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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Boling, E., Eccarius, M., Smith, K., & Frick, T. (2004). Instructional illustrations: Intended meanings and learner interpretations. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(2), 185–204.
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.
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.
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:10.1145/1463160.1463214
Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Pearson Education.
Dewey, J. (1938/2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Trade.
Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jum** the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 1(1), 40–54.
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.
Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.
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.
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.
Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2014). Designerly talk in non-pedagogical social spaces. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 40–58.
Gurung, R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (Eds.). (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
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.
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.
**, 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.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kress, G. (2004). Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, K. (2014). Better than best practice: Develo** teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.
Löwgren, J. (2006). Articulating the use qualities of digital designs. In Aesthetic computing (pp. 383–403). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCarthy, J., & Wright, J. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.
Parrish, P. E. (2008). Designing compelling learning experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver, CO.
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.
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.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge. doi:0203872134.
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.
Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist aesthetics: Living beauty, rethinking art. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64.
Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.
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.
Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.
Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gray, C.M. (2015). Critiquing the Role of the Learner and Context in Aesthetic Learning Experiences. In: Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., Tracey, M. (eds) The Design of Learning Experience. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16503-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16504-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)