Juries as Innovation in an Instructional Design and Technology Program: A Saga of Continuous Improvement Efforts
Main Article Content
Abstract
Academic juries have a long tradition as a method of educating students and assessing their work. This tradition has been limited to a relatively narrow range of disciplines, such as architecture and various fine and performing arts. This article describes the case of an online graduate-level Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) program adopting and adapting a jury structure to support the development and assessment of students’ electronic portfolios. A key component of the adoption and adaptation is the continuous efforts to improve the impact of juries across their 10-year implementation (2005-2015) in the IDT program. Therefore, this paper explicates the history of jury establishment and development within the IDT program, reports two evaluations that provide students’ perspectives about juries, and details the IDT faculty members’ response to those evaluations in an effort to further improve juries as a program-wide innovation.
Downloads
Article Details
Copyright © 2023 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) and Indiana University. Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Except as otherwise noted, the content published by IJDL is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. A simpler version of this statement is available here.
References
An, H., & Wilder, H. (2010). A bottom-up approach for implementing electronic portfolios in a teacher education program. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 84-91.
Anderson, R. S., DeMeulle, L., & Knowlton, D. S. (1996, April). Understanding portfolios in practicum experiences: A national perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Anthony, K. H. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism: Students, faculty, and practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 40(3), 2-11.
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Basa, İ., & Şenyapılı, B. (2005). The (in)secure position of the design jury towards computer generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257-270.
Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and selfevaluation of applied brass jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 19-27.
Berheide, C. W. (2007). Doing less work, collecting better data: Using Capstone courses to assess learning. Peer Review, 9(2), 27-30.
Canada, M. (2002). Assessing e-folios in the on-line class. In R. S. Anderson, J. F. Bauer, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Assessment strategies for the on-line class: From theory to practice (pp. 69-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ciorba, C. R., & Smith, N. Y. (2009). Measurement of instrumental and vocal undergraduate performance juries using a multidimensional assessment rubric. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(1), 5-15.
Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The design/creativity loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 111-130.
Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at The University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755-780.
Cummings, R., & Maddux, C. D. (2010). The use of e-portfolios as a component of assessment and accreditation in higher education. In N. Buzzetto-More (Ed.). The e-portfolio paradigm: Informing, educating, assessing, and managing with e-portfolios (pp. 207-223). Santa Rosa: Informing Science Press.
Ford, M. L. (2002). Preparing students for assessment in the on-line class. In R. S. Anderson, J. F. Bauer, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Assessment strategies for the on-line class: From theory to practice (pp. 77-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frederickson, M. P. (1993). Gender and racial bias in design juries. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 47(1), 38-48.
Hagopian, K. J. (2013). Rethinking the structural architecture of the college classroom. In D. S. Knowlton & K. J. Hagopian (Eds.), From entitlement to engagement: Affirming Millennial students’ egos in the higher education classroom (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knowlton, D. S., Anderson, R. S., & DeMeulle, L. (1996, November). Portfolios in teacher education: Issues and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Knowlton, D. S., Eschmann, A., Fish, N., Heffren, B., & Voss, H. (2004). Processes and impact of journal writing in a graduate-level theory course: Students’ experiences and reflections. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 18(2), 40-53. Retrieved May 26, 2015, from http://www.und.nodak.edu/dept/ehd/journal/
Knowlton, D. S., & Sharp, D. C. (2015). Students’ opinions of instructional strategies in a graduate-level creativity course. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), article 6. Retrieved August 7, 2015 from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol9/iss2/6
Macedo, P., Snider, R., Penny, S. & Laboone, E. (2001). The development of a model for using e-portfolios in instructional technology programs. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Atlanta, GA, November 8-12, 2001). Volumes 1-2; see IR 021 504. ERIC Reproduction Document: ED470133.
Peterson, J. M. (1979). Me and my critics: Students’ responses to architectural jury criticism. Studies in Art Education, 20(2), 64-67.
Pierson, M. E., & Kumari, S. (2000). Web-based student portfolios in a graduate instructional technology program. Proceedings of the 11th Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (SITE). San Diego, CA, February 8-12, 2000). Volumes 1-3; see IR 020 112. ERIC Reproduction Document: ED444515.
Redish, T., Webb, L., & Jiang, B., (2005-2006). Design and implementation of a web-based portfolio for aspiring educational leaders: A comprehensive, evidence-based model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 34(3), 283-295.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part 1: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.
Salama, A. M., & Wilkinson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. Gateshead: Urban International Press.
Scanlon, P. A., & Ford, M. P. (1998). Grading student performance in real-world settings. In R. S. Anderson & B.W. Speck (Eds). Changing the way we grade student performance: Classroom assessment and the new learning paradigm (pp. 97-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seidel, S. B., & Tanner, K. D. (2013). “What if students revolt?”— Considering student resistance: Origins, options and opportunities for investigation. Cell Biology Education—Life Sciences Education, 12, 586-595.
Simon, H. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity as a constrained stochastic process. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 83-101). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Sims, P. (2011). Little bets: How breakthrough ideas emerge from small discoveries. New York: Free Press.
Smith, K, M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17.
Speck, B. W. (2013). The bruised ego syndrome: Its etiology and cure. In D. S. Knowlton & K. J. Hagopian (Eds.), From entitlement to engagement: Affirming millennial students’ egos in the higher education classroom (pp. 89-95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big time college sports is crippling undergraduate education. New York: Henry Holt.
Webster, H. (2006). Power, freedom and resistance: Excavating the design jury. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(3), 286-296.
Webster, H. (2007). The analytics of power: Re-presenting the design jury. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 60(3), 21-27.
West, R. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a community of innovation. Instructional Science, 39, 821-841.
Wiley, D. (2002). A definition of the field. TechTrends, 46(1) 59-60.