Instructional Designer Disciplinary-Based Formation of Self
PROCEEDINGS
Heather Kanuka, Katy Campbell, Richard A. Schwier
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of teaching (teacher perspectives) and learning (student perspectives) across the disciplines in ways that can better prepare instructional designers to work with research-teachers in institutions of higher education. The proposed research will build on existing research by Campbell, et al. (2002-2006), Donald (2002), and Shulman (c.f. 1987), as well as the seminal work conducted by Amundsen (Amundsen, Gryspeerdt, & Moxness, 1993; Saroyan & Amundsen, 1995). The overarching goals are to gain further understanding about (1) instructional designers' disciplinary-based development and (2) how instructional designers' disciplinary development is linked to instructional design practices. The outcomes of this study contribute to the understanding of instructional designers' disciplinary-based development.
Citation
Kanuka, H., Campbell, K. & Schwier, R.A. (2009). Instructional Designer Disciplinary-Based Formation of Self. Presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 2009. Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/54730/.
ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.
Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for Academic Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
- Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, e-learning and distance education (2nd ed). New York: Routledge Falmer Studies in Distance Education.
- Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
- Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.), Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Bigland, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Bigland, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.
- Borko, H. & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673-708). NY: Macmillan.
- Campbell, K., Schwier, R.A., & Kenny, R.F. (2005). Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 242-262.
- Campbell, K., Schwier, R.A., & Kenny, R.F. (2006). Conversation as inquiry: A conversation with instructional designers. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 1-18.
- Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition (pp. 509-535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Cox, S. (2003). Practices and academic preparation of instructional designers. Unpublished master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
- Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
- Donald, J. (2002). Learning to Think: Disciplinary Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Frost, S.H., & Jean, P.M. (2003). Bridging the disciplines: Interdisciplinary discourse and faculty scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(2), 119-149.
- Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77, 25-45.
- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
- Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-54.
- Gubrium, J.F., & Holstein, J.A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp 487-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Gudmundsdottir, S. (1991). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 44-52.
- Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.
- Healy, M. (2000). Developing the scholarship of teaching in higher education: A discipline-based approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(2), 169-189.
- Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. The e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2). [online]. Available: http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/vol9_no2/papers/full_papers/kanuka.htm.
- Kenny, R.F., Zhang Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9-26.
- Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Lee, S. (2004). Designing and developing for the disciplines. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 11. Retrieved online September 12, 2007 from http://www.jime.open.ac.uk/2004/11.
- Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
- Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R.F. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 20(1), 69-100.
- Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R.F. (2007). Instructional designers’ perceptions of their agency: Tales of change and community. In M. Keppell (Ed.) Instructional Design: Case Studies in Communities of Practice (pp. 1-18), Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
- Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
- Smith, D.C., & Neale, D.C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20.
- Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Turner, J.C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Van Driel, J.H., Verloop, N., & De Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673-695.
- Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K.L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-89.
- Wilson, B. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10-15.
- Vrasidas, C. (2001). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References