An Exploration of Dynamic Decision-Making that Supports the Design of Authentic Learning Experiences in Online Environments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i2.4459Keywords:
Authentic learning, Online learning environments, dynamic decision-making, instructional designAbstract
This study aims to examine the dynamic decision-making of instructional design faculty when they design authentic learning experiences in digital learning environments, with a special focus on how instructional design faculty engage in environmental analysis, dynamic decision-making, promotion of knowledge acquisition, as well as the challenges they meet with in their design process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted on thirteen instructional design faculty who had experience of integrating authentic learning into their online course design. A constant comparative method was employed to generate a total of six themes within the research focuses of this study. The study concludes by stating that the synergy between environmental analysis and dynamic decision-making supports the design of an authentic learning environment, which, in turn, helps instructional designers to leverage contextual factors to promote authentic learning experience. Implications are discussed, and limitations as well as suggestions for future studies are also provided.
References
Abramenka-Lachheb, V., & Ozogul, G. (2022). Faculty as designers of authentic learning projects in online courses. Online Learning, 26(4), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i4.2826
Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2019). The effect of authentic m‐learning activities on student
engagement and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 655-668. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12559
Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of
its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.47832/2717-8234.13.21
Baaki, J., & Tracey, M.W. (2019). Weaving a localized context of use: What it means for
instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 8(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003109938-7
Baaki, J., & Maddrell, J. (2020). Building empathy and developing instructional design
experience and skills: A case study of using personas to design open education
resources. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(3).
https://doi.org/10.51869/93jbjm
Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Bailey, E. (2023). Exploring the two sides of a moment of use
approach to design. TechTrends, 67(3), 572–582.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00828-4
Bhat, Z. H., Mir, R. A., Rameez, R., & Rainayee, R. A. (2022). The influence of learner
characteristics, instructional design and work environment on the transfer of
training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 54(4), 566- 588. https://doi.org/10.1108/ict-03-2022-0014
Belcher, A. R., Hall, B. M., Kelley, K., & Pressey, K. L. (2015). An analysis of faculty
promotion of critical thinking and peer interaction within threaded discussions. Online
Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.544
Berry, S. (2019). Faculty perspectives on online learning: The instructor's role in creating
community. Online Learning, 23(4), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2038
Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Lachheb, A., Bae, H., Ergulec, F., Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari, A., & Techawitthayachinda, R. I. (2017). Core judgments of
instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199-
219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21250
Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2018). Use of precedent as a narrative practice in design
learning. Educational Technology and Narrative: In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & K.
Kaminski (Eds.), Story and Instructional Design (pp. 259-270). Springer.
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in
teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x
Bower, M., Dalgarno, B., Kennedy, G. E., Lee, M. J., & Kenney, J. (2015). Design and implementation factors in blended synchronous learning environments: Outcomes from a cross-case analysis. Computers & Education, 86, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.006
Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta
Psychologica, 81(3), 211–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90019-a
Britt, M., Goon, D., & Timmerman, M. (2015). How to better engage online students with
online strategies. College Student Journal, 49(3), 399-404.
Brown, A.H., & Green, T.D. (2019). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting
fundamental principles with process and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Cai, Y., Pan, Z., Han, S., Shao, P., & Liu, M. (2022). The impact of multimodal
communication on learners' experience in a synchronous online environment: A
mixed-methods study. Online Learning, 26(4), 118-
145. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i4.3448
Caskurlu, S., Richardson, J. C., Alamri, H. A., Chartier, K., Farmer, T., Janakiraman, S., ... &
Yang, M. (2021). Cognitive load and online course quality: Insights from instructional
designers in a higher education context. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52(2), 584-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13043
Chang, Y. C., Peng, H. Y., & Chao, H. C. (2010). Examining the effects of learning
motivation and of course design in an instructional simulation game. Interactive
Learning Environments, 18(4), 319-
339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802574270
Cho, M. H., Demei, S., & Laffey, J. (2010). Relationships between self-regulation and social
experiences in asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Interactive
Learning Research, 21(3), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802292386
Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2008). A case-based learning environment design for real-world
classroom management problem solving. TechTrends, 52(3), 26-31.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0151-z
Coomey, M., & Stephenson, J. (2018). Online learning: It is all about dialogue, involvement,
support and control—according to the research. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching &
learning online (pp. 37-52). Routledge.
Crilly, N., & Firth, R. M. (2019). Creativity and fixation in the real world: Three case studies
of invention, design and innovation. Design Studies, 64, 169-
212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.07.003
Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers & Education, 125, 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019
Demiral-Uzan, M., & Boling, E. (2024). Instructional design students’ design judgment
development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(3), 1813-1849.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10361-1
Devine, J. L., Bourgault, K. S., & Schwartz, R. N. (2020). Using the online capstone
experience to support authentic learning. TechTrends, 64(4), 606-
615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00516-1
Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., & Heo, H. (2020). A meta-analysis of scaffolding effects in online
learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60-80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638
Dorst, K. (2019). Co-evolution and emergence in design. Design Studies, 65, 60-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.005
Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Parker, L., Campbell, M., Howlin, C., & Johnson, C. (2018).
Adaptive learning: A stabilizing influence across disciplines and universities. Online
Learning, 22(3), 7-39. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i3.1465
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850-2861. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3560
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4),
47-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597
Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage
of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 617-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9
Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online
courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with
course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157-186.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it
when we see it? Educational Technology, 38-43.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-
358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470
García-Cabrero, B., Hoover, M. L., Lajoie, S. P., Andrade-Santoyo, N. L., Quevedo-
Rodríguez,L. M., & Wong, J. (2018). Design of a learning-centered online
environment: a cognitive apprenticeship approach. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 66(3),813-835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9582-1
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30-50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12020
Harris, N. D. C., & Tessmer, M. A. (1990). Environment Analysis: How Do You Catch the
Learner? Educational & Training Technology International, 27(4), 350-
364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800900270402
Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’
professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers &
Education, 101, 70-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.009
Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., & Aston, R. (2017). What works and why? Student perceptions
of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Studies in Higher
Education, 42(8), 1567-1579. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23-48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02319856
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online
learning environments. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1).
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1701
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: A synergy among
learner, task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789639
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2014). Authentic learning environments. In J.M.
Spector, M.D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M.J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 401-412). Springer.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2013). Creating a learning space in problem-based
learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1334
Honebein, P. C. (2019). Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first
principles on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 665-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09660-9
Howell, H., & Mikesha, J.N. (2021). Approximations of practice as a framework for
understanding authenticity in simulations of teaching. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 53(1), 8-20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1809033
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured
problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 45(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299613
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 60(2), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5
Kaufmann, R., & Vallade, J. I. (2022). Exploring connections in the online learning
environment: student perceptions of rapport, climate, and loneliness. Interactive
Learning Environments, 30(10), 1794-1808. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1749670
Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional
designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.21432/t2jw2p
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456-460.
https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288385
Koehler, A. A., Cheng, Z., Fiock, H., Wang, H., Janakiraman, S., & Chartier, K. (2022).
Examining students' use of online case-based discussions to support problem solving:
Considering individual and collaborative experiences. Computers & Education, 179,
104407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104407
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative interviewing (2nd ed.) Sage.
Lai, C. H., Lin, H. W., Lin, R. M., & Tho, P. D. (2019). Effect of peer interaction among
online learning community on learning engagement and achievement. International
Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 17(1), 66-77.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.2019010105
Lai, P. K., Portolese, A., & Jacobson, M. J. (2017). Does sequence matter? Productive failure
and designing online authentic learning for process engineering. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 48(6), 1217-1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12492
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Corliss, S. B., & Carrigan, J. (2017). Investigating the effect of an
adaptive learning intervention on students’ learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1605-1625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9542-1
Lowell, V. L., & Moore, R. L. (2020). Developing practical knowledge and skills of online
instructional design students through authentic learning and real-world
activities. TechTrends, 64(4), 581-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00518-z
Lowell, V. L., & Yang, M. (2023). Authentic learning experiences to improve online
instructor’s performance and self-efficacy: The design of an online mentoring
program. TechTrends, 67(1), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00770-5
Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning:
Research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137-
140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1335172
Luo, T., Murray, A., & Crompton, H. (2017). Designing authentic learning activities to train pre-service teachers about teaching online. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.3037
Maddrell, J. (2014). Service-learning instructional design considerations. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 26(3), 213-226.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9085-y
Majewska, I., & Zvobgo, V. (2023). Students' satisfaction with quality of synchronous online
learning under the COVID-19 pandemic: perceptions from liberal arts and science
undergraduates. Online Learning, 27(1), 313-335.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3201
Martin, F., Chen, Y., Moore, R. L., & Westine, C. D. (2020). Systematic review of adaptive
learning research designs, context, strategies, and technologies from 2009 to
2018. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1903-1929.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09793-2
Martínez-Argüelles, M. J., Plana-Erta, D., & Fitó-Bertran, À. (2023). Impact of using
authentic online learning environments on students’ perceived
employability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 605-627.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10171-3
Mattar, J. (2018). Constructivism and connectivism in education technology: Active, situated,
authentic, experiential, and anchored learning. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de
Educación a Distancia, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.21.2.20055
Matthew, A., & Butler, D. (2017). Narrative, machinima and cognitive realism: Constructing
an authentic real-world learning experience for law students. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2846
McDonald, J. K. (2023). The everydayness of instructional design and the pursuit of quality
in online courses. Online Learning, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i2.3470
Moallem, M. (2015). The impact of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools on
learner self-regulation, social presence, immediacy, intimacy and satisfaction in
collaborative online learning. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-
Learning, 3(3), 55-77.
Molinillo, S., Aguilar-Illescas, R., Anaya-Sánchez, R., & Vallespín-Arán, M. (2018).
Exploring the impacts of interactions, social presence and emotional engagement on
active collaborative learning in a social web-based environment. Computers &
Education, 123, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.012
Noreen, Z., Ajmal, M., & Awan, A. (2019). Impact of authentic learning on the satisfaction,
knowledge and skills of distance learners in context-aware ubiquitous learning
environment. Global Regional Review, 4(2), 115-
125. https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2019(iv-ii).13
Parker, J., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2013). Authentic online learning: Aligning learner
needs, pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 227-241.
Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning
environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.10.002
Peterson, A. T., Beymer, P. N., & Putnam, R. T. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous
discussions: Effects on cooperation, belonging, and affect. Online Learning, 22(4), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i4.1517
Polly, D., Martin, F., & Byker, E. (2023). Examining pre-service and in-service teachers’
perceptions of their readiness to use digital technologies for teaching and
learning. Computers in the Schools, 40(1), 22-
55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.2121107
Pu, Y.-H., Wu, T.-T., Chiu, P.-S., & Huang, Y.-M. (2016). The design and implementation of
authentic learning with mobile technology in vocational nursing practice course. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12443
Reilly, C., & Reeves, T. C. (2022). Refining active learning design principles through design-
based research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 81-100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874221096140
Richardson, J. C., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Relationship between types of question
prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Educational communities of
inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice (pp. 197-222). IGI
Global.
Rogers, S. A., & Gronseth, S. L. (2021). Applying UDL to online active learning. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.59668/223.3748
Schroeder, S., Baker, M., Terras, K., Mahar, P., & Chiasson, K. (2016). Students' desired and
experienced levels of connectivity to an asynchronous, online, distance degree
program. Online Learning, 20(3), 244-263. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i3.691
Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). A rational account of pedagogical
reasoning: Teaching by, and learning from, examples. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 55-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.12.004
Song, D., & Kim, D. (2021). Effects of self-regulation scaffolding on online participation and
learning outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 249-263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1767525
Stefaniak, J.E. (2024). Advanced instructional design techniques: Theories and strategies for
complex learning. Routledge.
Stefaniak, J.E., Baaki, J., & Stapleton, L. (2022). An exploration of conjecture strategies used
by instructional design students to support design decision-making. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 70(2), 585-613.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10092-1
Stefaniak, J. E., & Hwang, H. (2021). A systematic review of how expertise is cultivated in
instructional design coursework. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 69, 3331-3366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10064-x
Stefaniak, J.E., Luo, T., & Xu, M. (2021). Fostering pedagogical reasoning and dynamic
decision-making practices: A conceptual framework to support learning design in a
digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2225-2241.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09964-9
Stefaniak, J., Tawfik, A., & Sentz, J. (2023). Supporting dynamic instructional design
decisions within a bounded rationality. TechTrends, 67(2), 231-244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00792-z
Stefaniak, J.E., & Xu, M. (2020). Leveraging dynamic decision-making and environmental
analysis to support authentic learning experiences in digital environments. Revista De
Educación a Distancia (RED), 20(64). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.412171
Teras, H., & Kartoglu, U. (2018). Authentic learning with technology for professional
development in vaccine management. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2815
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional
design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55-64.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02298248
Tessmer, M. (1991). Back to the future: The environment analysis stage of front-end analysis.
Performance and Instruction, 30(1), 9-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4170300104
Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context‐sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38-54.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00685.x
Tessmer, M., Wilson, B., & Driscoll, M. (1990). A new model of concept teaching and
learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 45-53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02298247
Tomita, K., Alangari, H., Zhu, M., Ergulec, F., Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2021). Challenges
implementing qualitative research methods in a study of instructional design
practice. TechTrends, 65(2), 144-151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00569-2
Tracey, M. W., Baaki, J., Budhrani, K., & Shah, S. (2021). “Behind the curtain”: Exploring
how instructional design teams function to complete design and development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2853-2871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09715-0
Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2022). Empathy and empathic design for meaningful
deliverables. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(6), 2091-2116.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10146-4
Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective
practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315-334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9
Trespalacios, J. (2017). Exploring small group analysis of instructional design cases in online
learning environments. Online Learning, 21(1).
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.928
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a
computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475-511.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
Warr, M., Henriksen, D. & Mishra, P. (2018). What do we mean when we “design” e-Learning solutions? An analysis of discourses on design, technology, and education. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 717–722). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., Koehler, A. A., & Oh, K. H. (2023). Student profiles and attitudes towards case-based learning in an online graduate instructional design course. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(3), 550-572.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09339-w
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and
communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235-
286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200183
Wilkinson, K. L. (2022). Evaluating a structured online peer evaluation system among
graduate-level communication capstone students through action research. Online
Learning, 26(1), 93-129. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.3077
Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and
method (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.
Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-
evolution in creative design. Design Studies, 34(5), 515-542.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002
Xie, H., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Wang, C. C. (2019). Trends and development in
technology-enhanced adaptive/personalized learning: A systematic review of journal
publications from 2007 to 2017. Computers & Education, 140, 103599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599
York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design
heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59, 841-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9209-2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jill Stefaniak, Meimei Xu, Fan Yang
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
