EDISYS: A Tool for Enhancing Design Inquiry

  • Gordon RowlandEmail author
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)


The educational technology field’s capability to contribute to widespread educational improvement can be enhanced by redirecting and more sufficiently developing our approaches to inquiry. Several steps that can be taken include (1) embracing design as a unique and essential form of inquiry, (2) developing design inquiry systems, which integrate design and research and which embrace systems concepts and principles more fully than we have to date, and (3) developing tools/technologies for strengthening these systems and, potentially as a result, design practice, design education, and design cases. This chapter describes an example of a tool, an Enhanced Design Inquiry System (EDISYS).


Design inquiry Inquiry system Design inquiry system Educational innovation Design-based research Over-the-edge thinking Trustworthiness Design way Learning Designing Disciplined inquiry Inquiry System Systems design Powerful learning experience Second-order cybernetics Reflection in design Designing the design Design case Expert behavior First principles Interdependence Emergence Dimensionality Requisite variety Complexity Half-known world 


  1. Akin, O. (1994). Creativity in design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in educational research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, B. (1995, January). The nature of research. CoDesign: Interdisciplinary Journal of Design, 2, 6–13.Google Scholar
  4. Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banathy, B. H., & Rowland, G. (2002). Guiding our evolution: If we dont do it, who will? Self-published 2014:
  7. Bishop, M. J. (2014). Reconceptualizing instructional message design: Toward the development of a new guiding framework. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  9. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Critical issues in studio pedagogy: Beyond the mystique and down to business. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope TM system approach. Systems, 1(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
  11. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. The Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The Designer/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. Oxford, UK: Berg.Google Scholar
  16. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design. Proceedings from CHI 2012, May 5–12, Austin, TX. Retrieved from
  17. Gibbons, A. S. (2009). The value of the operational principle in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbons, A. S., & Brewer, E. K. (2005). Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaak, & D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional design: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Howard, C. D. (2014). Instructional design cases: Documenting precedent in instructional design. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Kaufman, R. (2009). Mega thinking and planning: An introduction to defining and delivering individual and organizational success. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krippendorfff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. NHS Shared Learning. (2009). Quality assurance checklists for learning objects and online courses. Retrieved from
  28. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parrish, P. E. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reuning-Hummel, C. (2011). Preludio: Powerful learning experiences of teenaged musicians through three vantage points. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  32. Richey, R., Fields, D., Foxon, M. (with Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M.). (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.Google Scholar
  33. Rivera, B., & Rowland, G. (2008, March). Powerful e-learning: A preliminary study of learner experiences. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 14–23.Google Scholar
  34. Rowland, G. (2007). Educational inquiry in transition: Research and design. Educational Technology, 47(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
  35. Rowland, G. (2008, November–December). Design and research: Partners for educational innovation. Educational Technology, 3–9.Google Scholar
  36. Rowland, G., & Adams, A. M. (1999). Systems thinking in instructional design. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 29–44). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ch. 2.: Viewing organizations as systems.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from
  39. Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009, July-August). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 3–17.Google Scholar
  40. Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design thinking, design process, and the design studio. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Weick, K. (2004). Rethinking organizational design. In R. J. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36–53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Willis, J. (2011a). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part one: Developments based on behavioral and cognitive science foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3–20.Google Scholar
  43. Willis, J. (2011b). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part two: Developments based on constructivist and critical theory foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3–17.Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, B. G., Switzer, S. H., Parrish, P., & the IDEAL Research Lab. (2007). Transformative learning experiences: How do we get students deeply engaged for lasting change? In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  45. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Roy H. Park School of Communications, Ithaca CollegeIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations