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

  • Rocci Luppicini


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.


Graduate Student Potential Contribution Instructional Design Major Focus Design Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  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