Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critiquing the Role of the Learner and Context in Aesthetic Learning Experiences

  • Chapter
The Design of Learning Experience

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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 109.99
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

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Eccarius, M., Smith, K., & Frick, T. (2004). Instructional illustrations: Intended meanings and learner interpretations. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(2), 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938/2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Trade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning , 1(1), 40–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2014). Designerly talk in non-pedagogical social spaces. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, R., Chick, N., & Haynie, A. (Eds.). (2009). Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2004). Reading images: Multimodality, representation and new media. Information Design Journal, 12(2), 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lefstein, A., & Snell, K. (2014). Better than best practice: Developing teaching and learning through dialogue. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löwgren, J. (2006). Articulating the use qualities of digital designs. In Aesthetic computing (pp. 383–403). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J., & Wright, J. (2004). Technology as experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2010). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    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 

  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2008). Designing compelling learning experiences. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Denver, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge. doi:0203872134.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist aesthetics: Living beauty, rethinking art. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human–machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • van MerriĂ«nboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. doi:10.1177/0162243905285847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. (2008). Mental models: Aligning design strategy with human behavior. Brooklyn, NY: Rosenfeld Media.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Colin M. Gray

Authors
  1. Colin M. Gray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Colin M. Gray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Athens, Georgia, USA

    Gregory Clinton

  3. Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

    Monica W. Tracey

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation