manners can be exhibited based on the topic. I will have them choose a partner and they will discuss with each other the other’s visual. I will then ask them to think of any similarities between their two topics and the potential impact the scenario could cause.  Afterwards, I will have them discuss what could be done to cause a different outcome or impact.

Absorb – In order that my learners absorb information, open their minds to new experiences, and learn good listening skills, I will have them partner with someone that they don’t know very well. In this exercise, they will be asked to listen to the other person talk for 3-5 minutes about a current issue in the news or something they saw on TV or in school, in which good or bad manners were exhibited. The first person will be asked to not be rude and interrupt, but to listen intently and uncritically open their mind to the other's idea. Afterwards, they can ask questions and switch partners.

Transform – This exercise will work in conjunction with the Reason mindset in which the learners watched the videos that they made.  In this mindset, each learner will individually write three things in one of the videos that they saw that were an exhibition of poor manners or etiquette.  The learners will then be asked to write action plans for changing the poor manners or etiquette into good manners and etiquette.

Evaluate – I will design this section to be after the envision exercises. I will have the group go over the topics that they discussed. I will evaluate the ideas that they discussed and the methods for a different outcome to insure that they meet the criteria for appropriateness.

Stream – This brainset will work in conjunction with the Reason and Transform brainsets.  In this brainset, after learners watch each other videotapes and look at their lists detailing what they saw as examples of poor manners or etiquette being exhibited, I will have them work together in their groups for five minutes.  For the first half of those five minutes, I will ask the learners to create lists describing how poor manners/etiquette can affect them in life.  Lastly, I will have them spend the last 2-1/2 of those minutes creating lists detailing how good manners/etiquette can benefit their lives.

Now that my learners have experienced my generative strategies using the CREATES brainsets, I want to ensure that they have learned what I expected them to learn.  This is where assessments come in. 

Authentic Assessments

Originally, I had planned to do a summative assessment to see if my learners learned what I wanted them to learn.  Upon completing the PP slide (Knowlton, 2009), I saw that authentic assessments offer a stronger connection between the classroom and real world, as “authentic activities” are very indicative of things that are done in the real world. As I am using constructivism, anchored instruction, and situated learning, authentic assessments would work best for my project since they all focus on “real world” activities and social interaction. In using Authentic Assessment, I believe that I will cover the full array of tasks and multiple indicators of learning. Students will present their work and will evaluate each other.  Dave’s slide show (2009) stated that, “learning is better measured through performances or simulated (or real) tasks” as giving answers to tests do not tell what a student can or cannot do or do or don’t know.  As a result, I will give my learner exercises that not only takes them into Bloom’s higher level of thinking (Evaluating), [citation] but also according to the slide show; it involves the students by focusing on social interaction, different levels of evaluation and opportunities to improve based on feedback.

This section of this paper showed how I planned to pull my project together using the literature from this class.  To begin, I hope the reader got a clear view of my initial plan, which was to simply teach some information and then have students perform role-plays to see if they understood the content.  In the next section [part 3???] of the paper, the reader should see how my plan evolved as I journeyed through the class to make the learning more creative and meaningful.  Lastly, I wanted to show how I would assess my students’ learning.  Now that I have a plan together, I want to look at the nature of design through creative eyes.  I want to stretch my learners’ thinking when taking them through the various generative strategies.  The next section of this paper will look at “stretching my brain” by using metaphorical representations to describe design.

Missing some documentation. You’ll see I wrote “citation” where I thought it needed to be…I could be wrong, I don’t really get APA.

Describing Design Using Metaphorical Representations – Part 3

This section of this paper will describe design using a metaphorical representation.  Why? The point is to show the design process that I’ve been going through in this class as my design project has evolved and developed, as well as how I stretched my own "design thinking."

What is Design?

Design is driving a manual car for the first time.  When I initially learned to drive, I learned in an automatic car.  I was accustomed to using one foot for both the brake and the gas.  I didn’t have to worry about switching gears, because the car did it on it’s own.  I did this for years and my mind was programmed to drive an automatic car.  The same occurred with design.  I have attended school for many years.  I was given instruction, I memorized what I could, and I took tests to show what I remembered or what I considered at that time, to be learned.  With the automatic car, I took a written test to see what I recalled and a road test to see if I had learned what I was supposed to learn.  Then one day, my dad decided to buy me a manual car.  I couldn’t drive it, but I was excited to learn.  I had that same emotion when first starting this program. [good connection to the beginning] I didn’t know much about Instructional Design, but I was excited to learn.  Well, the car sat for a week before my dad had a chance to take me out to try to teach me how to drive it.  We started out in a parking lot.  I would drive around the lot, but for some reason every time I would stop, the car would cut off when I would try to proceed.  My dad told me that I was releasing the clutch too fast.  But, what did that mean? Why wasn’t I getting it?  Was I not learning what I was supposed to be learning?  Or was the problem that my mind had to be reprogrammed? I was programmed to drive with one foot, not two.  I was programmed to let the car switch gears on its own, now I had to switch the gears and I had to know when to switch them.  The same occurred with design.  What did the professor mean by posing my question back to me or to the class?  Why didn’t he answer?  Why do I have to interact with my classmates daily?  What…no tests?  What’s going on?  I had been so accustomed to learning or shall I say memorizing information that I didn’t understand at first that the mind had to be reprogrammed to actually learn and go to higher levels of learning.  So, initially it was a struggle as I contemplated whether I had made the right choice in choosing this program. 

When I look back at my driving experience, I didn’t learn how to drive the manual that first day and I wondered if I had made the right decision in choosing that particular car.  I went back out a few days later on the street and voila, it started to make sense.  I started adjusting to using both feet and manually switching my gears.  I thought, “Okay, I’ve got this down.”  I thought I was a pro and then, Oh My God… I am sitting at a light on a steep hill and it’s raining really hard.  I am petrified.  I am thinking that if I come off of the clutch too fast, I will roll backwards and cause an accident.  If I hit the gas too fast my wheels may spin or I may go forward too fast and hit the car in front of me. What am I supposed to do? There was no one there to ask, so I worked it out in my mind during those two minutes at that light and it was okay.  I made it home safely.  When I think of design, last semester, I felt like I was on that hill initially and as the semester continued, it all worked out.  I thought I was well on my way.  But wait!!  That was only one semester.  Then comes this semester.  Oh no, new theories, new assessments, new ideas.  Do I agree with this theory or that one or both?  Why do I agree or disagree? When I initially got accustomed to driving the manual, I still had to sometimes ask myself, what is the best way to go up this hill in the rain, or down this hill, or stopping and going in Chicago’s rush hour traffic, is there a shortcut getting home, do I really need to go this way, or should I go that way, and on and on.  There may never be one concrete answer, just as in design, there may be many ways to design a project, [I see your connection to the design process. In the peer editing paper, Dave said that we had guidelines saying clear references back to part 2 (I don’t see that in the description of part 3 he gave us, but OK) So, maybe make a couple of references back to part 2 here?] but the ever-ringing question should always be, what is the best approach to get the optimum effect on the learners?  How can I ensure that my learners have learned what I expect them to learn? [Throughout this description, I can clearly see a connection to how you feel it is to design. It speaks to me as one who learned to drive a stick the day before I got one!]

This section of this paper gave my metaphorical representation of what design means to me.  While it’s not always a smooth ride, when I get to my destination, I feel like the slow traffic, hills and rain are all worthwhile.  While this section of my paper showed my different emotions and feelings during the design process, the next section of this paper will discuss what I have learned during this process. [don’t forget strengths and weaknesses of your metaphor]

What I’ve Learned – Part 4

In this section of the paper, I will describe what I have learned through the design process.  In reading, Design research:  What we learn when we engage in design,

Edelson said, “Opportunities to learn arise in the course of any design process. These opportunities for learning are the direct result of the specific decisions that must be made in the course of a design” (Edelson, 2002). [Oh, look, you cited Edelson! I don’t know what to say, he just said to find one place.] Through each reading, checkpoint and/or brainstorming, the opportunity to learn something new has been presented. Prior to these readings/checkpoints, I knew nothing about the history of Instructional Technology, CREATES brainsets, anchored instruction, the five dimensional framework for authentic assessment, situated learning, Clark, Kozma, Edelson, etc. As a result of the readings that were required, decisions had to be made during each checkpoint and thus I had the opportunity to learn something new, which presented me with the opportunity to determine different ways to help my learners learn. [good specifics] 

In addition, throughout the design process, I have learned things about myself. I began to see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together with each of the readings in conjunction with our projects. I also learned that teamwork is beneficial to the design process. [good specifics] 

