Abstract
Theoretical work is essential to the progress of any discipline. Theories, models, and frameworks are underdetermined representations of a phenomenon that help us understand and take action in a domain. However, the field of learning design and technology (LDT) has traditionally struggled with developing a solid theoretical foundation that is useful for both research and practice. We propose viewing theory building as an act of design might address these challenges. After defining key constructs and describing two approaches to theory development, we describe three design perspectives that might be useful for theory development: Lawson and Dorst’s (Design expertise, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2009) view of design as a combination of analytical (problem-based) and creative (solution-based) moves, Schön’s (The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York, 1983) reflection-in-action, and design as dialogic interpretation (Snodgrass and Coyne in Des Issues 9(1):56–74, https://doi.org/10.2307/1511599, 1992). We use a case study to illustrate each perspective. We conclude with implications of a design approach to theory creation, including how design perspectives enable scholars to design possible futures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Colleges of Teacher Education Committee on Innovation and Technology. (2008). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. Routledge.
Antonenko, P. D. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual frameworks in educational technology research. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D,63(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4.
Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (2010). Explanatory design theory. Business & Information Systems Engineering,2(5), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-010-0118-4.
Beck, J., & Stolterman, E. (2015). Can there be scientific theories of design that do not scientize design. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the European Academy of Design Conference, Vol. 2. Retrieved April 6, 2019, from http://ead.yasar.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Can-There-Be-Scientific-Theories-of-Design-that-do-not-Scientize-Design.pdf.
Beck, J., & Stolterman, E. (2016). Examining the types of knowledge claims made in design research. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.02.001.
Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2018). Use of precedent as a narrative practice in design learning. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational technology and narrative (pp. 259–270). New York: Springer.
Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2015). Studio teaching in the low-precedent context of instructional design. Learn X Design: The 3rd International Conference for Education Design Researchers. Learn x design: The 3rd international conference for education design researchers, Chicago, IL.
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). London: Pearson Education Inc.
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education,60(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108328488.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues,8(2), 5–21.
Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism, and design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design: Explorations in design studies (pp. 23–66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Buchanan, R. (2019). Surroundings and environments in fourth order design. Design Issues,35(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00517.
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of Information Science and Engineering,31(6), 527–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505057016.
Coyne, R., & Snodgrass, A. (1991). Is designing mysterious? Challenging the dual knowledge thesis. Design Studies,12(3), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90020-W.
Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Learning professional ways of being: Ambiguities of becoming. Educational Philosophy and Theory,41(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2008.00475.x.
Di Russo, S. (2013). Design wars. I Think: I Design. Retrieved June 4, 2019, from https://ithinkidesign.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/design-wars/.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies,32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.
Doyle, A. C. (1893). Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. New York: A. L. Burt Company.
Faller, M. B. (2019). ASU named No. 1 in innovation for 5th consecutive year. ASU Now: Access, Excellence, Impact; ASU News. Retrieved February 4, 2020, from https://asunow.asu.edu/20190908-asu-news-number-one-innovation-us-news-fifth-consecutive-year.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. E. Linge, Trans.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1976)
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education,13(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacy: Ideology in discourses, critical perspectives on literacy and education.
Gee, J. P. (2011). Introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science,16(3), 395–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(92)90038-V.
Golsby-Smith, T. (1996). Fourth order design: A practical perspective. Design Issues,12(1), 5–25.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education,57(3), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010.
Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2013). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G. Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Vol. 2, pp. 13–33). Abingdon: Routledge.
Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,8(5), 312–335.
Hammond, M., & Alotaibi, B. (2017). Theorising the take-up of ICT: Can Valsiner’s three zones framework make a contribution? Technology, Pedagogy and Education,26(2), 139–155.
Henderson, M. (2015). The (mis)use of community of practice: Delusion, confusion, and instrumentalism in educational technology research. In S. Bulfin, N. F. Johnson, & C. Bigum (Eds.), Critical perspectives on technology and education (pp. 127–140). London: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Jahnke, M. (2012). Revisiting design as a hermeneutic practice: An investigation of Paul Ricoeur’s critical hermeneutics. Design Issues,28(2), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00141.
Kislov, R., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2011). Collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care: Lessons from the theory of communities of practice. Implementation Science,6, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-64.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education,49(3), 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012.
Krippendorff, K. (2005). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lee, J. S., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2011). Theorizing in design science research. Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20633-7_1.
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M., Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009). Evolution of Wenger’s concept of community of practice. Implementation Science: IS,4, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11.
Lindblom, C. E. (1987). Alternatives to validity: Some thoughts suggested by Campbell’s guidelines. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(3), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708700800305.
Löwgren, J. (2013). Annotated portfolios and other forms of intermediate-level knowledge. Interactions,20(1), 30–34.
McDougall, A., & Jones, A. (2006). Theory and history, questions and methodology: Current and future issues in research into ICT in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,15(3), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390600923915.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record,108(6), 1017–1054.
Mishra, P., & Warr, M. (2020). Preface. In A. C. Borthwick, T. S. Foulger, & K. J. Graziano (Eds.), Championing technology infusion in teacher preparation: A framework for supporting future educators. International Society for Technology in Education.
Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 66–85). Abingdon: Routledge.
Murillo, E. (2011). Communities of practice in the business and organization studies literature. Information Research,16(1), 16.
Omidvar, O., & Kislov, R. (2014). The evolution of the communities of practice approach: Toward knowledgeability in a landscape of practice—An interview with Etienne Wenger-Trayner. Journal of Management Inquiry,23(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492613505908.
Peirce, C. (1931–1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pendleton-Jullian, A. B., & Brown, J. S. (2018). Design unbound: Designing for emergence in a white water world (Vol. 2). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pérez Cortés, L., & Close, K. (2020). Designing experience: A case-study of Disneyland’s lines. Talking About Design. Retrieved February 4, 2020, from https://talkingaboutdesign.com/designing-experience-a-case-study-of-disneylands-lines/.
Perkins, D. N. (2013). Knowledge as design. Abingdon: Routledge.
Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Abingdon: Routledge.
Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,4, 155–169.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Schön, D. A. (1992). The theory of inquiry: Dewey’s legacy to education. Curriculum Inquiry,22(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/1180029.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (1992). Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing. Design Issues,9(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511599.
Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (1996). Is designing hermeneutical? Architectural Theory Review,2(1), 65–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264829609478304.
Underwood, J. (2004). Research into information and communications technologies: Where now? Technology, Pedagogy and Education,13(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200176.
Vedantam, S., Cohen, R., Boyle, T., & Schmidt, J. (2019, February 4). One head, two brains: How the brain’s hemispheres shape the world we see [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690656459/one-head-two-brains-how-the-brains-hemispheres-shape-the-world-we-see.
Warr, M., Mishra, P., & Scragg, B. (2019). Beyond TPACK: Expanding technology and teacher education to systems and culture. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2233–2237. Retrieved March 28, 2019, from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/208009/.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. AMRO,14(4), 516–531. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308376.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity In R. Pea, J. S. Brown, & J. Hawkins (eds.); Vol. 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger-Trayner, E. (2013). The practice of theory: Confessions of a social learning theorist. In V. Farnsworth & Y. Solomon (Eds.), Reframing educational research: Resisting the “what works” agenda (pp. 105–118). Abingdon: Routledge.
Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved February 18, 2019, from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/07-Brief-introduction-to-communities-of-practice.pdf.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review,14(4), 490–495. https://doi.org/10.2307/258554.
Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,58(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6.
Funding
This study was not funded by any external organization.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Warr, M., Mishra, P. & Scragg, B. Designing theory. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 601–632 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09746-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09746-9