October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Macromedia (2004b). Director MX 2004, retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.macromedia.com/software/director/. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z. & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second Generation Instructional Design. Educational Technology 30 (2), 7-14. Merrill, M. D. (2000). First Principles of Instruction, retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/MerrillFirstPrinciples02.pdf. Pawlowski, J. M. (2001). Das Essener-Lern-Modell (ELM): Ein Vorgehensmodell zur Entwicklung computerunterstützter Lernumgebungen. (The Essener-Learning-Model (ELM): A Procedural Model for the Development of Computer-Supported Learning Environments, in German) Ph.D. thesis, Universität Essen. SCORE (2004). SCORE Metadata, retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.ipd.uka.de/SCORE/xsd/score_v1.xsd. SEI (Software Engineering Institute) (2004): Component-Based Software Development. retrieved May, 30, 2006 from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/descriptions/cbsd.html. Szyperski, C. (2003a). Component Technology: What, where, and how? In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference for Software Engineering, 684-693. Szyperski, C. (2003b). Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming. 2nd ed. ACM Press. Tennyson, R. D. & Rasch, M. (1995). Instructional System Development: The Fourth Generation. In: Automating Instructional Design: Computer-Based Development and Delivery Tools. Springer, 33-78. ToolBook (2004). ToolBook, retrieved May, 11, 2006 from http://www.toolbook.com/ Uschold, M. & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies, Principles, Methods and Applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11 (2), 93-155. 113
Bender, D. M., & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2006). Using Online Education Technologies to Support Studio Instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (4), 114-122. Using Online Education Technologies to Support Studio Instruction Diane M. Bender College of Design, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 872105, Tempe, AZ 85287-2105, USA Tel: +1 480-965-8684 diane.bender@asu.edu Jon D. Vredevoogd School of Planning, Design, and Construction, Michigan State University, 309 Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA Tel: +1 517-353-3054 vredevoo@msu.edu ABSTRACT Technology is transforming the education and practice of architecture and design. The newest form of education is blended learning, which combines personal interaction from live class sessions with online education for greater learning flexibility (Abrams & Haefner, 2002). Reluctant to join the digital era are educators teaching studio courses (Bender & Good, 2003), who may be unaware of the possibilities and benefits of teaching with technology. The argument proposed in this study is that blended learning will enhance studio courses. Studios are unique learning environments embedded in an historical context. This article presents a process of infusing a traditional studio with online technologies. The result is a more streamlined course that enhances student learning, provides targeted instruction to individual students, serves a larger group of students than a traditional studio, and does not increase faculty workload. Keywords Online education, Studio, Faculty workload Introduction Technology is moving higher education from the traditional campus of “brick and mortar” to the electronic classroom of “wire and chip.” The technology with the greatest potential for impact on architectural education is the Internet. By the year 2006, it is estimated there will be 900 million computers and other web-based appliances in use, providing universal access, multimedia resources, and interactive medium (Charp, 2000). The Internet has revolutionized the design process by allowing architects and designers to research new products, download specifications, access code information, transfer drawings, and even synchronously collaborate with colleagues from around the world. Technology is also having an impact on the process and culture of architectural education, as evident in previous research on digitally immersed classes and studios (Matthews & Weigand, 2001). The use of digital media is a logical addition to the traditional design studio. Technology has radically changed the way educators can exchange information with students. Higher education support systems have adapted to changes in technological innovation, but the studio has remained disturbingly constant. Pedagogical integration of digital media is critical to the success of future architecture and design education. With the ever-increasing need to communicate globally, distance is no longer a barrier to education (Matthews & Weigand, 2001). Based on several years of experimentation, the authors believe studio courses can be enhanced with online technologies. A popular format for teaching both in the classroom and online is blended learning. Blended learning involves both traditional face-to-face instruction, where both students and faculty are present at the same time and place, supplemented with asynchronous and/or synchronous communication via the Internet. In comparison to courses that are completely online, courses with a combination of online and face-toface interaction produce the same or better success rates, plus dropout rates are lower (Dziuban & Moskal, 2004). The authors are not advocating technology as a substitute for the existing process, but as a means to enrich instruction in the design studio. There are many benefits of using online technologies, such as the accuracy and consistency of data. All students are guaranteed to receive the same presentation material and get the same view of the professor and material, unlike the front row advantage in the traditional classroom. Students appreciate the on-demand access of online classes, for it allows them flexibility in viewing course information at their convenience and as many times as they wish. This information may include course syllabus and outline, staff profiles and contact information, examples of projects, and other useful items typically provided to students in a traditional course. Electronic ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org. 114
Page 1 and 2:
October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Guidelines for authors Submissions
Page 5 and 6:
How Does Educational Technology Ben
Page 7 and 8:
Adaptivity is one of the most impor
Page 9 and 10:
3. Ease of editing and updating: wh
Page 11 and 12:
Accessible and personalized Learnin
Page 13 and 14:
From this definition, we figured ou
Page 15 and 16:
Verifying contents Figure 3. The pa
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 7. The ISA on line interface
Page 19 and 20:
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre
Page 21 and 22:
World Wide Web Consortium (1999a).
Page 23 and 24:
guiding and supporting environment
Page 25 and 26:
As an example, to improve the acces
Page 27 and 28:
option). Although this finding migh
Page 29 and 30:
of eLearning content and enhance th
Page 31 and 32:
Hodgings, W. & Duval, E. (2002). IE
Page 33 and 34:
the entire course of study. This sy
Page 35 and 36:
information useful for the contextu
Page 37 and 38:
Nr of student 25 20 15 10 5 0 a - w
Page 39 and 40:
Vincenzo, a second year student, ne
Page 41 and 42:
Evaluation Recently embodied conver
Page 43 and 44:
The interaction may be performed on
Page 45 and 46:
Poggi, I., Pelachaud, C., & de Rosi
Page 47 and 48:
Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., & Costa
Page 49 and 50:
quality in use, which is measured b
Page 51 and 52:
process of designing high quality c
Page 53 and 54:
eLSE methodology Designers and eval
Page 55 and 56:
Execution phase Execution phase act
Page 57 and 58:
on the inspection process and, cons
Page 59 and 60:
Piccinini, N., & Scollo, G. (2006).
Page 61 and 62:
Answers and reinforcement A.1: Use
Page 63 and 64:
potential project ideas (from pure
Page 65 and 66:
For each column in Table 2, the sum
Page 67 and 68: educational goals and the various r
Page 69 and 70: A new computerized Records Manageme
Page 71 and 72: eflected in artifacts and other str
Page 73 and 74: any distributed community include b
Page 75 and 76: message in order to obtain a respon
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Social network after intr
Page 79 and 80: increased face-to-face collaboratio
Page 81 and 82: References Bogenrieder, I. (2002).
Page 83 and 84: Donoghue, S. L. (2006). Institution
Page 85 and 86: contemplate part-time, rather than
Page 87 and 88: espective institutions. The primary
Page 89 and 90: greater flexibility in course selec
Page 91 and 92: Cost-benefit One distinct benefit o
Page 93 and 94: Resources The development of online
Page 95 and 96: courses where it is has little pote
Page 97 and 98: A fellowship programme, such as the
Page 99 and 100: Moore, M.G. (1998). Introduction. I
Page 101 and 102: Software reuse has two dimensions,
Page 103 and 104: Courseware development process mode
Page 105 and 106: Didactics analysis This phase consi
Page 107 and 108: Process didactics design We focus o
Page 109 and 110: The repository is organized into co
Page 111 and 112: the analysis and the design phase o
Page 113 and 114: Figure 12. Weaving content and dida
Page 115 and 116: complete user-specific (author, ins
Page 117: References ADL (Advanced Distribute
Page 121 and 122: (see Figure 2). The incorporation o
Page 123 and 124: Figure 4: Example of Summary Image
Page 125 and 126: The competitive nature of design cl
Page 127 and 128: Dias, L. B. (1999, November). Integ
Page 129 and 130: materials built into the system. Th
Page 131 and 132: This theory of multimedia learning
Page 133 and 134: E-Tutor (with video). Two weeks aft
Page 135 and 136: empirically tested in TML environme
Page 137 and 138: Rieber, L. P., (1990). Animation in
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B The following 44 items r
Page 141 and 142: Appendix C A Sample of Exam Questio
Page 143 and 144: Appendix D Perceived Usefulness Que
Page 145 and 146: Kirkpatrick, and Peck (2001) have a
Page 147 and 148: 2001). The system thus aims to assi
Page 149 and 150: a strong agreement between the two
Page 151 and 152: of the dynasty. 3. Information on
Page 153 and 154: Comparing works designed using the
Page 155 and 156: Tselios, N., Stoica, A., Maragoudak
Page 157 and 158: strategies during their interaction
Page 159 and 160: P(B|D) is the probability of a netw
Page 161 and 162: Online help adaptation using Bayesi
Page 163 and 164: AUSM that will return the most prob
Page 165 and 166: direct experimentation with a new s
Page 167 and 168: Figure 7. An example of use of the
Page 169 and 170:
Cooper, J. & Herskovits, E. (1992).
Page 171 and 172:
Goldberg, A. K., & Riemer, F. J. (2
Page 173 and 174:
In addition to convenience, propone
Page 175 and 176:
members increased flexibility. They
Page 177 and 178:
Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The c
Page 179 and 180:
The basis of reform in science educ
Page 181 and 182:
technology and are not confident in
Page 183 and 184:
participants that learning as a gro
Page 185 and 186:
A hierarchy of Systems Identifying
Page 187 and 188:
the change agents to recognize the
Page 189 and 190:
Nonis, A. S., & O’Bannon, B. (200
Page 191 and 192:
maintaining the interest levels of
Page 193 and 194:
Focus group interviews with our stu
Page 195 and 196:
course and again at the end of the
Page 197 and 198:
second phase of valuing, commitment
Page 199 and 200:
Kinzie, M. B., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 201 and 202:
Although this work is based on a st
Page 203 and 204:
Website Design The MTP website (www
Page 205 and 206:
Researchers, for review and coding
Page 207 and 208:
quality that are the focus of the M
Page 209 and 210:
Kelley, M. A., Whitaker, S. D., Nee
Page 211 and 212:
or underserved populations. For exa
Page 213 and 214:
2004 Baruch College Computer Center
Page 215 and 216:
professional-level tools and resour
Page 217 and 218:
Third, with the exception of the Om
Page 219 and 220:
Hepp, P., Hinostroza, E., Laval, E.
Page 221 and 222:
The AccessForAll strategy complemen
Page 223 and 224:
of people with special needs, or di
Page 225 and 226:
(including where their search for r
Page 227 and 228:
international standard. The ISO pro
Page 229 and 230:
information will be expressed using
Page 231 and 232:
DC Metadata Terms: http://dublincor
Page 233 and 234:
Choquet, C., & Corbière, A. (2006)
Page 235 and 236:
TEL Standards, Specifications and P
Page 237 and 238:
The Resources Management Process ma
Page 239 and 240:
Step 1: Instantiation of the enterp
Page 241 and 242:
Step 5: Instantiation of the techno
Page 243 and 244:
correlation of the different viewpo
Page 245 and 246:
Hummel, H., Manderveld, J., Tatters
Page 247 and 248:
Karagiannidis, C. (2006). Book revi
Page 249 and 250:
Glenn, L. (2006). Book review: Visu
show all

October 2006 Volume 9 Number 4

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?