Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Collaborative learning, peer communication, and tool use as design strategies: revising the Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix based on instructional practices of secondary design educators

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

K-12 educators who engage their students in designing using digital technologies face the challenge of teaching the act of designing in classroom contexts, yet books and articles on the topic of design processes and methods tend to focus on the instruction of design strategies for adult learners rather than children. One framework, the Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix (Crismond and Adams, Journal of Engineering Education 101:738–797, 2012) does address dimensions of design practices and instructional approaches specifically within K-16 educational contexts, but it has yet to be revised based on empirical evidence. Using multiple case studies, we examined this framework against teacher perceptions of how design should be taught and the observed instructional practices of those secondary educators. We argue that refinement to the IDTL Matrix is warranted and suggest expanding the framework to include design strategies that address collaborative learning, peer communication, and the integration of digital and non-digital tools and materials. Such revisions to the IDTL Matrix would contribute to providing the best possible support to teachers who seek to develop their students’ design strategies in classroom contexts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • Adorjan, A., & de Kereki, I. F. (2013). Design of activities for CS1: A competences oriented approach (unpacking the Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix). 2013 XXXIX Latin American Computing Conference (CLEI), Caracas, Venezuela. https://doi.org/10.1109/CLEI.2013.6670622

  • Advance CTE. (2023). Advancing the national career clusters framework. https://careertech.org/what-we-do/careerclusters/advancing-the-framework/

  • Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arya, R., Singh, J., & Kumar, A. (2021). A survey of multidisciplinary domains contributing to affective computing. Computer Science Review, 40, 100399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2017). The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, A. H. (2022). Design education: Chapter introduction. In A. H. Berry, K. Collie, P. A. Laker, L. A. Noel, J. Rittner, & K. Walters (Eds.), The Black experience in design: Identity, expression & reflection (pp. 116–118). Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradby, D., & Hudson, L. (2007). The 2007 revision of the career/technical education portion of the secondary school taxonomy (NCES 2008–030). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosens, L., Raes, A., Octavia, J. R., & Emmanouil, M. (2023). How future proof is design education? A systematic review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(2), 663–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09743-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., & Vernon, M. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based; earning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, J., Xie, C., Nourian, S., Chen, G., Bailey, S., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, S., Adams, R. S., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2017). Bridging the design-science gap with tools: Science learning and design behaviors in a simulated environment for engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(8), 1049–1096. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard, P. (2017). Instruments of inquiry: Understanding the nature and role of tools in design. International Journal of Design, 11(1), 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, A., & Reid, A. (2000). Uncovering problematics in design education: Learning and the design entity. International Conference Re-inventing Design Education in the University, Perth, W.A.

  • Davis, M. (2005). What is “professional” about professional education. In S. Heller (Ed.), The education of a graphic designer (pp. 66–73). Allworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. (2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the standards-based reform of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominici, L. (2017). Theoretical studies and practical tools for a systemic design educational paradigm. Applications of systems thinking principles to design education. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1448–S1458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2005). Peripheral vision: Expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies, 26(5), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605053102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9482-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farley-Ripple, E., May, H., Karpyn, A., Tilley, K., & McDonough, K. (2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18761042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2012). Models of design: Envisioning a future design education. Visible Language, 46(1–2), 132–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glazewski, K. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2020). Fostering complex problem solving for diverse learners: Engaging an ethos of intentionality toward equitable access. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 679–702. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09762-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., & Purzer, S. (2021). Understanding informed design through trade-off decisions with an empirically-based protocol for students and design educators. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 11(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, Ş, Adams, R. S., Chao, J., & Xie, C. (2019). The relationship between design reflectivity and conceptions of informed design among high school students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(1–2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2018.1498458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Hasib, A., Li, Z., & Chivukula, S. S. (2022). Using decisive constraints to create design methods that guide ethical impact. Design Studies, 79, 101097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A. F., Järvelä, S., & Miller, M. (2010). Self-regulated, co-regulated, and socially shared regulation of learning. In B. Zimmerman & D. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 65–84). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanover Research. (2013). U.S. and international design school trends.

  • Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver. Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrastinski, S. (2020). Informed design for learning with digital technologies. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 972–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1815221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. C. (1992). Design Methods (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabiyik, T., Magana, A. J., Parsons, P., & Seah, Y. Y. (2020). Characterizing students’ design strategies during simulation-based engineering of sustainable buildings [Paper Presentation]. ASEE Virtual Annual Conference, Virtual Online.

  • Lammi, M., Denson, C., & Asunda, P. (2018). Search and review of the literature on engineering design challenges in secondary school settings. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 8(2), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, V., Ge, X., & Huang, K. (2020). Understanding learners’ challenges and scaffolding their ill-structured problem solving in a technology-supported self-regulated learning environment. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology: Learning Design (pp. 321–343). Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. H. (2009). Design Expertise. Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McTighe, J., & Silver, H. F. (2020). Teaching for deeper learning: Tools to engage students in meaning making. ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklethwaite, P., & Knifton, R. (2017). Climate change. Design teaching for a new reality. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1636–S1650. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, C. T. (1993). Redefining designing: From form to experience. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium/National Career Technical Education Foundation. (2012). Common Career Technical Core. Authors.

  • Nelson, H., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nind, M., Hall, K., & Curtin, A. (2016). Research methods for pedagogy. Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., & Klemmer, S. (2014). State of design: How design education must change. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140325102438-12181762-state-of-design-how-design-education-must-change/

  • Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X031007003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1992). Introduction: Cases of “What is a case?” In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman, T. A. (2015). Meanings of design within a core standards movement: A technical use analysis. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scupelli, P., Wells-Papanek, D., Brooks, J., & Wasserman, A. (2020). Opening a design education pipeline from university to K-12 and back. In G. Muratovski & C. Vogel (Eds.), Teaching and learning design: Re: Research (Vol. 1, pp. 3–23). Intellect Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Self, J. A., & Baek, J. S. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in design education: Understanding the undergraduate student experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9355-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleyarkhan, M., Dasgupta, C., Garcia, J. M., & Magana, A. J. (2018). Investigating the impact of using a CAD simulation tool on students’ learning of design thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(4), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9727-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik, A. A., Graesser, A., Gatewood, J., & Gishbaugher, J. (2020). Role of questions in inquiry-based instruction: Towards a design taxonomy for question-asking and implications for design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09738-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoring, K., Desmet, P., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2018). Creative environments for design education and practice: A typology of creative spaces. Design Studies, 56, 54–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waite, J., Curzon, P., Marsh, W., & Sentance, S. (2020). Difficulties with design: The challenges of teaching design in K-5 programming. Computers & Education, 150, 103838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, M., & Berry, A. H. (2022). In Conversation: Maurice Woods & Anne H. Berry on meeting the demands of the future. In A. H. Berry, K. Collie, P. A. Laker, L. A. Noel, J. Rittner, & K. Walters (Eds.), The Black experience in design: Identity, expression & reflection (pp. 116–118). Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1108214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Download references

Funding

Partial financial support was received from Indiana University’s Jerrold E. Kemp Instructional Systems Technology Award. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Instructional Technology and Innovation, Kennesaw State University, 585 Cobb Ave NW, Room 2329, MD 0127, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, USA

    Tiffany A. Roman

  2. Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Room 2248, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Elizabeth Boling

Authors
  1. Tiffany A. Roman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Boling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TR designed and carried out the study originally as a dissertation study for which EB served as chair. Subsequently TR led the rewrite of the manuscript with collaborative review and editorial input from EB.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany A. Roman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by Indiana University’s Human Subjects and Institutional Review Boards (No. 1410338797) and Chicago Public Schools Research Review Board (No. 1093).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roman, T.A., Boling, E. Collaborative learning, peer communication, and tool use as design strategies: revising the Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix based on instructional practices of secondary design educators. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 1977–2012 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10358-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10358-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation