Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

EDISYS: A Tool for Enhancing Design Inquiry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design in Educational Technology

  • 3484 Accesses

Abstract

The educational technology field’s capability to contribute to widespread educational improvement can be enhanced by redirecting and more sufficiently developing our approaches to inquiry. Several steps that can be taken include (1) embracing design as a unique and essential form of inquiry, (2) developing design inquiry systems, which integrate design and research and which embrace systems concepts and principles more fully than we have to date, and (3) developing tools/technologies for strengthening these systems and, potentially as a result, design practice, design education, and design cases. This chapter describes an example of a tool, an Enhanced Design Inquiry System (EDISYS).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akin, O. (1994). Creativity in design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in educational research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. (1995, January). The nature of research. CoDesign: Interdisciplinary Journal of Design, 2, 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H., & Rowland, G. (2002). Guiding our evolution: If we don’t do it, who will? Self-published 2014: http://www.guidingourevolution.com

  • Bishop, M. J. (2014). Reconceptualizing instructional message design: Toward the development of a new guiding framework. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Critical issues in studio pedagogy: Beyond the mystique and down to business. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope TM system approach. Systems, 1(1), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. The Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The Designer/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking. Oxford, UK: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design. Proceedings from CHI 2012, May 5–12, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2208538&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=108653450&CFTOKEN=72893826

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2009). The value of the operational principle in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(1), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Brewer, E. K. (2005). Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaak, & D. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional design: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, C. D. (2014). Instructional design cases: Documenting precedent in instructional design. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. (2009). Mega thinking and planning: An introduction to defining and delivering individual and organizational success. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(2), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorfff, K. (2006). The semantic turn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS Shared Learning. (2009). Quality assurance checklists for learning objects and online courses. Retrieved from http://www.knowledge.scot.nhs.uk/media/4088630/quality_assurance_checklists.pdf

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design in educational technology. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 321–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuning-Hummel, C. (2011). Preludio: Powerful learning experiences of teenaged musicians through three vantage points. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., Fields, D., Foxon, M. (with Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M.). (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, B., & Rowland, G. (2008, March). Powerful e-learning: A preliminary study of learner experiences. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2007). Educational inquiry in transition: Research and design. Educational Technology, 47(2), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2008, November–December). Design and research: Partners for educational innovation. Educational Technology, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., & Adams, A. M. (1999). Systems thinking in instructional design. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 29–44). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ch. 2.: Viewing organizations as systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/issue/view/67

  • Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009, July-August). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson (Ed.), Design thinking, design process, and the design studio. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (2004). Rethinking organizational design. In R. J. Boland & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36–53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2011a). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part one: Developments based on behavioral and cognitive science foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2011b). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship, part two: Developments based on constructivist and critical theory foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Switzer, S. H., Parrish, P., & the IDEAL Research Lab. (2007). Transformative learning experiences: How do we get students deeply engaged for lasting change? In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of selected research and development presentations. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Roy H. Park School of Communications, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY, 14850, USA

    Gordon Rowland Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Gordon Rowland Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon Rowland Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Design, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Provo, Utah, USA

    Andrew Gibbons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rowland, G. (2014). EDISYS: A Tool for Enhancing Design Inquiry. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation