Defining design as a verb

Design is the process of reducing uncertainty and complexity to an internally acceptable level.

I will reduce uncertainty and complexity through design to the degree I understand the uncertainty and complexity.

As uncertainty and complexity are in constant flux in the real world, we need to engage in adaptive design practices.

*** Donald Schon's "reflection-in-action" is a response to dynamic complexity and uncertainty.

Operational principles are like generative metaphors. The principle is the simplest case that allows for the generation of several acceptable configurations that function on the principle.
- The principle of "aeronautical lift" leads to any number of technologies that can create lift, different wing designs, objects to be 'lifted', direction of lift, etc.

The key is to develop the skill of stripping away non-essential components to get at the operational principles inherent in an artifact.

In order to learn about something we need to have experience with the thing in order to have sufficient motivation to learn about the thing.
- If I am learning about World War II, I may not be motivated to learn what is being presented if I am not familiar with the geography, implications, personalities, weapons and warfare, etc. associated with it.

When I am explaining/describing a theory, model, framework, etc., I absolutely need to be explicit about what I understand the operational principles to be.

Design always takes place in a context. Understanding the context will lead to an understanding of the design.

Describing Learning

I have come to understand that the way we describe learning places constraints on learning. Learning is an abstract concept. By making it more concrete, we lose parts of the abstraction and, hence, the ontology contracts around the concrete definition supplied.

What is needed is multiple definitions/characterizations of learning. We need layered understandings of the complexity inherent in learning. One such proposal is provided here:

Potential “Layers of Learning” Theory

“Layers” of Learning	Domain Theories
Changing behaviour	Neuroscience Behavioural science
Enhancing skills	Cognitive development
Storing information	Cognitive sciences
Gaining knowledge	Cognitive sciences Epistemology
Making sense of the world	Social sciences Socio-cultural and activity theory
Interpreting reality in a different way	Phenomenology

(adapted from slideshare presentation) Click here for reference

*** What other layers of learning might exist?

*** Other than layers, how might we characterize the complexities of learning?

Seeing-As and the Generative Metaphor

Seeing-As: Two dissimilar things are juxtaposed that they might be 'seen-as' being similar. This helps to create a transfer of structures between the two dissimilar things until they can both be identified as being related in someway. Some previously unthought-of functionality is transferred to the dissimilar object and a new conception of the things and its function or properties arises. This redefinition of the things generates new avenues for exploration and  understanding. Schon calls this a "generative metaphor". The metaphor for the thing becomes generative it that it generates new ways to think about the thing, its properties, its configurations, etc.

" Not all metaphors are generative" (185). Not all metaphors "generate new features of ..." (185).

What is the value add of explicit design

I have found it interesting today that design seems to be a ubiquitous part of people's lives. I use the word ubiquitous because I believe people take it for granted, or in other words, they have automatized the design processes in their lives. They have developed habits, models, algorithms, etc. all to reduce the decision-making that needs to take place each day. The only time they think about their designing is when their automation breaks down. This idea relates to cognitive dissonance in suggesting natural causes of cognitive dissonance. It's not necessarily just previously unencountered ideas that can create cognitive dissonance, but previously unencountered experiences and situations. Schon talks about this phenomenon in "The Reflective Practitioner" and about how when people are confronted with ideas, experiences, or situations they are not familiar with, they first try to frame or set the problem in terms of what they already know. If that is impossible, then Schon puts forth that individuals engage in dialogue with themselves, the situation, or other individuals to try to understand more about the problem so as to frame it in terms of something previously encountered. The goal is always to get to a well-framed problem, because then the individual can ritualistically apply the previous methods, models, algorithms, etc. to resolve the problem. I have not seen Schon make the explicit statement that this is what people do in the everyday course of their lives, but that is what I believe. Schon illustrates a process that everyone engages in, but they do not necessarily understand what or why they do what they do. Hence Schon's phrase "you know more than you can say". For Schon, everyone is constantly designing and redesigning their life, their paradigms, their environments, etc. through purposeful action.

In working on our design-based research project, it is clear to me that the value-add of the class project is not necessarily the presentation of a finished proposal/project, but the making explicit of certain 'design' decisions and 'designerly thinking' of individuals involved in the project.

