E-tutors’ instructional strategies in teaching the design process in virtual classroom: A case in an Open Distance eLearning (ODeL) environment

Abstract

The technology curriculum is positioned to have the same status as those in mathematics and science curricula. This existence is supplied as a means of advancing knowledge and contributing to key insights into the subject's design process curriculum, particularly in the context of an ODeL. Innovative instructional methodologies are better positioned to develop design process knowledge within the needs of the ODeL environment to meet this requirement. "How did the e-tutors' gained pedagogical knowledge effect the students' learning of the design process?" was studied as a question to help the inquiry get more important insights. This work used a quantitative way to answer the main research question by allowing students to describe how they believe their e-tutor abilities to select instructional tactics to teach the design process. The quantitative data was employed as a scope and depth of comprehension and confirmation of the data gathered in the quantitative approach. Three hundred fifty postgraduate students were chosen from a year module of a degree as a sample. The instructional tactics of the e-tutors in teaching the design process in the virtual classroom were evaluated through an online survey. In the results of the study, in virtual classroom settings, e-tutors were found to have less ability to innovate and employ a broad educational style. It can be recommended to use an alternative model of e-tutor appointments instead of using the existing.

Keywords

• design process
• e-tutoring
• open distance e-learning
• instructional strategies

References

1. Adeoye, B. F. (2020). The era of digital technology in teaching and learning in Nigeria Educational Institutions. The Roles of Technology and Globalization in Educational Transformation, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9746-9
2. Al-Hunaiyyan, A., & Alhajri, R. (2021). Towards an efficient integrated distance and blended learning model: How to minimise the Impact of Covid-19 on education. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(10), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i10.21331
3. Baldauf, K. (2021). In 10minutes Design Thinking. Retrieved from: https://slidetodoc.comlinlO­ minutes-design-thinking-hy-ken-baldaufl
4. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Clarke, R. (2020). Design thinking. Chicago: Ala Editions.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: SAGE. Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement. (CAPS). Technology. Grades 7-9. Department of basic Education: Pretoria.
7. Ebner. M., Schön, S., & Braun, C. (2020). More than a MOOC—seven learning and teaching scenarios to use MOOCs in higher education and beyond. In: Yu S, Ally M, Tsinakos A (eds) Emerging technologies and pedagogies in the curriculum. Future education with intelligence, bridging human and machine. Springer, Singapore.
8. Frazier-Goatley, La’Tonya., Adelson, J.L., & Snyder, K.E. (2022). Using a Multi-Systems Approach: Early Intervention, Changing Mindsets, Learning Opportunities, and Meaningful Data. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 116–118.

9. Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2019). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272
10. Han, J., Gu, L. Y., & Chen, D. (2021). Application of innovative design thinking in product design, intelligent waste-paper recycling machine design case. 1-5. E3S Wed Conference. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3scomf/202123604062
11. Herwin, H., Saptono, B., Ardiyansyah, A.R. & Wibowo, S.E. (2021). How elementary school teachers organize online learning during the covid-19 pandemic? World Journal of Educational Technology: Current Issues. 13(3), 437-449.https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v13i3.5952
12. Kelly, N., & Goro, J. (2021). Design thinking and computational thinking: a dual process model for addressing design problems. Design Science, 7, 12-20. Doi:10.1017/dsj.2021.7. Išoraitė, M., & Gulevičiutė, G. A.V. (2021). Study of online entrepreneurship education under conditions of a pandemic. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(3), 179-192. http://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.8.3(10).
13. Johann, D., Nunes, A., Santos, G., Silva, D., Bresciani, S., & Lopes, L. (2020). Mapping of scientific production on design thinking as a tool for entrepreneurship education: a bibliometric study of a decade, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 16(4), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-05-2019-0028
14. Jones, D.E., Snider, C., Kent, L., & Hicks, B. (2019). Early-stage digital twins for early-stage engineering design. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, 1(1), 2557-2566.
15. Kamat, R.K, (2021). Design thinking: an innovative approach for addressing contemporary realities in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59(18), 3-8.
16. Krishnan, A.G., Devikrishna, S., & Aich, S.C. (2021). Online education amidst pernicious covid scourge: altering traditional educational systems and implementation of arts- friendly distance education strategies. Annals of R.S.C.B., 25(4), 7470-7475.
17. Kuba, R., Rahimi, S., Smith, G., Shute, V., & Dai, C. (2021). Using the first principle of instruction and multimedia learning principles to design and develop in-game learning support videos. Education Technology Research Development, 69, 1201-1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-099943.
18. Lie, R., Aranda, M.L., Guzey, S.S., Moore, T.J. (2019). Students’ views of design in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. Research in Science Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9813-9.
19. Mann, L., Chang, R., Chandrasekaran S., & Daniel, S. (2020). From problem-based learning to practice -based education: a framework for shaping future engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 27-47.
20. Mesutoglu, C., & Baran, E. (2021). Examining the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1509-1529. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10041-0.
21. Mo, F. (2022). Strategies to Cultivate Generation Z Talent in Marketing under the Big Data Era. Open Access Library Journal, 9: e8157. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108157
22. Mofield, E.L. & Mofield, W.E.A. (2022). Applying a Christian perspective to educating gifted students through the talent development framework. International Journal of Christianity & Education, 26(1) 79–91.
23. Nelson, H.G & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT press.
24. Orbey, B., & Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, G.P. (2021). Design process revisited in the first-year design studio: between intuition and reasoning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 771-795 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09573-2.
25. Plattner, H., Meines, C., Leifer, L. (Eds.). (2012). Design thinking research. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1):3-10. http://www.itdi.org/Journal/Jan 05/article01.htm
26. Spies, F., Schauer, L., Bindel, T. et al. (2022). Talent detection—importance of the will and the ability when starting a sport activity. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-022-00796-0
27. Sukardi, R.R., Sopandi, W., Riandi, R. (2020). Repackaging RADEC learning model into online mode in science class. International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE). Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Doi:101088/1742-6596/1806/1/012142.
28. Surur, M., Degeng, I., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D. (2020). The effect of problem-based learning strategies and cognitive styles on junior high school students’ problem-solving abilities. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13.
29. Syaharuddin, M., Handy, M.R.N.H., Waramansyah, A.J. (2021). Building students’ learning experience in online learning during the pandemic. Al-Islah: Jurnal Pendidikan, 13(2), 979-987. DOI:10.35445/alishlah.v13i2.796.
30. Trauth, A., Buckley, J., & Coffey, D.J. (2018). Design of design: Empowering k-12 educators to develop unique standards-aligned engineering design exercises in their own classrooms. Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/30269.
31. Trilles, A.L. (2021). Teaching strategies in online distance learning on critical thinking skills and technical skills of the students. EPRA International Journal of Research and Development (IJRD), 6(6), 341-355.
32. Van Diggelen, M. R., Doulougeri, K. I., Gomez‑Puente, S. M., Bombaerts, G., Dirkx, K. J. H., & Kamp, R. J. A. (2021). Coaching in design‑based learning: a grounded theory approach to create a theoretical model and practical propositions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education (2021), 31, 305-324. Doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09549-x
33. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Baska, A. (2021). Curriculum Planning & Instructional Design for gifted learners. Third Edition. Routledge: New York.
34. Wahab, S., & Iskandar, M. (2020). Teacher’s performance to maintain students’ learning enthusiasm in the online learning condition. JELITA, 1(2), 34–44.
35. Wang K, Zhu C (2019) MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: students’ participation, experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology Higher Education, 16:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s41239-019-0163-0