Email this article Hypothetical Subjects in Curriculum Structure for Developing Managerial Competencies in Educational Technology
Abstract
Abstract: Hypothetical Subjects in Curriculum Structure for Developing Managerial Competencies in Educational Technology. This study aims to understand better one of instructional technology domain: managing. This topic is critical to be learned for better understanding and to have a proper basic theory for developing a curriculum structure of field study, especially to build management competencies. Then, we could propose an alternative for the improvement of the curriculum that has a theoretical foundation. The study used a qualitative approach by applying the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) method, a critical analysis of the content of discourse objects that are text, gap, and potential aspect may be, and then proposed an alternative for taking action. Results show; first, there are four subdomains for managing instructional technology, with each orientation and characteristics. Second, Seels and Richey's subdomain of managing instructional technology could guide the study program's curriculum structure development. Third, in case of curriculum of Educational Technology Study Program, Faculty of Education, UPI there are gap between theoretical and document. To overcome the gap in developing instructional technology competencies in managing domain, we propose adding at least one relevant course for the primary and holistic foundation of managing aspect in curriculum structure of Educational Technology Program.
Keywords: curriculum, educational technology, critical discourse analysis.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v14.i2.202468
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
Bodily, R., Leary, H., & West, R. E. (2019). Research trends in instructional design and technology journals. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12712
Casey, C. C., Goodsett, M., Hoover, J. K., Robertson, S., & Whitchurch, M. (2023). Open Pedagogy. EdTechnica: The open encyclopedia of educational technology. https://edtechbooks.org/encyclopedia/ open_pedagogy
Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020a). Detecting latent topics and trends in educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A retrospective of all volumes of computers & education. Computers & Education, 151(2), 103855- 103868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
Clinton, V. (2018). Savings without sacrifces: A case study of opensource textbook adoption. Open Learning: The Journal of Distance and Open Learning, 33(3), 177–189.
Clinton, V., & Khan, S. (2019). Efcacy of open textbook adoption on learning performance and course withdrawal rates: A meta-analysis. AERA Open, 5(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419872212
Creative Commons. (2020). Open education. https://creativecommons. org/about/program-areas/education-oer Dang, S. (2022, October 26). Exclusive: Twitter is losing its most active users, internal documents show. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/ technology/exclusive-where-did-tweeters-go-twitter-is-losing-itsmost-active-users-internal-2022-10-25/
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K– (12 Edition). Austin, Texas: The new media consortium
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W.W. ( 1992). Principles of Instructional Design. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publisher.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education, 19(3), 134- 159. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-003
Hilton, J. (2016). Open educational resources and college textbook choices: A review of research on efcacy and perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9434-9
Hilton, J. (2019). Open educational resources, student efcacy, and user perceptions: A synthesis of research published between 2015-2018. Educational Technology Research and development 12(2), 110- 128. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11423-019-09700-4
Huang, R., Spector, J. M., & Yang, J. (2019). Educational technology a primer for the 21st Century. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6643-7
Ikahihifo, T. K., Spring, K. J., Rosecrans, J., & Watson, J. (2017). Assessing the savings from open educational resources on student academic goals. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(7), 12- 38. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.2754
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology – a definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
Kimmons, R. (2015). OER quality and adaptation in K-12: Comparing teacher evaluations of copyright-restricted, open, and open/adapted textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 20- 42.
Kimmons, R. (2016). Expansive openness in teacher practice. Teachers College Record, 118(9), 54- 83.
Kimmons, R. (2020). Current trends (and missing links) in educational technology research and practice. TechTrends, 64(6), 803–809.
Kimmons, R., & Rosenberg, J. M. (2022). Trends and topics in educational technology, 2022 edition. TechTrends, 66(2), 134–140.
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2016). Education scholars’ evolving uses of twitter as a conference backchannel and social commentary platform. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(3), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12428
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Public internet data mining methods in instructional design, educational technology, and online learning research. TechTrends, 62(5), 492–500. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11528-018-0307-4
Kimmons, R., Rosenberg, J., & Allman, B. (2021). Trends in educational technology: What Facebook, twitter, and Scopus can tell us about current research and practice. TechTrends, 65(2), 125–136.
Koschmann, T. (2001). Revisiting the paradigms of instructional technology. In Meeting at the Crossroads. Proceedings of the 18th annual conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in tertiary education (pp. 15–22)
Koschmann, T. D. (1996). CSCL, Theory, and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Routledge.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0325-3
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A History of instructional design and Technology: Part I: A History of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506
Resnick, M., & Robinson, K. (2017). Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity Through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11017.001.0001
Rosenberg, J. M. (2023). Open and useful? An exploration of the science education resources on OER Commons. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education.
Rosenberg, J. M., Borchers, C., Stegenga, S. M., Burchfeld, M. A., Anderson, D., & Fischer, C. (2022). How educational institutions reveal students’ personally identifable information on Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 1(4), 1–17. https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2022.2140672
RPS Mata kuliah manajemen pusat sumber belajar prodi teknologi pendidikan FIP UPI [Lesson plan of management learning resource center course educational technology study program of FIP UPI]. (2017). Tidak diterbitkan [Unpublished].
RPS mata kuliah manajemen sistem pendidikan dan pelatihan prodi teknologi pendidikan FIP UPI [Lesson plan of educational systems management and training courses for the educational technology study program of FIP UPI]. (2017). Tidak diterbitkan [Unpublished].
RPS mata kuliah pengembangan sumber daya manusia prodi teknologi pendidikan FIP UPI [Lesson plan of human resources development course, educational technology study program FIP UPI]. (2017). Tidak diterbitkan [Unpublished].
RPS mata kuliah sistem informasi manajemen prodi teknologi pendidikan FIP UPI [Lesson plan of management information systems course, educational technology study program FIP UPI]. (2017). Tidak diterbitkan [Unpublished].
Seaman, J. E. & Seaman, J. (2022a). Coming back together: Educational resources in U.S. K-12 education, 2022. https://www.bayviewana lytics.com/reports/k-12_oer_comingbacktogether.pdf
Seaman, J. E. & Seaman, J. (2022b). Turning point for digital curricula: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2022. https://www. bayviewanalytics.com/reports/turningpointdigitalcurricula.pdf
Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Teknologi pembelajaran [Instructional technology] (Association for Educational Communication and Technology-Washington, DC). Jakarta: Ikatan Profesi Teknologi Pendidikan Indonesia [Indonesian Educational Technology Professional Association] (IPTPI) bekerjasama dengan Lembaga Pengembangan Teknologi Kinerja [in collaboration with the Performance Technology Development Institute] (LPTK).
Sweney, M. (2022). Twitter ‘to lose 32m users in two years after Elon Musk takeover.’ The Guardian. https://www.thegu ardian.com/technology/2022/dec/13/twitter-lose-users-elon-musktakeover-hate-speech.
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. (2016). Kurikulum 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia [Indonesian Education University of 2013 curriculum]. Bandung: UPI Press.
Valtonen, T. (2011). An insight into collaborative learning with ICT: Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. It¨a-Suomen yliopisto
Veletsianos, G. (2017). Three cases of hashtags used as learning and professional development environments. TechTrends, 61(3), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0143-3 Wiley, D.
Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed-tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
Wiley, D., & Hilton, J. L., III. (2018). Defning OER-enabled pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(4), 27- 41. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i4.3601
Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing `Research, 56(3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117713114
Woodward, S., Lloyd, A., & Kimmons, R. (2017). Student voice in textbook evaluation: Comparing open and restricted textbooks. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 10- 29. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3170
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
View My Stats
The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Pendidikan Progresif that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.