Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The application of layer theory to design: the control layer

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A theory of design layers proposed by Gibbons (An Architectural Approach to Instructional Design. Routledge, New York, 2014) asserts that each layer of an instructional design is related to a body of theory closely associated with the concerns of that particular layer. This study focuses on one layer, the control layer, examining potential candidates for layer-related theory to determine the validity of this claim. In the process of completing this study, the authors came to the realization that what they considered a relatively uncharismatic and uncomplicated layer actually holds the key to a better understanding of interactivity, interface design, and the design of more conversational instructional experiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (2013). Medical devices and medical systems—Essential safety requirements for equipment comprising the patient-centric integrated clinical environment (ICI)–Part I: General requirements and conceptual model (ASTM F2761-09 (2013)). http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2761.htm.

  • Anderson, R. C. (1967). Educational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 129–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L. T. (1988). A history of teaching machines. American Psychologist, 43(9), 703–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, R. P. (1997). The relationship of science and technology: A bibliographic guide. A joint publication of the Navy Laboratory/Center Coordinating Group, and Department of the Navy (ISBN 0-945274-38-6).

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constant II, E. W. (1984). Communities and hierarchies: Structure in the practice of science and technology. In R. Laudan (Ed.), The nature of technological knowledge: Are models of scientific change relevant? (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht, GR: D. Reidel Publishing Company (Kluwer).

  • Crawford, C. (2003). The art of interactive design. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickmeyer, N. (1989). Metaphor, model, and theory in education research. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2010). The nature of design thinking. In K. Dorst, S. Stewart, I. Standinger, B. Paton & A. Doug (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th DTR Symposium: Interpreting design thinking. Sydney, AU, 19-20 October 2010 (ISBN 928-0-9808622-2-5).

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1st ed., pp. 170–198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, M. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gage, N. L. (1964). Theories of teaching. In E. R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction: The Sixty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 268–285). Chigago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Bunderson, C. V. (2005). Explore, explain, design. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 927–938). New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (2014/1979) The theory of affordances. In J. J. Gieseking, W. Mangold, C. Katz, S. Low, & S. Saegert (Eds.), The people, place, and space reader (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.

  • Green, P., Levison, W. Paelke, G. & Serafin, C. (1994). Suggested human factors design guidelines for driver information systems. Technical report FHWA-RD-94-087, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&D, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.

  • International Organization for Standards. (2012). ISO 4040:2009: Road vehicles—Location of hand controls, indicators, and tell-tales in motor vehicles. www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44856.

  • Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1996). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. J. (1969). An approach to general systems theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. K. (1986). Interface as mimesis. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 67–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LEGO Mindstorms. (n.d.). www.lego.com/en-us/mindstorms/?domaindir=mindstorms.lego.com.

  • Lehman, K. (2011). Profile of Stephen Hawking. Science and Technology Libraries, 30, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced materials: A critical appraisal of its history. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, G. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 326–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros, J. (2015). How Intel gave Stephen Hawking a voice. http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-gave-stephen-hawking-voice/.

  • Mehta, A. (2007). When a button is all that connects you to the world. In A. Oram & G. Wilson (Eds.), Beautiful code: Leading programmers explain how they think. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, C. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1993). The design of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, S. (2013). The design of future educational interfaces. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. Tech Trends, 50(4), 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Education Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (1997). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, LOGO, and design. Children’s Environment Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M. (2004). CSILE/Knowledge Forum(r). In Educational technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, pp. 183–192. http://learnteachlead.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CSILE_KF-2.pdf.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1999). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venable, J. R. (2006). The role of theory and theorising in design science research. Presented at the first international conference on design science, research in information systems, and technology. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate University.

  • Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2005). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, ALA: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Jonassen, D. H., & Cole, P. (1993). Cognitive approaches to instructional design. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD handbook of instructional technology (pp. 21.1–21.22). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, M., Jo, Y., Donovan, C., & Gabree, S. (2013). Human factors considerations in the design and evaluation of flight deck displays and controls (DOT/FAA/TC-13/44; DOT-VNTSC-FAA-13-09). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology Department, David O. McKay School of Education, Brigham Young University, 150 MCKB, Provo, UT, USA

    Andrew S. Gibbons & Matthew B. Langton

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Gibbons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew B. Langton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Gibbons.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Often the main value of a theory lies in the new kinds of research it generates.

Gage (1964, p. 281).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gibbons, A.S., Langton, M.B. The application of layer theory to design: the control layer. J Comput High Educ 28, 97–135 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9111-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9111-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation