Abstract
Responding to a call to create an authentic learning environment where instructional design students find meaning in what is being designed, we asked student design teams to respond to: give us something to react to and make it rich. Student designers took stock in, reacted to, and reflected on rich external representations, for three class projects in different instructional design classes. Following specific definitions of rich external representations and elements of context, our study aimed to answer the question: in what ways did student designers take stock in, react to, and reflect on their rich external representations in an authentic learning environment? Student designers openly interpreted their external representations, received information from their external representations, and stimulated a reflective conversation, which sparked an iterative design process. The instructor was an active participant who observed firsthand the progress of each design and, ultimately, the final design interventions. We conclude that constructing an authentic learning environment where students interacted with external representations drove design processes that resulted in feasible and effective interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baaki, J. & Luo, T. (2017). Stimulating students’ use of external representations for a distance education time machine design. TechTrends, 61, 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0155-z.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9371-2.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York: Harper Business.
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6–11.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Berg Publishers.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dorst, K. (2012). How design can improve public spaces [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPsmww461pI&t=48s. Accessed 22 June 2016.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.
Dotan, A., Maiden, N., Lichtner, V., & Germanovich, L. (2009). Designing with only four people in mind?—A case study of using personas to redesign a work-integrated learning support system. In IFIP conference on human–computer interaction (pp. 497–509). Berlin: Springer.
Faste, H., & Lin, H. (2012). The untapped promise of digital mind maps. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1017–1026). ACM.
Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eyes: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.
Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (2000). Role of the right prefrontal cortex in ill-structured planning. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 17(5), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432900410775.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42–45.
Guindon, R. (1990). Designing the design process: Exploiting opportunistic thoughts. Human–Computer Interaction, 5, 305–344.
Harris, C., & Zha, S. (2013). Concept mapping: A critical thinking technique. Education, 134(2), 207–211.
Hindmarsh, J. (1993). Tensions and dichotomies between theory and practice: A study of alternative formulations. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 12(2), 101–115.
Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–95.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.
Lin, H., & Faste, H. (2011). Digital mind mapping: innovations for real-time collaborative thinking. In CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2137–2142). ACM.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Maher, M. L., & Tang, H. H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0016-y.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. New York: Wiley.
Pruitt, J., & Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: Keeping the people in mind throughout product design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Reynolds, M. (1998). Reflection and critical reflection in management learning. Management Learning, 29, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698292004.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston: Basics Books, Inc.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types, and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–155.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Stables, K. (2008). Designing matters, designing minds: The importance of nurturing the designerly in young people. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(3), 8–18.
Swaak, J., van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (1998). Supporting simulation-based learning: The effects of model progression and assignments on definitional and intuitive knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 8, 235–252.
Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19, 249–271.
Van Bruggen, J., & Kirschner, P. (2003). Designing external representations to support wicked problems. Arguing to Learn (pp. 177–203). Dordrecht: Springer.
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003.
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 102(2), 125–148.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baaki, J., Luo, T. Instructional designers guided by external representations in a design process. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 513–541 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-09493-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-09493-2