<p> <b>Purpose.</b> The purpose of this quantitative research study was to examine the factors that influence students&rsquo; intentions to continue to use digital texts. Specifically, the purpose was to investigate what impact the external factors of instructor modeling and instructor expectation to use had on the intention to continue to use digital textbooks as well as how the internal factors of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and satisfaction with the digital textbook impact students&rsquo; intentions to continue to use digital textbooks. </p><p> <b>Theoretical Framework.</b> The theoretical framework for this study is the Technology Adoption Model (TAM). This user acceptance model was developed by Fred Davis (1986) and is used extensively to provide an understanding of user acceptance processes as well as theoretical insights into the design and implementation learning technology. </p><p> <b>Methodology.</b> This study used a quantitative, cross-sectional survey instrument based on the E-Book Adoption Scale (Jin, 2014b), an instrument that was tested for reliability and validity using a Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha test. </p><p> <b>Findings.</b> Students&rsquo; perceived ease of use and usefulness of the digital text predict student satisfaction with the digital text. Students whose instructors did not provide resources for using a digital text were more likely to be satisfied with the digital version of the textbook yet, there is no significant relationship between instructor expectations and intervention to students&rsquo; intentions to continue to use digital textbooks. </p><p> <b>Recommendations.</b> The ease of use of a digital interface is the aspect most likely to impact student satisfaction. College student purchasing patterns of digital texts are significantly influenced by the perceived ease of use of the text and the perceived usefulness of the text. Perceived ease of use is related to the interface of the text. Publishers who clearly apply this field of research to their product development will provide digital texts that students are more likely to be satisfied with and to adopt as a preferred learning platform. Institutions that develop support systems to help their faculty members make the most of the digital features of the texts will better support students.</p><p>

Abstract not available.

<p> Students in the United States have historically struggled with mathematics, especially with problems that require higher-order thinking Even struggling students, however, often show considerable interest in the arts. Unfortunately, the literature sheds almost no light on how the arts might be useful in helping students become proficient in rigorous mathematics.</p><p> I created <i>Beautiful, Beautiful Math (BBM)</i> to both intrigue students and require them to use higher-order thinking In <i>BBM</i> lessons, students interact with an object of art in order to learn mathematics. </p><p> My overarching research question was: "How can objects of art be used as effective catalysts for higher-order thinking in mathematics lessons?" In this study, "higher-order mathematical thinking" was operationally defined as having students actively engaged, working and talking together, on math tasks that require high levels of Webb's Depth of Knowledge. Three research sub-questions informed this study: 1. What do exemplary <i>Beautiful, Beautiful Math (BBM)</i> lessons look like? 2. To what extent do <i> BBM</i> lessons result in students' higher-order thinking in mathematics? 3. What are key design features and other implementation factors that need to be in place for BBM lessons to have the desired outcomes?</p><p> A constructivist learning philosophy coupled with recent cognitive psychology research informed my study. Using an action research methodology, three teachers participated in two cycles of creating <i>BBM</i> lessons. I collected eight sources of data: The Performance Assessment for Quality Teaching (PAQT) scores for each lesson, including a baseline lessons and two <i>BBM</i> lessons for each participant; video recordings of the <i>BBM</i> lesson implementations; lesson plans; audio recordings of planning sessions; audio recordings of post-lesson debriefs; audio recordings of my post-study interviews with the participants; student survey responses; and my researcher's journal. I then created tables of the PAQT scores merged with the lesson plans, which helped me search for patterns among the different lessons. Additionally, I wrote narratives of each teacher's experiences with <i>BBM</i>, which became a rich source of information.</p><p> Results show that <i>BBM</i> lessons increased higher-order thinking across all three teachers when compared with their "typical" baseline lesson. The cognitive rigor of the mathematical tasks showed especially strong growth. Additionally, students were highly engaged and active in mathematical discourse. Those <i>BBM</i> lessons determined to be "exemplary," based on their extremely high PAQT scores, had several important design features in common, including strong integration between the work of art and the mathematics content, the use of Visual Thinking Strategy questions, and a cycle of problem solving. Inquiry-based pedagogical practices and the culture and climate of the classroom and school were found to be additional keys to the success of <i> BBM</i> lessons.</p><p> Products from this study include: a set of instructions that will allow other teachers to create <i>BBM</i> lessons; a <i>BBM</i> workshop that I facilitated at the local art museum for math and art teachers from around our county; a collection of twelve <i>BBM</i> lessons for the museum's library and website; and collaboration between one of the teachers and myself to design a workshop for a fall NCTM conference.</p>

No description available.

This study sought to determine if an online course designed and delivered in Second Life can meet the needs of higher education students with dyslexia. the course design incorporated strategies from Gagne’ and Briggs’ principles of instruction, Gagnon and Collay’s constructivist learning design, Powell’s key learning needs of dyslexics, and elements of universal design. Specific design elements are discussed including screen captures from the design. the study employed a mixed methods approach incorporating an online survey, recorded observation session, and two follow up interviews. the observation session and interviews were only completed by the sample population of eight participants, which included three participants with dyslexia and five participants without dyslexia. the sample population was selected using purposeful sampling techniques to ensure the widest representation of the population with a small sample. Extensive excerpts of the sample participants’ interview responses are presented and discussed, including participants’ suggestions for improving the course design. Key findings from all three data sources are discussed. Finally, implications for instructional design and special education and suggestions for further research are presented.

The purpose of this study is to compare the use of design drawing in design fields such as architecture, engineering, and industrial design with its use in instructional design (ID). This study was conducted in three parts: first, a review of literature to understand the role and value design drawing plays in non-ID fields; second, a search for design drawing in the literature of ID; and third, observations of actual use of design drawing in ID in the field. For the first part, the literature of design studies was reviewed regarding design drawing. For the second part, the literature review includes a search for evidence of design drawing in ID. The literature of design drawing in design studies was rich and varied; the literature of ID showed comparatively little interest in design drawing. For the third part of this study, ID design meetings at Brigham Young University's Center for Instructional Design (CID) were observed using a qualitative, naturalistic approach. These observations were supplemented with interviews of instructional designers. The evidence gathered was analyzed in light of the literature review to better understand design drawing in ID. Three case studies were assembled from these observations and analyses on the use of design drawing at CID. This study concludes that design drawing plays an important and prominent role in ID, fulfilling many of the same roles and providing many of the same advantages it does in other design fields. However, design drawing in ID employed a very limited repertoire of forms, and was used to represent a limited number of design purposes. Design drawing in ID lacked the proficiency, the high level of self-awareness, and the sophistication of the design drawing described in the literature of design studies. Based on these conclusions, it is recommended that instructional designers need to develop a design drawing tradition and standards that might potentially expand the ability of instructional designs to improve over time, as well as their creativity.

No description available.

No description available.

This study explores how expert nurse educators design instruction. Six female expert nurse educators volunteered to participate. Each participant had over ten years experience teaching, and all were recognized for their teaching excellence. They also had master's or doctoral degrees. Participants worked in small private schools, community colleges, or large public universities. The methodology was based in developmental research. Qualitative data sources included interviews, think-aloud protocols, and artifacts. Interviews and think-aloud protocols were audio-taped, transcribed, and member-checked. Artifacts, such as course packets and participant-authored books or interactive CDs, were collected. Data was coded and triangulated. Event-state diagrams and narratives were developed and member-checked. A between-subjects approach also was used to analyze data to develop a composite diagram and narrative that describes how expert nurse educators design instruction. Results indicate that the participants generally followed the steps of analysis, design, develop, implement, and evaluate (ADDIE), as they design instruction. Little was mentioned about actually developing material. However, six key elements were common among the participants. Enthusiasm, meaningful, prior knowledge, engaged, faculty-student relationships, and faculty preparation were common themes that the faculty found important in their process of designing instruction. This study provides information to build a knowledge base on instructional design in nursing education. It may also foster discussion to improve the effectiveness of how nurse educators design instruction. / Ph. D.

Novice instructional designers have limited experience working with ill-structured problems, and often do not possess the mental models to effectively analyze, manage, and communicate the overall design process of new instructional design projects (Wedman and Tessmer, 1993; Rowland, 1992; Perez and Emery, 1995; Liu, Gibby, Quiros, and Demps, 2002). In their 2016 article of expert instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice, York and Ertmer proposed the following questions for future research, "(a) Can we teach principles to novice instructional designers? (b) What methods should we use to provide this information?" (York and Ertmer, 2016, p. 189). This research further explored these questions and offers a new model of expert instructional design heuristics incorporating design thinking methods. The purpose of this study was to identify design thinking methods that aligned with heuristics of expert instructional design practitioners, and to design and develop a new model of heuristics and design thinking methods, which could assist novice instructional designers as they enter the instructional design field. The literature outlines challenges reported among novice instructional designers throughout the instructional design process, which includes their ability to solve ill-structured problems; conduct thorough analyses; collaborate in teams; negotiate priorities; generate a variety of ideas for solutions; overcome resource, budget and time constraints; communicate and manage projects with stakeholders; and prototype, iterate and pilot new design solutions (Rowland, 1992; Hoard, Stefaniak, Baaki, and Draper, 2019; Roytek, 2010; Liu, Gibby, Quiros, and Demps, 2002; Chang and Kuwata, 2020; Tracey and Boling, 2014; Perez and Emery, 1995; Williams van Rooij, 1993). The model offers novice instructional designers specific methods and combinations of methods to use for every stage of the instructional design process. As instructional designers implement design thinking methods within the context of their daily situations, they should become more comfortable and begin to adapt the methods to meet their individual needs for each stage of their process. / Doctor of Philosophy / Instructional design is a system of procedures for developing education and training curricula in a consistent and reliable fashion (Branch and Merrill, 2011; Branch and Kopcha, 2014). It embodies an iterative process for outlining outcomes, selecting teaching and learning strategies, choosing support technologies, identifying media, and measuring performance (Branch and Kopcha, 2014). Instructional designers use models of instructional design and instructional development to communicate tasks and procedures of the instructional design process (Andrews and Goodson, 1980). Over the years, numerous models of instructional design have been developed and adapted to meet the varying needs of instructional designers and developers. There is a consensus that most instructional processes consist of five core elements or stages: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, which are commonly referred to as ADDIE (Seels and Glasgow, 1990; Branch and Kopcha, 2014). While often considered generic, the ADDIE framework contains a useful set of common criteria, which most designers state as important or necessary as a part of any instructional design process (Pittenger, Janke, and Bumgardner, 2009; York and Ertmer, 2011; 2016). Novice instructional designers have limited experience working with ill-structured problems, and often do not possess the mental models (prior experience) to effectively analyze, manage, and communicate the overall design process of new instructional design projects (Wedman and Tessmer, 1993; Rowland, 1992; Perez and Emery, 1995; Liu, Gibby, Quiros, and Demps, 2002). In their 2016 article of expert instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice, York and Ertmer proposed the following questions for future research, "(a) Can we teach principles to novice instructional designers? (b) What methods should we use to provide this information?" (York and Ertmer, 2016, p. 189). This research further explored these questions and offers a new model of expert instructional design heuristics incorporating design thinking methods. For this study, heuristics were defined as generalized stages of an instructional designer's process and design thinking was defined as a human-centered design process for solving complex problems. The purpose of this study was to identify design thinking methods that aligned with heuristics of expert instructional design practitioners, and to design and develop a new model of heuristics and design thinking methods, which could assist novice instructional designers as they enter the instructional design field. The literature outlines challenges reported among novice instructional designers throughout the instructional design process, which includes their ability to solve ill-structured problems; conduct thorough analyses; collaborate in teams; negotiate priorities; generate a variety of ideas for solutions; overcome resource, budget and time constraints; communicate and manage projects with stakeholders; and prototype, iterate and pilot new design solutions (Rowland, 1992; Hoard, Stefaniak, Baaki, and Draper, 2019; Roytek, 2010; Liu, Gibby, Quiros, and Demps, 2002; Chang and Kuwata, 2020; Tracey and Boling, 2014; Perez and Emery, 1995; Williams van Rooij, 1993). The model offers novice instructional designers specific methods and combinations of methods to use for every stage of the instructional design process. As instructional designers implement design thinking methods within the context of their daily situations, they should become more comfortable and begin to adapt the methods to meet their individual needs for each stage of their process.