Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting Dynamic Instructional Design Decisions Within a Bounded Rationality

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various theories and models discuss how instructional designers can develop systems that allow learners to engage in problem-solving. To date, many of these theories and models that guide design often describe how learners engage in meaning-making within a situated context; however, they do not address strategies instructional designers can use to coordinate contextual factors impacting the environment. While these perspectives provide a more authentic view of action, they often overlook the design decision-making processes to support learning that occur within these situated environments. This makes it challenging to design learning systems that support complex interactions. Although studies have begun to emerge focusing on instructional design decisions, there is a need for a framework to guide how instructional designers engage in decision-making while designing for situated, real-world experiences. We then offer a theoretical design framework to facilitate design decision-making by conjecturing within a bounded rationality, exploring through analogical reasoning, and designing-in-action.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019). Solving instructional design dilemmas to develop a Video Enhanced Rubric with modeling examples to support mental model development of complex skills: The Viewbrics-project use case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 983–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09668-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., & DiRusso, A. A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(99)80017-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2017). Stimulating students’ use of external representations for a distance education time machine design. TechTrends, 61(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0155-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., & Tracey, M. W. (2019). Weaving a localized context of use: What it means for instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 8(1), 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2009). Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: Two strategies linked to uncertainty resolution. Design Studies, 30(2), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., & Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4), 723–767. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X97001611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1997). Designing social systems in a changing world: Contemporary systems thinking. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2014). Steering a course for embodied representation. In Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines (p. 51).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassok, M., & Holyoak, K. J. (1993). Pragmatic knowledge and conceptual structure: Determinants of transfer between quantitative domains. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 68–98). Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01440-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogard, T., Liu, M., & Chiang, Y. H. V. (2013). Thresholds of knowledge development in complex problem solving: A multiple-case study of advanced learners’ cognitive processes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 465–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9295-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boshuizen, H. P. A., van de Wiel, M. W., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). What and how advanced medical students learn from reasoning through multiple cases. Instructional Science, 40(5), 755–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design models (5th ed.). Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouillet, T., Heurley, L., Martin, S., & Brouillet, D. (2010). The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses. Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, A. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018001032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, R. A., Avraamides, M. N., Cary, M., & Strasberg, S. (2007). What do the hands externalize in simple arithmetic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2011). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1965). On the design of educational systems. Audiovisual Instruction, 10(5), 361–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Grush, R. (1999). Towards a cognitive robotics. Adaptive Behavior, 7(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (1999). Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction, 9(4), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: Eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00400.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custers, E. J. F. M., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1998). The role of illness scripts in the development of medical diagnostic expertise: Results from an interview study. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 367–398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daalhuizen, J., Badke-Schaub, P., & Batill, S. (2009). Dealing with uncertainty in design practice: issues for designer-centered methodology. In 17th International Conference on Engineering Design. Design Society.

  • de Jong, T., & Lazonder, A. W. (2014). 15 The Guided Discovery Learning Principle in Multimedia Learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 371-388). Cambridge University Press.

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(3), 319–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284(5411), 79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Hardré, P. L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-009-9064-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons A. S., Boling E., & Smith K. M. (2014) Instructional Design Models. In: J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 607–615). Springer.

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1987). The cognitive basis of knowledge transfer. In S. M. Cormier & J. D. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and applications (pp. 9–46). Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. J. (2015). Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 971–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.972963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazewski, K. D., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2019). Scaffolding and supporting use of information for ambitious learning practices. Information and Learning Sciences, 120(1/2), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W. T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., Graesser, A. C., & Martin, R. (2014). Domain-general problem solving skills and education in the 21st century. Educational Research Review, 13, 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. D., & Fagen, R. E. (1975). Definition of system. In B. D. Ruben & J. Y. Kin (Eds.), General systems theory and human communications (pp. 52–65). Hayden Book Company Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartling, L., Spooner, C., Tjosvold, L., & Oswald, A. (2010). Problem-based learning in pre-clinical medical education: 22 years of outcome research. Medical Teacher, 32(1), 28–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1479–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, C. F. Jr. (1977). A systems approach to audiovisual communications. In L. W. Cochran (Ed.), Okoboji: A 20-year review of leadership 1955–1974 (pp. 67–72). Kendall/Hunt.

  • Hokanson, B., & Gibbons, A. S. (Eds.). (2013). Design in educational technology. Design thinking, design processes, and the design studio. Springer.

  • Hollan, J. D., & Hutchins, E. L. (2010). Opportunities and challenges for augmented environments: A distributed cognition perspective. In S. Lahlou (Ed.), Designing user friendly augmented work environments (pp. 237–259). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollands, F., & Escueta, M. (2019). How research informs educational technology decision-making in higher education: The role of external research versus internal research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09678-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2019). Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first principles on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09660-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, O. (1995). Complex problem solving as multistage decision-making. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 151–173). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G., & Hay, D. (2001). Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, W. (2006). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (2006). The distributed cognition perspective on human interaction. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction (pp. 375–398). Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Identifying cross-domain distinguishing features of cognitive structure. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9207-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1996). Scaffolding causal, diagnostic reasoning in a case-based learning environment in medicine. In D. C. Edelson & E. A. Domeshek (Eds.), International Conference on the Learning Sciences (pp. 439–444). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (2011). Supporting problem solving in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2008). All problems are not equal: Implications for pbl. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(2), 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, H., & Choi, I. (2018). The role of argumentation in hypothetico-deductive reasoning during problem-based learning in medical education: A conceptual framework. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 12(1).

