Reflective Action Instructional Design (RAID): A Designer's Aid

  • Rocci Luppicini
Article

Abstract

In recent years instructional design (ID) models have been a major focus of debate within the design community. The issue of creativity in ID is one area that has given rise to controversy. In this paper I present a topology of design questions and explore their potential contribution as a tool to promote reflection and designer discourse. First, I identify a topology of reflective action instructional design (RAID) questions. Next, I explore RAID within a community of design graduate students and its influences on design practices in terms of utility, originality, social contribution, and interest. Finally, I discuss ways to encourage reflection and designer discourse in design practice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Cross, N.: 2000, ‘Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science’, in Design plus research, Proceedings of the Politecnico di Milano Conference.Google Scholar
  2. Cole, A. & Knowles, J.: 2000, Researching Teaching: Exploring Teacher Development through Reflexive Inquiry, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. Dick, W.: 1995, ‘Instructional Design and Creativity: A Response to the Critics’, Educational Technology 34(4), 5–11.Google Scholar
  4. Heylighen, A., Neuckermans, H. & Bouwen, E.: 1999, ‘Walking a Thin Line-between Passive Knowledge and Active Knowing of Components and Concepts in Architectural Design’, Design Studies 20, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Holt, J.: 1997, ‘The Designer's Judgement’, Design Studies 18, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Margolin, V.: 2000, ‘Building a Design Research Community’, in Design Plus Research, Proceedings of the Politecnico di Milano Conference.Google Scholar
  7. Moallem, M.: 1998, ‘An Expert Teacher's Thinking and Teaching and Instructional Design Models and Principles: An Ethnographic Study’, Educational Technology Research and Development 46(2), 37–64.Google Scholar
  8. Rowland, D.: 1995, ‘Instructional Design and Creativity: A Response to the Criticized’, Educational Technology 34(5), 17–22.Google Scholar
  9. SchÖn, D.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action,Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rocci Luppicini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations