Exploring e-tutors teaching of the design process as content knowledge in an Open and Distance e-Learning environment

Abstract

Purpose: It is argued that Open and Distance eLearning (ODeL) institutions are expected to provide student support by focusing on critical aspects of content knowledge. Technology is a critical factor in student support through e-tutoring. The main question is ‘How are the varied procedural steps of the design process taught in the targeted ODeL institution”? It is assumed that ODeL institutions have competent e-tutors when supporting students through the teaching of content knowledge of the design process. Sample: The focus was on the postgraduate students who registered for two modules for a programme (n=250) in 2020. Method: The South African Ministry of Education for Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) was used to investigate, design, make, evaluate, and communicate. A quantitative approach with an online survey was used in exploring the perceptions of students about e-tutors’ content knowledge. Data analysis: It was done numerically and thematically. Results: The procedural steps vary depending on the different ministries of education worldwide. E-tutors seem to lack content knowledge to teach at a distance learning mode. The teaching of the design process to student teachers requires insights into the procedural steps of the design process curriculum. Suggestions: E-tutors should be provided with training in the design steps.

Keywords

• design process
• evaluate step
• investigate step
• open distance e-learning

References

1. Alessandrini, G. (2016). Nuovo manual per I’ esparto dei processi formative. Roma: Carocci Editore.
2. Boubekeur, S. (2021). E-teaching and e-learning challenges during the coronavirus: Dr. Moulay Tahar University as a case study. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 11(3), 195-203.
3. Cardella, M. E., Hsu, M., & Ricco, G. D. (2014). Analysis of design process knowledge task responses: statistical approaches to uncover patterns (research). Paper presented at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. https://www.asee.org/conferences-and-events/conferences/annual-conference/past-conference/2014
4. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of mixed Methods Research, 3(2),95-108.
5. Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. (CAPS). Technology. Grades 7-9. Department of basic Education: Pretoria.
6. Dilmac, S. (2020). Students’ opinions about Distance Education to Art and Design courses in the pandemic process. World Journal of Education, 10(3),113-126. http://wje.sciedupress.com
7. Doukakis, S. (2021). A Management Approach of An E-Tutoring Program for High School Students. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), 13(1), 21-31.
8. Fajarwati, A. A. S., Caroline, O. S., Rafli, M., & Auliawan, N. (2020). Reuse jeans for upholstery of Jepara chairs- a design thinking towards a sustainable creative industry. International Conference on Biosphere Harmony Advanced Research, Doi:10.1088/1755-1315/729/1/012101.

9. Goldstein, M. H., Omar, S.A., Purzer, S. & Adams, R. S. (2018). Comparing two approaches to engineering design in the 7th grade science classroom. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 6(4),381-397. https://doi.org/10.111/ssm.12198.
10. Greco, G.: L’apprendimento nell’era della connettività: una riflessione sociologica al confine tra comunicazione ed educazione. (2017). In: Scarcelli, C.M., Stella, R. (eds.) Digital literacy e giovani. Strumenti per comprendere, misurare intervenire, 21–31, Franco Angeli, Milano.
11. Gross, S., Stelzl, K., Grisold, T., Mendling, J., Roglinger, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2020). The business process design space for exploring process redesign alternatives. Business Management Journal, 2-33. DOI.10.1108/BPMJ-03-2020-0116. https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm.
12. Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments. A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2),145-178.
13. Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design thinking and the practicing teacher: addressing problems of practice in teacher education. Teaching Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841.
14. Heyns, M. (2012). Middle grade teachers’ understanding and teaching of the central ideas of central ideas of the engineering design process. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1-21.
15. Heyns, M., Mathis, C., Purzer, S., Rynearson, S., & Silvering, E. (2017). Systematic review of research in p-12 engineering education from 2000-2015. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1),1-10. https: www.ijee.ie/contents/c330117B.html.
16. Hodges, C., S., Moore, T., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning, Educause Review, https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
17. Hubers, M, D., Endedijk, M.D., & Van Veen, Z, K. (2020). Effective characteristics of professional development programs for science and technology education. Professional Development in Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1752289.
18. Institute of Design at Stanford. (2016). An introduction to design thinking process guide. http://dschool.stanford.edu/
19. Jureta, I. J. (2021). Requirements Contracts: Definition, Design, and Analysis. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique – FNRS, Brussels, Belgium, Universit´e de Namur, Belgium, STEMCELL Technologies Inc., Vancouver, Canada http://ivanjureta.com
20. Kang, E. D., Donovan, C & McCarthy, M. J. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 9-29. https:/doi.org/1046560X.2017.1415616.
21. Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y.T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1-15. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9.
22. Maré, S., & Mutezo, A.T. (2021). The effectiveness of e-tutoring in an open and distance e-learning environment: evidence from the university of south Africa. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 36(2), 164–180.
23. Nasir and Mansor (2021). Discussion on online courses from the point of view of the research community. Religación. Revista De Ciencias Sociales Y Humanidades, 4(19), 106-110.
24. Maphalala, M. C., & Mpofu, N. (2020). Examining first year students’ experience of being tutored: A South African case study. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3),1025-1037.
25. Mc Curdy, R. P., Nickels, M., Bush, S. B. (2020). Problem based design thinking tasks: engaging student empathy in STEM. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 22-55.
26. Maclean, A., Young, R. M., Victoria, M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). “Questions, options and criteria: elements of design space analysis” Human Computer Interaction, 6(3-4), 201-250.
27. Mesutoglu, C., & Baran, E. (2020). Examining the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18,1509-1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10041-0.
28. Mose, B., Dalsgaard, P., & Halsov, K. (2017). “Understanding creativity methods in design”, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference in Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 839-851.
29. O’ Brien, S., Hansen, A. K., Harlow, D. B. (2016). Educating teachers for maker movement: Pre-service teachers’ experiences facilitating maker experiences. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. (pp. 99-102). doi:10.1145/3003397.3003414.
30. Oehlberg, L., Agogino, A. (2011). Undergraduate conceptions of the engineering design process: Assessing the impact of human-centered design course. Paper presented at the 118th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouwer, BC, Canada. https:peer.asee.org/collections/2011-annual-conference-exposition.
31. Ortega- Tudela, J. M., Diaz-Pareja, E. M., Camara-Estrella, A.M & Llorent-Vaguero, M. (2021). Design thinking in future teachers training. Education and Development. https://doi.org/10.36315/2021end070.
32. Paganelli, A., Cribbs, J.D., Huang, X., Pereira, N., Huss, J., Chandler, W., & Paganelli, A. (2016). The makerspace experience and teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 43(2), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1166448
33. Peppler, K. A., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environment. New York, NY: Routledge.
34. Pratiwi, A., Ariani, D. (2020). The use of tutorial model in teaching Indonesian to foreign learners. ISCE: Journal of Innovative Studies on Character and Education, 4(1), 37-46. http://iscjournal.com/index.php/isce.
35. Schultz, R. B., DeMers, M. N. (2020). Transitioning from emergency remote learning to deep online learning experiences in Geography Education, Journal of Geography, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2020.18713791.
36. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
37. Shulman, L. S. (1987). ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform’. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),1-22.
38. Siemens, G. (2012). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
39. Smith, S., Talley, K., Ortiz, A., & Sriraman, V. (2021). You want to teach me to engineering? Impacts of recurring experiences on K-12 teachers’ engineering design self-efficacy. Familiarity with engineering, and confidence to teach with design -based learning pedagogy. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 11(1), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1241.
40. Vegliante, R., Sannicandro, K. (2020). The role of the e-tutor in the university context and in distance learning: an exploratory research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 16(3),76-85.
41. Walker, W. S., Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 331-339.
42. Wendel, K. B. (2014). Design practices of pre-service elementary teachers in an integrated engineering and literature experience. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2),29-46. https:doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1085.
43. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: representations of knowledge in teaching. IN J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking. 104-124. London, England: Cassell.
44. Winarno, N., Rusdiana, D., Samsudin, A., Susilowati, E., Ahmad, N. J., Meha, R., & Afifah, A. (2020). The steps of the Engineering Design Process (EPD) in science education: A systematic literature review. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1345-1360
45. Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2015). Design Thinking pedagogy: the educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.
46. Yata, C., Ohtani, T., & Isobe, M. (2020). Conceptual Framework of STEM based on Japanese subject principles. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(12),1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00205-8.
47. Youde, A. (2020). I don’t need peer support: effective tutoring in blended learning environments for part- time, adult learners. Higher Education Research &Development, 1-15.