  • Karpicke, J. D. (2009). Metacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society, 25(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1991). The journal of the learning sciences: Effecting changes in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0101_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J., Dorn, B., Owensby, J., & Guzdial, M. (2012). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 142–170). Routledge.

  • Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139(4), 665–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2021). The role of design judgment and reflection in instructional design. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id/design_judgment

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landsiedel, J., & Gilbert, S. J. (2015). Creating external reminders for delayed intentions: Dissociable influence on “task-positive” and “task-negative” brain networks. NeuroImage, 104, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecoutre, M. P., Clement, E., & Lecoutre, B. (2004). Failure to construct and transfer correct representations across probability problems. Psychological Repeorts, 94(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.1.151-162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyens, S. M., Jones, S. H., Mikkers, J., & van Gog, T. (2015). Problem-based learning as a facilitator of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 38, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marewski, J. N., & Schooler, L. J. (2011). Cognitive niches: An ecological model of strategy selection. Psychological Review, 118(3), 393. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. G., Sollenberger, J., Easterby-Gannett, S., Morgan, L. K., Klem, M. L., Cavanaugh, S. K., ... & Hunter, S. (2013). The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 101(1), 38.

  • McNeil, S. (2015). Visualizing mental models: Understanding cognitive change to support teaching and learning of multimedia design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9354-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizikaci, F. (2006). A systems approach to program evaluation model for quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610643601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murty, P. (2009) ‘Comparing paradigms with practice: The design conjecture cycle’. In N. Gu, M. J. Ostwald, & A. Williams (Eds.), Computing, Cognition and Education: Recent Research in the Architectural Sciences. ANZAScA, in association with The University of Newcastle.

  • Nikolaidis, E. (2005). Types of uncertainty in design decision making. In E. Nikolaidis, D. M. Ghiocel, & S. Singhal (Eds.), Engineering design reliability handbook (pp. 8–1–8–20). CRC Press.

  • Öllinger, M., Hammon, S., von Grundherr, M., & Funke, J. (2015). Does visualization enhance complex problem solving? The effect of causal mapping on performance in the computer-based microworld Tailorshop. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9393-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(3), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quayle, J. D., & Ball, L. J. (2000). Working memory, metacognitive uncertainty, and belief bias in syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 1202–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, R. M., & Tan, Y. (2021). Visualizing course structure: Using course composition diagrams to reflect on design. Tech Trends, 65(4), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00592-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambusch, J., & Ziemke, T. (2005, July). The role of embodiment in situated learning. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1803–1808). Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Randles, C. A., & Overton, T. L. (2015). Expert vs. novice: approaches used by chemists when solving open-ended problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 811–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M. J., & Chemero, A. (2014). Complex dynamical systems and embodiment. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 57–68). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., Medimorec, S., Chisholm, J., & Kingstone, A. (2014). Rotating with rotated text: A natural behavior approach to investigating cognitive offloading. Cognitive Science, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2019). Integrating failure in case-based learning: A conceptual framework for failure classification and its instructional implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 617–637.

  • Schank, R. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  • Schlosser, J., & Paredis, C. J. J. (2007). Managing multiple sources of epistemic uncertainty in engineering decision making. Paper presented at SAE World Congress and Exhibition. Detroit, MI: SAE International.

  • Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36(3), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9029-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schöner, G. (2008). Dynamical systems approaches to cognition. In J. P. Spencer, M. S. Thomas, & J. L. McLelland (Eds.), Toward a unified theory of development: Connectionism and dynamic systems theory re-considered (pp. 101–126). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2019). How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 199–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. The M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Stapleton, L. (2022). An exploration of conjecture strategies used by instructional design students to support design decision-making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–29.

  • Storm, B. C., & Stone, S. M. (2015). Saving-enhanced memory: The benefits of saving on the learning and remembering of new information. Psychological Science, 26(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A., & Jonassen, D. (2013). The effects of successful versus failure-based cases on argumentation while solving decision-making problems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(3), 385–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., & Kolodner, J. L. (2016). Systematizing scaffolding for problem-based learning: A view from case-based reasoning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2015). Failing to learn: towards a unified design approach for failure-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 975–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson, & Gibbons (Eds), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 1–13). Springer.

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Uncertainty, agency and motivation in graduate design students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2019). Empathic design: Imagining the cognitive and emotional learner experience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1259–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09683-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (2015). The cognitive design of tools of thought. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0214-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, J. Y., & Schwen, T. M. (2003). Mental representation-based task analysis for analyzing value-laden performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser, W. (1996). Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: A cognitive-psychology approach. Design Studies, 17(4), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00020-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.5465/255139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, B., Alastair, R., & Davies, J. (2003) Information processing models: Benefits and limitations. In P. Mc Cabe (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics. Taylor and Francis.

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wosinski, J., Belcher, A. E., Dürrenberger, Y., Allin, A. C., Stormacq, C., & Gerson, L. (2018). Facilitating problem-based learning among undergraduate nursing students: A qualitative systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 60, 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J. (1991). The interaction of internal and external representations in a problem solving task. In Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference of cognitive science society (pp. 88–91). Erlbaum.

  • Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80022-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.2.12zha

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, 850 College Station Road, 221 Rivers Crossing, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Jill Stefaniak

  2. University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    Andrew Tawfik

  3. Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, PA, USA

    Justin Sentz

Authors
  1. Jill Stefaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Tawfik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Justin Sentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Stefaniak.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript. IRB approval and informed consent were not required for this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefaniak, J., Tawfik, A. & Sentz, J. Supporting Dynamic Instructional Design Decisions Within a Bounded Rationality. TechTrends 67, 231–244 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00792-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00792-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation