Critiquing the Role of the Learner and Context in Aesthetic Learning Experiences

Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

I critique the role of learners and context to more fully explore the latent conceptions and performance of aesthetic learning experiences in instructional design and technology. This critique is intended to allow for a fuller interrogation of how individual learners apprehend designed learning experiences, heightening the role of the instructional designer in envisioning such experiences. Using a 1-year ethnography of a graduate human–computer interaction program to document the felt student experience, I highlight the importance of understanding how learners construct their own experiences during the learning process through the roles they take on and the informal pedagogical experiences they create. I identify additional areas of research that are needed to expand our notions of designing for experience, informing both theory construction and practice.

References

  1. Bannon, L. J., & Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: Encountering artifacts in use. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human–computer interface (pp. 227–253). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bardzell, J. (2011). Interaction criticism: An introduction to the practice. Interacting with Computers, 23(6), 604–621. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, M. J. (2014). Reconceptualizing instructional message design: Toward the development of a new guiding framework. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 143–159). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction: Changing roles (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boling, E. (2008, October). Design is not systematic: Alternative perspectives on design—Designer as human instrument. Panel session organized by David Jonassen. Annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  6. Boling, E., Eccarius, M., Smith, K., & Frick, T. (2004). Instructional illustrations: Intended meanings and learner interpretations. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(2), 185–204.Google Scholar
  7. Boling, E., Gray, C. M., Modell, M. G., Altuwaijri, A., & Jung, J. (2014). Learners interpreting instructional images: Meaning-making and decision-making strategies. Journal of Visual Literacy, 33(2), 20.Google Scholar
  8. Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, Y. -N., Lim, Y. -K., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Personas: From theory to practices. In NordiCHI’08: Proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: Building bridges (pp. 439–442). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1463160.1463214Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1938/2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Trade.Google Scholar
  12. Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 1(1), 40–54.Google Scholar
  13. Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In CHI’03: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 225–232). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  15. Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, C. M. (2014). Living in two worlds: A critical ethnography of academic and proto-professional interactions in a human–computer interaction design studio. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  18. Gray, C. M. & Howard, C. D. (2013). Expectations of reciprocity? An analysis of critique in Facebook posts by student designers. In Critique 2013: An international conference reflecting on creative practice in art, architecture, and design (pp. 381–395). Adelaide, SA: University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2014). Designerly talk in non-pedagogical social spaces. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 40–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurung, R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (Eds.). (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport.Google Scholar
  22. Harrison, S., Tatar, D., & Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. In CHI’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jin, S.-H., & Boling, E. (2010). Instructional designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals in an e-learning context. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29(2), 143–166.Google Scholar
  24. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Kress, G. (2004). Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lefstein, A., & Snell, K. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Löwgren, J. (2006). Articulating the use qualities of digital designs. In Aesthetic computing (pp. 383–403). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. McCarthy, J., & Wright, J. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, C. (2011). Aesthetics and e-assessment: The interplay of emotional design and learner performance. Distance Education, 32(3), 307–337. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.Google Scholar
  36. Parrish, P. E. (2008). Designing compelling learning experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  37. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Parrish, P. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 261–270). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge. doi:0203872134.Google Scholar
  40. Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  41. Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist aesthetics: Living beauty, rethinking art. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  42. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weber, M. (1904/1949). Objectivity in social science and social policy. In E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch (Eds. and transl.) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.Google Scholar
  50. Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations