How Did Design Alchemy Emerge?

  • Roderick Sims
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII, volume 8)


As presented in Chaps. 1 and 2, the relevance of Design Alchemy is based on integrating the scientific and artistic approaches to design (alchemy), recapturing the engagement potential of computers and learning (magic), rediscovering the value of design traditions (quality) and differentiating design practice for technological innovation (pedagogy). The purpose of this chapter is to introduce five specific areas of research which have informed the development of the Design Alchemy architecture: the art of interactivity, proactive evaluation, three-phase design, design for learning and proactive design for learning. Each of these reveals nascent elements of the framework and explains the evolutionary process from which the main components and elements of Design Alchemy emerged. Together these provide the background for the final section of the chapter, which articulates the major components of Design Alchemy.


  1. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  3. Earl, L. M. (2013). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  4. Farrow, M., & Sims, R. (1987). Computer-assisted learning in occupational therapy. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 34(2), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The phoenix rising: Emergent models of instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonassen, D. (Ed.). (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Kays, E. & Sims, R. (2006). Reinventing and reinvigorating instructional design: A theory for emergent learning. In L. Markauskaite, P. Goodyear, & P. Reimann (Eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology? (pp. 409–412). Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lanarca Declaration. (2012). Lanarca declaration on learning design. Available from Accessed September 10, 2013.
  9. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Morgan, C., & O‘Reilly, M. (1999). Assessing open and distance learners. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  11. National Institute of Dramatic Art (NIDA). (1998). Stage struck. [CD-ROM]. Australia on CD Program.Google Scholar
  12. Pannafino, J. (2012). Interdisciplinary interaction design: A visual guide to basic theories, models and ideas for thinking and designing for interactive web design and digital device experiences. USA: Assiduous Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Pratt, A. (2012). Interactive design: An introduction to the theory and application of user-centered design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Rhodes, D. M., & Azbell, J. W. (1985). Designing interactive video instruction professionally. Training and Development Journal, 39(12), 31–33.Google Scholar
  15. Schwier, R. A., & Misanchuk, E. (1993). Interactive multimedia instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  16. Sheldrake, R. (2011). The presence of the past: Morphic resonance and the habits of nature. London: Icon Books.Google Scholar
  17. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sims, R. (2000). Learners as actors: Strategies for computer-enhanced learning encounters. Unpublished Ph.D., thesis, Wollongong University.Google Scholar
  19. Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–8. (Keynote Paper) Available from Accessed May 16, 2006.
  20. Sims, R. (2009). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online teaching and learning environments. In J. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist instructional design (C-ID): Foundations, models, and practical examples (pp. 379–391). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  21. Sims, R. (2012). Reappraising design practice. In D. Holt, S. Segrave, & J. Cybulski (Eds.), Professional education using e-simulations: Benefits of blended learning design. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  22. Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding design and planning through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sims, R., & Hedberg, J. (2006). Encounter theory: A model to enhancing online communication, interaction and engagement. In C. Jawah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice. London: Routledge Education.Google Scholar
  24. Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  25. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954). The fellowship of the ring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick Sims
    • 1
  1. 1.KnowledgecraftWoodbumAustralia

Personalised recommendations