Insight or Distraction?

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


The preceding chapters have not only focused on the practice of alchemy as a metaphor for the role of the designer of learning and teaching environments but also the alignment of Design Alchemy with different theories of learning and the fields of instructional design and learning design. The conclusion determined in the previous chapter is that Design Alchemy manifests and aligns with the ethos of learning design. However, before providing a detailed elaboration of the Design Alchemy framework (Part II), it is important to consider a range of factors such as learning styles, generations and open resources to assess the extent to which they represent key insights for the designer or whether they act as a distraction to the design practice. As an observer of the field over four decades, I have seen these and other factors presented as a solution to educational needs or problems, and clusters of advocates develop as a result. However, as a designer, how these factors are interpreted can result in design being either confused or compromised, which causes a paradox for the designer: do they embrace these factors or are they a distraction to the real purpose of design? In this chapter a series of paradoxes are posed, extending selected issues identified in earlier chapters, to focus attention on whether these factors represent innovation or distraction. In discussing these paradoxes, it is important to emphasise that the various factors themselves remain important to better understanding learning and teaching, but they are not necessarily an imperative for design.


Virtual Reality Learning Activity Instructional Design Online Learning Educational Environment 
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.


  1. Adlon, P. (Director). (1988). Bagdad Café [Motion picture]. Las Vegas, NV: Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR).Google Scholar
  2. Blackboard. (2013). Blackboard collaborate. Available from Accessed October 10, 2013.
  3. Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  4. Coomey, M., & Stephenson, J. (2001). Online learning: it is all about dialogue, involvement, support and control – According to the research. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching & learning online: Pedagogies for new technologies. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Defense. (1997). Handbook development of interactive multimedia instruction (imi) (Part 3 of 4 parts). Available from
  7. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Goodson, I., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Mangan, J. M. (2002). Cyber spaces/social spaces: Culture clash in computerized classrooms. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Grandstaff, R. J. (1995). Acting & directing (3rd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar
  10. Heppner, F. (2007). Teaching the large college class: A guidebook for instructors with multitudes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (2006). The learning styles Questionnaire, 80-item version. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.Google Scholar
  12. International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction. (n.d.). Available from Accessed October 9, 2013.
  13. Kidd, T. T., & Chen, I. (Eds.). (2011). Ubiquitous learning: Strategies for pedagogy, course design, and technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Kryterion. (n.d.). What we do. Available from Accessed October 10, 2013.
  15. Kuhlman, T. (2013). Do you really need an instructional design degree?. Available from The Rapid eLearning Blog []. Accessed September 18.Google Scholar
  16. Linden Research. (2013). Second life. Available from Accessed October 10, 2013.
  17. Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause.Google Scholar
  18. Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2).Google Scholar
  19. Robinson, K. (2013). How to escape education’s death valley.
  20. Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon (5th ed.). Montgomery, AL: IDECC.Google Scholar
  21. Sims, R. (1997). Interactivity: A forgotten art? Computers in Human Behavior, 13(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sims, R. (2000). Learners as actors: Strategies for computer-enhanced learning encounters. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Wollongong University.Google Scholar
  23. Sims, R. (2012). Reappraising design practice. In D. Holt, S. Segrave, & J. Cybulski (Eds.), Professional education using e-simulations: Benefits of blended learning design. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.Google Scholar
  24. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taylor, R. P. (1980). Introduction. In R. P. Taylor (Ed.), The computer in school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderick Sims
    • 1
  1. 1.KnowledgecraftWoodbumAustralia

Personalised recommendations