The Design of Learning Experience: Creating the Future of Educational Technology

296 Pages·2015·5.264 MB·English

by  Brad Hokanson, Gregory Clinton, Monica W. Tracey (eds.)

Educational Communications and Technology:
Issues and Innovations
Brad Hokanson
Gregory Clinton
Monica Tracey Editors
The Design
of Learning
Experience
Creating the Future of Educational
Technology
Educational Communications and Technology:
Issues and Innovations
Series editors
J. Michael Spector
M.J. Bishop
Dirk Ifenthaler
More information about this series at h ttp://www.springer.com/series/11824

Brad Hokanson (cid:129) Gregory Clinton
Monica W. Tracey
Editors
The Design of Learning
Experience
Creating the Future of Educational
Technology
Editors
Brad Hokanson Gregory Clinton
College of Design College of Education
University of Minnesota University of Georgia
St. Paul , MN , USA Athens, GA , USA
Monica W. Tracey
Wayne State University
Detroit , MI , USA
Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations
ISBN 978-3-319-16503-5 ISBN 978-3-319-16504-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015942146
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
T his work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
T he use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
T he publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
S pringer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
The 2014 AECT Summer Research
Symposium Experienc e: Learning, Design,
and Opportunity Bearing Fruit
The AECT Summer Research Symposium is an extraordinary research and writing
support event that has been offered on several occasions since 2006. Each of the
symposia has been framed around a distinct theme relating to current trends and
interests in the broad fi eld of Educational Technology. The previous symposia have
been chaired by Brad Hokanson and Andy Gibbons in 2012 (D esign in Educational
Technology) ; Leslie Moller and Jason Huett in 2010 (T he Next Generation of
Distance Education : Unconstrained Learning ); Barbara Lockee in 2008; and Leslie
Moller and Douglas M. Harvey in 2006 (L earning and Instructional Technologies
for the twenty-fi rst Century ). The symposium meetings have been strategically
scheduled to overlap with the AECT summer leadership meetings and are normally
conducted at the same venue as the upcoming AECT convention in the fall. I have
assisted with the two most recent symposia and served as a reviewer.
P articipation as an author in an AECT Summer Research Symposium entails hav-
ing an idea or project to write about, submitting a proposal in the form of a chapter
draft, and, if the proposal is accepted, reading all the other accepted drafts, attending
and actively exchanging feedback at the meeting, and adhering to a publication
schedule after the event. Participating in a symposium provides a rich opportunity
for robust intellectual discourse, stimulating keynote presentations, lively exchange
of ideas, and emergence of creative solutions to problems, not to mention good food
and fellowship. The 2014 Summer Research Symposium in Jacksonville was no
exception. In addition to the primary content and interaction sessions of the event,
which included stimulating keynote presentations by former Kauffman Foundation
board member and innovation scholar Dennis Cheek, the gathering included a
lunchtime design-refl ection excursion to the Jacksonville Museum of Contemporary
Art ( h ttp://www.mocajacksonville.org ) and a dinner trip to Jacksonville Beach.
A t the heart of the 2014 symposium experience were the Pro-Action Café ses-
sions (see http://www.artofhosting.org) . The adapted version we used, under the
able leadership of Brad Hokanson, provided specifi cally structured, 2-h interaction
sessions for authors. These consisted of an initial brief description of projects by
vv
vi The 2014 AECT Summer Research Symposium Experience...
those participating as authors for that particular session, followed by a series of
feedback discussions around “café” tables (at least there was abundant coffee avail-
able in the meeting room, so the name seemed to fi t well), with rotating groups of
no more than four other participants at a time, with authors remaining stationary;
this sequence was followed by only authors remaining in the room at their tables for
a time of individual processing, refl ection, and note-taking. In these sessions, an
author could expect to receive thoughtful feedback from multiple other authors who
have read the author’s submitted draft.
The 2014 Design Theme
The focus of the 2014 symposium was on design, building upon the theme of the
previous design-focused symposium in 2012, D esign in Educational Technology
(Hokanson & Gibbons, 2014). This time, with The Design of Learning Experience ,
the appeal to authors was to go deeper and apply design, and design issues, to ques-
tions and understandings as to how learning actually happens. “We have reached the
point where we need to move beyond the concept of designing instruction and seek
to understand how learning occurs” (Association for Educational Communications
& Technology, 2014, p. 1).
With this emphasis more pointedly on the learning experience, but on design as
well, the call for proposals could be viewed as inviting a bridge between a learning
sciences focus (see Bransford, 1999; Sawyer, 2006) and educational technology/
instructional design. That this focus found expression in the chapter proposals is
attested to by the occurrence of some form of “learner” or “learning,” in the wording
of 10 out of the 17 chapter titles, whereas “instruction” occurs in only two of the
titles. While an in-depth discussion of the relation between educational technology
and the learning sciences is beyond the scope of this chapter, it may be useful to
mention briefl y what these labels represent.
E ducational technology will be familiar to most of the readers of this book. As a
distinct fi eld, it has seen a variety of names; these tend to be used synonymously, but
are sometimes viewed as implying different emphases. Commonly used names of
the fi eld include, but are not limited to, educational technology, instructional tech-
nology, instructional design and technology, and learning, design, and technology.
The three areas of inquiry most associated with this fi eld are theories of learning and
instructional models; design and instructional design; and integration of technology
tools to support learning.
The AECT publication E ducational Technology : A Defi nition with Commentary
(Januszewski & Molenda, 2008) presented a concise defi nition statement:
Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improv-
ing performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and
resources (p. 1).
The 2014 AECT Summer Research Symposium Experience... vii
The educational technology fi eld traces its roots back to the early twentieth cen-
tury and the rise of educational research, and counts among key infl uences all three
of the major philosophical perspectives on learning associated with the last century:
behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.
A description of the learning sciences can be found in the opening pages of the
Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Sawyer, 2006). At the heart of this
description, offered by Keith Sawyer, is a listing of the various fi elds that have come
together to form and pursue interdisciplinary endeavors. It is interesting to see that
this list includes instructional design:
T he sciences of learning include cognitive science, educational psychology, computer sci-
ence, anthropology, sociology, information sciences, neurosciences, education, design stud-
ies, instructional design, and other fi elds (p. xi).
Growth of early research efforts led eventually to the fi rst Learning Sciences
conference in 1991. Later, the approach of the new millennium saw the publication
of what was widely regarded as a defi nitive statement about the learning sciences,
the U.S. National Research Council report How People Learn : B rain , Mind ,
Experience , a nd School (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). This edited book
offered a consensus view of what was known about learning, and about the priorities
of promoting effective learning, based on research evidence. These priorities have
been summed up by Sawyer (2006) and are given here in brief:
(cid:129) The importance of deeper conceptual understanding
(cid:129) Focusing on learning in addition to teaching (Students can only learn deeper
conceptual understanding by actively participating in their own learning.)
(cid:129) Creating learning environments (Learning sciences research has identifi ed the
key features of those learning environments that help students learn deeper con-
ceptual understanding.)
(cid:129) The importance of building on a learner ’ s prior knowledge
(cid:129) The importance of refl ection (pp. 2–3).
As another collaborative effort, T he Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences (Sawyer, 2006) was presented as the successor publication to H ow People
Learn . “The C ambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (C HLS ) picks up
where this NRC report left off” (p. xii). Major sections cover foundations, method-
ologies, the nature of knowledge, making knowledge visible, learning together, and
learning environments.
T his emphasis on deeper learning as over instruction has not only continued in
Learning Sciences research; it has also greatly infl uenced educators and profession-
als who continue to identify with the educational technology fi eld but draw from a
broader literature base. One illustration of this infl uence is the design studio curricu-
lum within the University of Georgia’s Instructional Technology program (now
called Learning, Design, and Technology) that has prepared instructional designer/
developers and teachers since 1998 (Clinton & Rieber, 2010). This curriculum
refl ects a constructivist philosophical perspective and incorporates theoretical and
pedagogical approaches associated with major contributors to the learning sciences,
viii The 2014 AECT Summer Research Symposium Experience...
such as constructionism (Papert, 1991) and situated cognition/situated learning
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). The UGA program name
change, from Instructional Technology to Learning, Design, and Technology, initi-
ated in 2008, also refl ects a conscious updating of the name to better represent the
program’s emphases as they had existed for more than a decade. (Subsequently, at
least two other universities changed their educational technology program names to
Learning, Design, and Technology—with minor variations in punctuation: The
Pennsylvania State University and Purdue University.)
With all of this emphasis on learning, and with program names being updated, it
is perhaps understandable that some instructional designers would begin to search
for a more modern title. There is room for caution, however, in regard to adoption
of the increasingly popular moniker “learning designer,” or expressions such as
“learning design” or even “the design of learning experience.” On the one hand,
scholars and practitioners of various stripes in our fi eld should favor this obvious
lens for viewing our work. But designers would do well to remember B.F. Skinner’s
view of “constructing learning” and its relation to more modern views (e.g.,
Jonassen, 1991). The idea of constructing learning was present in the seminal writ-
ings of Skinner promoting teaching machines, which were in many ways the precur-
sors to computer-based instruction. In the introductory section of T he Technology of
Teaching (1968), Skinner reviewed “three great metaphors” in use in the fi eld of
education: growth or development, acquisition, and construction. However, in
Skinner’s view, it was the t eacher who constructs learning in the student. This was
accomplished via the arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement. “The behav-
ior of the student can in a very real sense be constructed” (p. 4, italics in original).
This view is alien to the view that learners create their own meaning; but the same
metaphor of construction is being employed in both cases. Modern designers should
consider carefully what it is they mean when they claim to be doing “learning
design.” Are they claiming to control the learning, as Skinner did? Does a learning
designer design the perceptions and memory-formation of the learner?
If we equate learning with meaning-making, and if we accept the premise that
meaning-making, ultimately, is a deeply personal process, then we should ask our-
selves whether we claim to be designing the meaning-making itself. When the ques-
tion is put this way, it appears obvious to me that the answer must be no. What we
design allows and encourages the meaning-making to happen; we design for learn-
ing but what we design is not a blueprint for the learner’s meaning-making. We
design with a view to learning outcomes, but we do not dictate specifi cations to
which the details of the meaning-making p rocess must conform. When our work is
framed as designing i nstruction, we can meaningfully claim to be creating such a
blueprint, since we presumably have a degree of legitimate expectation that our
specifi cations will be followed (by developers or by instructors). The terminology
works because what we are designing is external to the learner. Not so with the
learning itself.
Thus there is an argument that can be made against the adoption of the title
“learning designer.” However, it seems likely that practitioners and scholars will not
view such a microscopic deconstruction of this title as having enough weight to
The 2014 AECT Summer Research Symposium Experience... ix
infl uence day-to-day practice, or to affect what should go on a business card.
Nonetheless, regardless of one’s epistemological orientation, this distinction—
between “designing learning” directly and designing f or learning—is important for
our understanding of our roles as educators and should be preserved in our dis-
course. Wide use of “learning design,” if not accompanied by clear thinking, could
invite the distinction to be muddled; thus, the general intent of the title, to privilege
learning, could ironically lead to a diminishing of careful regard for its nuances, for
the very personal and idiosyncratic process that is learning.
Each designer must come to his or her own best understanding of learning and
design. But it matters how we frame our discussions of design and learning in grad-
uate programs. Are we helping our students to understand this distinction?
Be these issues as they may, the 2014 AECT Summer Research Symposium has
produced an impressive array of chapters focusing on learning and design topics,
from a group that includes some truly formidable scholars. The topics range widely,
from teaching complex thinking skills, to designer-as-guarantor, to instructional
design as feminist practice, to a long view of the future of learning, and 13 other
intriguing pieces. Participating in the conversations that helped shape the refi ne-
ments of these chapters was an enriching experience that has made important con-
tributions to my own scholarship. I highly recommend this experience to my
colleagues at all institutions.
Athens, GA, USA Gregory Clinton
References
A ssociation for Educational Communications & Technology (2014). The 5th AECT Research
Symposium — Request for proposals (pdf).
B ransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). H ow people learn . Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher , 18 (1), 32–42.
Hokanson, B., & Gibbons, A. (Eds.) (2014). D esign in educational technology . New York:
Springer.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical para-
digm? Educational Technology Research and Development , 47 (1), 61–79.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning : L egitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moller, L., & Harvey, D. M. (Eds.) (2009). Learning and instructional technologies for the 21st
century . New York: Springer.
M oller, L., & Huett, J. (Eds.) (2012). The next generation of distance education : Unconstrained
learning . New York: Springer.
P apert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), C onstructionism
(pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
S awyer, K. (Ed.). (2006). T he Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Skinner, B. F. (1968). T he technology of teaching . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.