Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 97–135 | Cite as

The application of layer theory to design: the control layer

  • Andrew S. Gibbons
  • Matthew B. Langton
Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Instructional design Design layers Design theory Instructional theory Control design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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.
  2. Anderson, R. C. (1967). Educational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 18, 129–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin, L. T. (1988). A history of teaching machines. American Psychologist, 43(9), 703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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).Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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).Google Scholar
  11. Crawford, C. (2003). The art of interactive design. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Horace Liveright.Google Scholar
  13. Dickmeyer, N. (1989). Metaphor, model, and theory in education research. Teachers College Record, 91(2), 151–159.Google Scholar
  14. 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).Google Scholar
  15. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fowler, M. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.
  25. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1996). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Klir, G. J. (1969). An approach to general systems theory. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehman, K. (2011). Profile of Stephen Hawking. Science and Technology Libraries, 30, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mandler, G. (2002). Origins of the cognitive (r)evolution. Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 38(4), 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  36. McNerney, T. S. (2004). From turtles to tangible programming bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Medeiros, J. (2015). How Intel gave Stephen Hawking a voice. http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-gave-stephen-hawking-voice/.
  38. 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
  39. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, C. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing interactions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Norman, D. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  42. Norman, D. A. (1993). The design of everyday things. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. Oviatt, S. (2013). The design of future educational interfaces. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. Tech Trends, 50(4), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parrish, P. (2007). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Education Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Resnick, M. (1997). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Resnick, M., Ocko, S., & Papert, S. (1988). LEGO, LOGO, and design. Children’s Environment Quarterly, 5(4), 14–18.Google Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Simon, H. (1999). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Walton, D. (2005). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa, ALA: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  62. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and Technology Department, David O. McKay School of EducationBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options