Top

TechTrends

Published in:

12-10-2022 | Original Paper

A Design-Based Research Study Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Instructional Design Decision-Making for Technology Integration

Authors: Meimei Xu, Xigui Yang, Jill Stefaniak

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 6/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Teachers’ decisions for instructional design and technology integration influence their teaching practices and student learning performances. Technology-integrated learning environments have been widely leveraged due to the recent global health crisis and student learning needs (Polly et al., TechTrends, 65(3), 240–242 2021). Teachers make a variety of instructional design decisions when designing activities and teaching in digital learning environments. Before this study, a preliminary iteration of this design-based research was conducted to investigate pre-service teachers’ formative design decision-making for technology integration (Xu & Stefaniak, 2020). This paper reports the second and third iterations of the design-based research which aimed to further explore pre-service teachers’ instructional design decision-making processes for technology integration as well as potential instructional approaches that supported pre-service teachers to make design decisions. Three additional instructional approaches were implemented in these iterations to help pre-service teachers make design decisions for technology integration. Results and implications regarding teachers’ design decision-making and professional development strategies are discussed.

previous article Teachers’ Experiences with and Perceptions of Virtual Manipulatives Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

next article It’s Not Just the HOW, But Also the WHO: The TCoP Model of Technology Integration

Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. (2010). Needs assessment: An overview. Sage.CrossRef

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRef

Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Computers & Education, 82, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.010CrossRef

Boling, E. (2020). The nature and use of precedent in designing. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West, Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/precedent

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRef

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRef

Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity (2nd ed.). Pearson Higher Education.

Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2013). The teacher as re-designer of technology integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.48.4.cCrossRef

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198CrossRef

Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education, 101, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.009CrossRef

Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153.CrossRef

Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.CrossRef

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500CrossRef

Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 21–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429574

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

Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5CrossRef

Klein, G. A. (1998). Recognition-primed decision making. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1v2xt08

Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385CrossRef

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/29544/

Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014CrossRef

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, 68, 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09735-yCrossRef

Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2021). The role of design judgment and reflection in instructional design. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/design_judgment

Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8CrossRef

Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2017). A technological pedagogical content knowledge based instructional design model: a third version implementation study in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1627–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9544-zCrossRef

McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s111251-014-9337-2CrossRef

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). MIT Press.CrossRef

Nielsen, L., & Hansen, K. S. (2014, April). Personas is applicable: A study on the use of personas in Denmark. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1665–1674).

Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3473CrossRef

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002CrossRef

Polly, D., Byker, E. J., & Colonnese, M. W. (2021). Future directions for K-12 technology-enhanced learning environments. TechTrends, 65(3), 240–242.CrossRef

Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, California. https://doi.org/10.1145/997078.997089

Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2018). Designing quality survey questions. Sage Publications.

Salminen, J., Jansen, B. J., An, J., Kwak, H., & Jung, S. (2018). Are personas done? Evaluating their usefulness in the age of digital analytics. Persona Studies, 4(2), 47–65.CrossRef

Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204CrossRef

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, M., Earnshaw, Y., Tawfik, A. A., & Jahnke, I. (2020). Methods of User Centered Design and Evaluation for Learning Designers. In M. Schmidt, A. A. Tawfik, I. Jahnke, & Y. Earnshaw (Eds.), Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux/ucd_met

Starkey, L. (2010). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903478433CrossRef

Stefaniak, J., Luo, T., & Xu, M. (2021). Fostering pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making practices: a conceptual framework to support learning design in a digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2225–2241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09964-9CrossRef

Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9CrossRef

Walker, M., Takayama, L., & Landay, J. A. (2002, September). High-fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing web prototypes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 661–665). Sage Publications.

Xu, M., & Stefaniak, J. (2020). An exploratory study of pre-service teachers’ instructional design decision-making for K12 STEAM teaching and learning. Presentation given at the annual conference of the Association for Education Communications & Technology (AECT).

Xu, M., & Stefaniak, J. (2021). Embracing children’s voice to support teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and decision-making for technology enhanced practices in early childhood classrooms. TechTrends, 65, 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00588-7CrossRef

Title: A Design-Based Research Study Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Instructional Design Decision-Making for Technology Integration
Authors: Meimei Xu
Xigui Yang
Jill Stefaniak
Publication date: 12-10-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: TechTrends / Issue 6/2022
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00785-y

Springer Professional

A Design-Based Research Study Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Instructional Design Decision-Making for Technology Integration

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Other articles of this Issue 6/2022

Exploring Organizational Creativity and Mindfulness with Ravi S. Kudesia

Teachers’ Experiences with and Perceptions of Virtual Manipulatives Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

Stats Kwon Do: a Case Study in Instructional Design, Multimedia and Gamification of Instruction

It’s Not Just the HOW, But Also the WHO: The TCoP Model of Technology Integration

The Rise and Fall of the HyFlex Approach in Mexico

Open Educational Resources for K-12 Teachers: A Sustainable Plan