Educational Software Design in Practice: Understanding the Power of Intersecting Disciplines on Design Process
Educational Software Design in Practice: Understanding the Power of Intersecting Disciplines on Design Process
复制标题
教育软件设计实践：了解交叉学科对设计过程的力量
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Marisa E. Exter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mohan Yang;I. Ashby;B. McCord;Tadd Farmer;Umair Sarwar;Marisa E. Exter
本章分享了合著者在跨学科环境中对设计过程的不断发展的理解，这些理解是由独特的个人背景和教师和学生在跨学科教育软件设计课程中的共同参与形成的。遵循合作的自传体民族志方法，我们研究了我们的自传体叙事和对话对话，使个人故事的意义，并制定了课程设计如何影响我们对设计过程的理解的集体愿景。我们将讨论对跨学科课程设计的影响。教育软件设计需要一种跨学科的方法，结合学习和参与，可访问性和设计的理论（Tchounikine，2011）。它需要具有不同背景的专业人士的合作，包括教学设计（ID），用户体验设计（UX）和软件设计。虽然这些专家沉浸在学科视角、理论、术语和流程中（埃克斯特&阿什比，2018;丘尼金，2011），但教育课程并不一定能让他们了解其他专家做什么以及他们如何做。设计的内涵在各个领域都有所不同，所使用的正式流程模型也是如此。过程模型可视化无形的步骤来解释设计方面，并根据迭代和后续实现来改进它们（Orbus Software，2016）。流程模型提供的清晰路径提供了更好的时间和流程估计，使客户保持更新，识别潜在的挑战并尽早解决它们（Segue Technologies，2015）。 [If在以后的草稿中有足够的空间，我们将讨论从本文中使用的例子中得出的具体过程模型]跨学科环境中的学习使学生接触到“不同种类的知识”（Davies & Devlin，2010），但在高等教育中嵌入跨学科的努力往往具有挑战性（Gillis等人，2017; Jones，2009）。这一章的重点是研究生在一个跨学科的研究生课程的经验。我们将研究我们独特的学科背景和跨学科课程经验对我们关于设计和设计过程的想法的影响。这是讲师玛丽莎埃克斯特和早期一组学生描述的课程的后期体现（埃克斯特等，2018年）。为了讲述我们的故事，我们使用了一种协作和唤起的自我民族志方法，作者“同时是工具和数据源”，以捕捉收集的个人经验的意义（Chang，Ngunjiri，&埃尔南德斯，2012年，第22页），重视自我分析以确保主体间性（Chang等人，2012年）。我们结合工件的共同审查，对话对话，以引出和讨论我们的经验和教训，并通过个人对提示的反应将这些想法扩展到写作中（见图1）。在整个章节中，你会听到教师和学生的个人声音。反身性被嵌入到整个过程中：从对话到叙事性写作。我们每个人都认识到我们在这一过程中的立场，并相互合作，努力保持开放的对话（安德森，2006年; Palaganas等人，2017年）。图1.三角数据资源。
This chapter shares the co-authors’ evolving understanding of design process in an interdisciplinary environment, shaped by unique individual backgrounds and shared engagement in an interdisciplinary educational software design course from both the instructor and students’ perspectives. Following a collaborative autoethnographic approach, we examined our autobiographical narratives and dialogic conversations to make meanings out of personal stories, and developed a collective vision of how the course design impacted our understanding of design process. We will discuss implications on the design of interdisciplinary courses. Educational software design requires an interdisciplinary approach combining theories of learning and engagement, accessibility, and design (Tchounikine, 2011). It requires collaboration of professionals with diverse backgrounds, including instructional design (ID), user experience design (UX) and software design. While these specialists are steeped in disciplinary perspectives, theories, terminology, and processes (Exter & Ashby, 2018; Tchounikine, 2011), educational programs do not necessarily prepare them to understand what other specialists do and how they do it. Design connotations differ across fields, as do the formal process models used. Process models visualize intangible steps to explain design aspects and improve them based on iteration and subsequent implementation (Orbus Software, 2016). A clear path offered by a process model provides better time and process estimates, keeps a customer updated, identifies potential challenges and addresses them early (Segue Technologies, 2015). [If sufficient space in later drafts, we will discuss specific process models drawn from examples used in this paper] Learning in an interdisciplinary environment exposes students to ‘different kinds of knowing’ (Davies & Devlin, 2010), but efforts to embed interdisciplinarity in higher education have often been challenging (Gillis et al., 2017; Jones, 2009). This chapter focuses on the experiences of graduate students in one interdisciplinary graduate course. We will examine the impacts of our unique disciplinary backgrounds and interdisciplinary course experiences on our thoughts about design and design process. This is a later incarnation of the course described by instructor Marisa Exter and an earlier group of students (Exter et al., 2018). To tell our story, we use a collaborative and evocative autoethnography approach, where authors are “simultaneously the instrument and the data source,” in order to capture the meanings of the collected personal experience (Chang, Ngunjiri, & Hernandez, 2012, p. 22), valuing the analysis of self to ensure intersubjectivity (Chang et al., 2012). We combined co-review of artifacts, dialogic conversations to elicit and discuss our experiences and lessons learned, and expanded these ideas into writing through individual responses to prompts (see Fig. 1). Throughout the chapter you will hear individual voices of the instructor and students. Reflexivity was built into the whole process: from dialogic conversations to the narrative write-up. We each recognized our positionalities within the process and with each other and worked on maintaining an open dialogue (Anderson, 2006; Palaganas, et al., 2017). Figure 1. Triangulated data resources.