Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Science vs Art in the History of Learning, Design, and Technology

  • 41 Accesses

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


  1. Barab, S. A., Gresalfi, M., & Ingram-Goble, A. (2010). Transformational play: using games to position person, content, and context. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 525–536.

  2. Bishop, M. J. (2014). Instructional message design: Past, present, and future relevance. In J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 373–383). New York: Springer.

  3. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Changing conceptions of design. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 323–330). Pearson.

  4. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

  5. Burton, J. K., Moore, D. M. M., & Magliaro, S. G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1st ed., pp. 46–69). New York: Simons & Schuster/MacMillan.

  6. Crowder, N. A. (1959). Automatic tutoring by means of intrinsic programming. In E. Galanter (Ed.), Automatic teaching: The state of the art (pp. 109–116). New York: Wiley.

  7. Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., & Bowman, C. (2004). Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 158–165). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  8. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

  9. Fitzgerald, H. T. (1962). Teaching machines: a demurrer. The School Review, 70(3), 247–256.

  10. Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(2), 67–87.

  11. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (Vol. 2, pp. 53–65). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

  12. Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34–37.

  13. Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17–27.

  14. Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye, teacher…. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79–89.

  15. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

  16. Kendler, H. H. (1961). Stimulus-response psychology and audiovisual education. Audiovisual communication review, 9(5), 33–41.

  17. Klaus, D. (1965). An analysis of programming techniques. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

  18. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & the ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.

  19. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.

  20. Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 211–227). Englewood: Libraries Unlimited.

  21. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design. MA: Danvers.

  22. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated action: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspective, and practice (pp. 3–7). New York: Teachers College Press.

  24. Willis, J. (2009). Three trends in instructional design. In Constructivist instructional design (C-ID): Foundations, models, and examples (pp. 11–45). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  25. Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.

  26. Winn, W. (1993). Instructional design and situated learning: paradox or partnership? Educational Technology, 33(3), 16–20.

  27. Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research educational communications and technology (pp. 112–142). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Tong Li.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, T. Science vs Art in the History of Learning, Design, and Technology. TechTrends 64, 190–192 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00475-7

Download citation