Published date: Jan 10 2025

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The Bandung Creative Movement 2023 – Enhancing Collaboration In Arts, Design And Craft For Sustainable Creative Industries: Technology and Art

Pages: 137 - 144

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v10i3.17907

Andreas Rio Adriyantoandreasrio@telkomuniversity.ac.idTelkom University, Bandung

Design education emphasizes learning activities through exercises of sense, logic, and motor skills to create critical and creative individuals with artistic appreciation. Traditionally, design education is mostly conducted through face-to-face consultation and discussion to grasp undefined and uncommunicated tacit knowledge. Technological developments have led to societal changes that affect human learning patterns and online learning growth. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of online learning design courses. Theoretical reviews are used to understand the theoretical foundations of education, design education, online learning, and learning interactivity. This study introduces the didactic-pedagogical-contentcontext (DPCX) knowledge framework for online design courses. The framework was developed from the Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPCK) model to explain the content, pedagogical, and contextual elements of the design discipline applied to online learning. Design lecturers can use this framework as a guide to determine the combination of material content, pedagogy, and contextual materials in online learning. These findings and recommendations can also contribute to policymakers designing education in general.

Keywords: design education, online learning, learning interactivity, DPCX, TPCK

[1] Toffler A. The Third Wave. Bantam Books; 1980.

[2] Friedman T. The world is flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2005.

[3] Shulman LS. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reforms. Harv Educ Rev. 1987;57(1):1-22.

[4] Koehler MJ, Mishra P. What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. J Educ Comput Res. 2005;32(2):131–52.

[5] Angeli C, Valanides N. Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Comput Educ. 2009;52(1):154–68.

[6] Amador F, Nobre A, Barros D. Towards a model of a didactic of eLearning: an application to education for sustainable development. In: Pinheiro M, Sim oes D, editors. Handbook of Research on Engaging Digital Natives in Higher Education Settings. 2016. p. 396-415.

[7] Phillips KR, Miranda MAD, Shin J. Pedagogical content knowledge and industrial design education. J Technol Stud. 2009:47-55.

[8] Adams R, Forin T, Chua M, Radcliffe D. Making design pedagogical content knowledge visible within design reviews. DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium 2014, Purdue University. 2014;1-47.

[9] Doyle A, Seery N, Gumaelius L, Canty D, Hartell E. Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: Proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2019;29:473–91.

[10] Pare G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf Manag. 2015;52:183–99.

[11] Webster J, Watson RT. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2012;26(2)

[12] Tovey M. Design education as the passport to practice. In: Tovey M, editor. Design pedagogy, development in art and design education. New York: Routledge; 2015.

[13] Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

[14] Collins A, Brown JS, Newman SE. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1986.

[16] Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer Science+Business Media; 2011.

[16] Shulman LS. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ Res. 1986;15(20):4-14.

[17] Siemens G. Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Int J Instr Technol Distance Learn. 2005;2:3-10.

[18] Dave RH. Developing and Writing Behavioral Objectives. Tucson: Educational Innovators Press; 1970.

[19] Bates AW. Teaching in a digital age. 2019.

[20] Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR. Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals. Handbook 1 cognitive domain. London: Longmans; 1956.

[21] Garrett JJ. The elements of user experience: user-centered design for the web and beyond. 2nd ed. Berkeley: New Riders; 2011.

[22] Hassenzahl M. The thing and I: Understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Blythe MA, Overbeeke K, Monk AF, Wright PC, editors. Funology. Human- Computer Interaction Series, 3. 2003. p. 1-12.

[23] Hassenzahl M. User experience and experience design. In: Soegard M, Dam RF, editors. Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 3. The Interaction Design Foundation; 2014.

[24] Heitink M, Voogt J, Fisser P, Verplanken L, van Braak J. Eliciting teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge. Australas J Educ Technol. 2017;33(3):96-109.

[25] Kolb DA. Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Pearson Education; 2015.

[26] Niess ML, Gillow-Wiles H. Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australas J Educ Technol. 2017;33(3):77-95. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4:155-69.

[27] Saffer D. Designing for interaction, creating innovative applications and devices. 2nd ed. Berkeley: New Riders; 2010.

[28] Schön DA. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. Basic Books, Inc; 1983.

[29] Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J. Interaction design. 5th ed. Indiana: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2019.

[30] Starkey L. Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teach Teach Theory Pract. 2010;16(2):233-44.