Aesthetic principles for instructional design

Development Article

Abstract

This article offers principles that contribute to developing the aesthetics of instructional design. Rather than describing merely the surface qualities of things and events, the concept of aesthetics as applied here pertains to heightened, integral experience. Aesthetic experiences are those that are immersive, infused with meaning, and felt as coherent and complete. Any transformative learning experience will have significant aesthetic qualities, and all instructional situations can benefit from attention to these qualities. Drawn from aesthetics theory and research and informed by current ID and learning theories, a set of five first principles and twelve guidelines for their application are described. The principles are not only compatible with existing ID theory bases but can complement and support that theory by offering ways to embody it in engaging learning experiences.

Keywords

Aesthetics Instructional design Learning experience Principles of instruction 

References

  1. Alexander, T. M. (1998). The art of life: Dewey’s aesthetics. In L. A. Hickman (Eds.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a postmodern generation (pp. 1–22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2004). Learning in “as-if” worlds: Cognition in drama in education. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 281–286.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle (trans. 1984). Poetics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. Two, pp. 2316–2340). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bolling, E. (2003). Design cultures. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eidt/shortpapers/documents/design_cultures.html.
  7. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, and life. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. (1968). The hero with a thousand faces (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 247–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1934/1989). Art as experience (Vol. 10). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Egri, L. (1942). The art of dramatic writing: Its basis in the creative interpretation of human motives. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  15. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? TechTrends, 47(5), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiemstra, R. (1997). Applying the individualizing instruction model with adult learners. In C. R. Dills, & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 555–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Hunter, L. (1993). Lew Hunter’s screenwriting 434. New York: Perigee Books.Google Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Preface. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. iii–ix). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Kolodner, J. L., & Guzdial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. C. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Martinez, M. (2002). Designing learning objects to personalize learning. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp. 151–171). Bloomington, IN: AECT.Google Scholar
  27. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Reseach on cognitive load theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Parrish, P. E. (2004). Investigating the aesthetic decisions of teachers and instructional designers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Available online at http://www.comet.ucar.edu/∼pparrish/.
  31. Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.Google Scholar
  32. Parrish, P. E. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ray, R. J. (1994). The weekend novelist. New York: Dell Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Reed, J. H., Shallert, D. L., & Deithloff, L. F. (2002). Investigating the interface between self-regulation and involvement process. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 53–57.Google Scholar
  35. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Rowland, G. (1999). A tripartite seed. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  37. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Schank, R. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The PT3 Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Three amigos: Using “anchored modular inquiry” to help prepare future teachers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tierno, M. (2002). Aristotle’s poetics for screenwriters. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
  44. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1955). The fellowship of the ring. New York: Ballatine Books.Google Scholar
  45. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, B. G. (2004). Foundations for instructional design: Reclaiming the conversation. In J. M. Spector, D. A. Wiley, C. Ohrazda, & A. Van Schaack (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 237–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–16.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The COMET ProgramUniversity Corporation for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations