Empirical validation of a brick-centric learning design methodology and its implementation through the Eduscript Doctor pedagogical scenario kit

IF 4.8 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Education and Information Technologies Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.1007/s10639-024-13011-4
Emmanuel Burguete, Bernard Coulibaly, Vassilis Komis
{"title":"Empirical validation of a brick-centric learning design methodology and its implementation through the Eduscript Doctor pedagogical scenario kit","authors":"Emmanuel Burguete, Bernard Coulibaly, Vassilis Komis","doi":"10.1007/s10639-024-13011-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To design and script courses, practitioners often collaboratively use simple and tangible tools such as Post-it notes. In light of this, research and development were conducted to develop Eduscript Doctor, an analogic tool that would retain the inductive potential of Post-it notes while structuring the pedagogical scripting process. This Design-Based Research was carried out in three stages: the initial design of the scripting methodology and the tool (3 researchers), their improvement with the participation of practitioners (11 centers), and then an external evaluation (3 teams). The latter stage took the form of a qualitative empirical study on the tool’s utility and usability by examining three MOOCs. The results of the qualitative study showed that the tool was generally useful and usable, facilitating an in-depth analysis of the scripting of the three MOOCs. However, some negative aspects emerged from the interviews, such as the tool’s apparent complexity at first glance, the long time required to store the pieces after use, and the lack of digital backup for the produced models. Among the results of this study, the foundations of a new Learning Design theory centered around the concept of “bricks” also emerged. Although it still requires further research to be stabilized, improved, and validated, a high level of abstraction carried by this new theory will be necessary to consider the tool’s future developments. In conclusion, the results of this initial study on the kit seem promising, but much more research is needed to better understand its uses, methodology, and potential audiences.</p>","PeriodicalId":51494,"journal":{"name":"Education and Information Technologies","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13011-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To design and script courses, practitioners often collaboratively use simple and tangible tools such as Post-it notes. In light of this, research and development were conducted to develop Eduscript Doctor, an analogic tool that would retain the inductive potential of Post-it notes while structuring the pedagogical scripting process. This Design-Based Research was carried out in three stages: the initial design of the scripting methodology and the tool (3 researchers), their improvement with the participation of practitioners (11 centers), and then an external evaluation (3 teams). The latter stage took the form of a qualitative empirical study on the tool’s utility and usability by examining three MOOCs. The results of the qualitative study showed that the tool was generally useful and usable, facilitating an in-depth analysis of the scripting of the three MOOCs. However, some negative aspects emerged from the interviews, such as the tool’s apparent complexity at first glance, the long time required to store the pieces after use, and the lack of digital backup for the produced models. Among the results of this study, the foundations of a new Learning Design theory centered around the concept of “bricks” also emerged. Although it still requires further research to be stabilized, improved, and validated, a high level of abstraction carried by this new theory will be necessary to consider the tool’s future developments. In conclusion, the results of this initial study on the kit seem promising, but much more research is needed to better understand its uses, methodology, and potential audiences.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以砖为中心的学习设计方法的经验验证及其通过 "Eduscript Doctor "教学情境工具包的实施
在设计和编写课程脚本时,从业人员通常会合作使用简单而有形的工具,如便利贴。有鉴于此,我们开展了研究和开发工作,以开发 Eduscript Doctor,一种既能保留便利贴的归纳潜力,又能构建教学脚本编写过程的模拟工具。这项以设计为基础的研究分三个阶段进行:脚本编写方法和工具的初步设计(3 名研究人员),在从业人员的参与下对其进行改进(11 个中心),然后进行外部评估(3 个小组)。后一阶段采取了定性实证研究的形式,通过对三个 MOOCs 的考察,对该工具的实用性和可用性进行了研究。定性研究的结果表明,该工具总体上是有用和可用的,有助于对三个 MOOC 的脚本进行深入分析。不过,访谈中也出现了一些负面问题,如该工具乍看之下过于复杂,使用后需要很长时间来存储作品,以及制作的模型缺乏数字备份等。在这项研究的结果中,以 "砖块 "概念为中心的新学习设计理论的基础也已形成。虽然它还需要进一步的研究来稳定、改进和验证,但这一新理论所承载的高度抽象性对于考虑工具的未来发展是必要的。总之,关于该工具包的初步研究结果似乎很有希望,但要更好地了解其用途、方法和潜在受众,还需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
610
期刊介绍: The Journal of Education and Information Technologies (EAIT) is a platform for the range of debates and issues in the field of Computing Education as well as the many uses of information and communication technology (ICT) across many educational subjects and sectors. It probes the use of computing to improve education and learning in a variety of settings, platforms and environments. The journal aims to provide perspectives at all levels, from the micro level of specific pedagogical approaches in Computing Education and applications or instances of use in classrooms, to macro concerns of national policies and major projects; from pre-school classes to adults in tertiary institutions; from teachers and administrators to researchers and designers; from institutions to online and lifelong learning. The journal is embedded in the research and practice of professionals within the contemporary global context and its breadth and scope encourage debate on fundamental issues at all levels and from different research paradigms and learning theories. The journal does not proselytize on behalf of the technologies (whether they be mobile, desktop, interactive, virtual, games-based or learning management systems) but rather provokes debate on all the complex relationships within and between computing and education, whether they are in informal or formal settings. It probes state of the art technologies in Computing Education and it also considers the design and evaluation of digital educational artefacts.  The journal aims to maintain and expand its international standing by careful selection on merit of the papers submitted, thus providing a credible ongoing forum for debate and scholarly discourse. Special Issues are occasionally published to cover particular issues in depth. EAIT invites readers to submit papers that draw inferences, probe theory and create new knowledge that informs practice, policy and scholarship. Readers are also invited to comment and reflect upon the argument and opinions published. EAIT is the official journal of the Technical Committee on Education of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in partnership with UNESCO.
期刊最新文献
Development of a virtual reality creative enhancement system utilizing haptic vibration feedback via electroencephalography Is ChatGPT like a nine-year-old child in theory of mind? Evidence from Chinese writing Analysing factors influencing undergraduates’ adoption of intelligent physical education systems using an expanded TAM The importance of aligning instructor age with learning content in designing instructional videos for older adults Evaluating classroom response systems in engineering education: Which metrics better reflect student performance?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1