Originally, I thought that I was pretty strong in my stance against Kozma and also against constructivism. I thought that I was 100% pro-Clark, but reading the discussion boards helped me to look at things from a different perspective. Maybe media can be instrumental in presenting information to my learners.  Another thing that made me look at Kozma differently is after reading the Morrison article on the Clark/Kozma debates. One of the things Kozma said that facilitated learning was the ability to present a visual and social context for the story (Morrison, 1994). In part 2 of my project, I chose to use Anchored Instruction, which would agree with that statement.  According to the Cognition and Technology group at Vanderbilt (1993), “In anchored instruction, videos serve to place problem-based learning in a context often enriched with data necessary for solving problems. Anchors are stories and episodes developed around believable situations providing complex problem solving opportunities ….”, so that was one instance that found that I agreed with something that Kozma said.  With regard to constructivism, last semester, I learned through one of Dave’s slide shows (2011) that constructivists had some pretty strong criticisms in regard to Instructional Technology.  According to the slide show, constructivists said that Instructional Design:

• Is linear and does not allow the designer any flexibility
• Emphasizes superficial learning
• Does not encourage or have prescriptions for deep levels of learning

As a result, I considered myself anti-constructivist. However, in doing this project, on one of the discussion boards someone commented regarding a different approach to doing my project using constructivism. In looking at constructivism further, I found that I actually agreed that this would be the learning theory that I would like to use as I felt it would be the best learning theory for my learners. I started out with goals and objectives in part 1, but eventually found that this might not be the best approach for ensuring my learners had prescriptions for deeper levels of learning and in part 2, my focus was turned more to the generative strategies.  [good specifics] 

In presenting my metaphorical representation, one can see that ISD is not linear.  Throughout this design process, I think that we can all agree that there is flexibility and my goal is to have my learners go through Bloom’s six levels of learning through the use of the CREATES brainsets as generative strategies to ensure that there are prescriptions for deeper levels of learning and not just superficial (memorizing) learning. As a result, I was surprised to find that I could agree with some of what Kozma said and although I do not agree with constructivists’ views of ISD, I did embrace constructivism as a learning theory. [nice personal reflection]

My notions about the “nature of design” have changed a great deal as the result of this course. If I had written part three of the project prior to the start of this semester, I wouldn’t have used driving a manual car as the metaphor for design. I would have used something more linear, like math, something more straightforward and to the point.  For example, I would have said design is 1+1=2.  You sit down, write, and present the information to the learners.  Afterwards, you test them to see if they remember the information and you’re done.  My notions have also changed in that I now understand that good design includes meaningful creativity and knowledge of past history. [good specifics] 

As a result of this course, my thinking about learning has also changed. I now understand that learning is not simply memorizing information as illustrated by Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning (Bloom, 1956). I have learned that there are stages of learning and that the media that we use to present information to help our learners learn should be secondary to creating good instruction. I have also learned that it is okay to second-guess myself and even change my mind on things I may have been concrete (or thought I was) on. Lastly, I have learned that there is no one right way to help learners learn.

[I think that at some point Dave said not to use the passive voice. There are quite a number of places in your paper that you do. I highlighted it in your last sentence.

The greatest strength of your paper is your last part. In part 4, each paragraph has excellent specifics on what you have learned. I can really see how you have grown in your knowledge from the beginning of this class.

You also did a fine job of creating a “thesis sentence” at the beginning of the paper. You made it clear that I was going to take a little journey back through time. I don’t think I did that…I need to check my own paper.

Thank you for allowing me to read your paper and make comments. I read some of this at lunch without the peer editing instructions so I did do some editing as if I were editing my own paper. If you would like those comments, I would be happy to send it to you. As it wasn’t part of the instructions, I’m hesitant to send them if they are not wanted.

Rhonda

References

Bloom, Benjamin, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. New York: McKay, 1956.

Bransford, J.D. et al. (1990). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In D. Nix & R. Sprio (Eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Carson, Shelley. (2010). Your Creative Brain: Seven Steps to Maximize Imagination, Productivity, and Innovation in Your Life. Harvard Health Publications.

Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning From Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33, 52-70.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Edelson, D. C. (2002).  Design research:  What we learn when we engage in design.  The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.

Gulikers, J.T.M., Bastiaens, Theo J.; Kirschner, Paul A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67-86.

Knowlton, D. (2009). Authentic Assessments [PowerPoint slides].

Knowlton, D. (Revised 2011). Instructional Theory [PowerPoint slides].

Kozma, R. B.(2001). Kozma reframes and extends his counter argument. In R.E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 179-198). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Morrison, G.R. (2001). An analysis of Kozma and Clark's arguments.  In R.E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (pp. 179-198). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6^th Ed.), New York, NY: John Wiley.

Schon, D. A. (1990). The design process. In V. A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center (pp. 111–141). New York: Routledge & Kegan