This is the value of explicit design: when we know why we are doing something, we can control it, manipulate it, alter it, conform it, etc to produce some 'more desirable future' to quote Klaus Krippendorf ("The Semantic Turn"). That is what we as agentive human beings are doing constantly through design: shaping a 'more-desirable' future based on our personal values. We just don't realize it as design because it has become ubiquitous and as a result has become mysterious.

Change your values, change your design. Change your design, change your life. Change your life, change the world.

Instructional Theory and Development

I realized today that I do not understand or fully appreciate what other theorists are saying about learning and instruction. I have not had the time (or I have not made the time) to seriously consider the implications and the nuances of the instructional theories that have been presented to me over the course of my IP&T program. The details are more important than I have realized. Dr. Gibbon's article in response to the Smith and Boling article give some critical considerations regarding instructional theory. They are like questions to ask myself as I am trying to understand a theory. I have been so focused on trying to develop a personal road map of what the theory lay of the land looks like that I have not taken time to appreciate the beauty of the landscape. I have been a cartographer and am now faced with the need of become a landscape artist. I need to be able to understand the details to really understand the theories and I realized today that I do not understand the details. I feel like I have come to understand myself and my own theoretical foundations better lately, but at the expense of an understanding of others. I need to know what others think and why. I will begin this new journey of discovery at once. I am excited to keep growing in this new way.

I rather like the cartographer vs. landscape artist analogy. I think it richly describes my development and my dillema.

Skill Learning and The Reflective Practitioner

Yesterday I attended an LDS design conference in SLC at the Triad Center. It was incredible. On the way up I read about 100 pages in Donald Schon's book "The Reflective Practitioner". It is changing the way I see teaching. The premise of the book is that we know more than we can say. There is tacit information that is available for use to us in approaching previously unencountered instructional problems. Schon goes through case studies examining different professionals engaging in what he calls "reflection-in-action". Basically, individuals reflect on their previous experience in trying to frame a problem so as to make it more manageable. We reflect either on our own or with someone else. In either case, reflection-in-action is a dialogical process by which we make sense of a situation and then bring our past experience to bear on the problem in order to generate solutions. This is exactly what good teachers are doing. Although I believe that many good teachers are not aware of why they do what they do. Schon has a second book entitled "Educating the Reflective Practitioner". I have it to read next. This second book provides an education program for training people to become reflective practitioners. It appears to require a 'more-knowledgeable other' to facilitate the feedback. His ideas correlate very strongly with the concepts of the 3-person model.

On another note, Dr. Gibbons gave a masterful lecture at the conference yesterday entitled "The Skills of a Saint". It was exceptionally timely. He has essentially redefined what we might consider skill. He has given us examples that serve to highlight the skills involved in cognitive tasks, in spiritual development, in the development of character, etc. I had never thought of these things as skills before. This paradigm is a powerful one because so much more is known about skill instruction that about cognition and learning. If learning can be achieved more fluently through the instruction and adoption of learning skills by the learner (which I believe is the case in any learning situation) then we need to turn our focus to experience  design and skill instruction instead of content dissemination (which is a majority of the instruction being developed these days as I see it). I am excited to pursue this new course.

Dr. Gibbons and President Osguthorpe (who also spoke to us) both cited the need for revelation in creating designs that are in line with the will of the Lord. I believe that the Holy Ghost does lead men and women today and especially when those men and women are engaged in the work of bringing souls to Christ. I want to be more guided. I will clear a space in my life each day for revelation from the Lord. This, I believe, will lead to the improvement of my craft more profitably than any other decision.

Design and Domain Theory

In class today we discussed the relationship of design and domain theory. We were examining Dr. Gibbons' theory of design layers. We simultaneously discussed how Reigeluth makes a distinction between design and domain theories. A design theory is about how something should be designed and a domain theory is about what is being designed, its organization, etc. Between these two concepts we determined the following:

* For each domain, there exist several theories of design that might be profitably applied to generate instruction

* For each design theory, there are several domains that might be profitably used to generate instruction

The constant seems to be that each configuration of instruction draws on both design and domain theory.

For Dr. Gibbons' layer theory, there are individual domain theories that correspond to each layer. One of the design decision to be made is which domain theory to accept when structuring that particular layer of instruction.

We also determined that the most influential design decisions to be made in Gibbons' layer theory relate to strategy and content. Once those two layers are established, most of the composition of the other layers will also be constrained. It was interesting to me that these two layers correspond to the "What" and the "How" of the instruction. This is important because this corresponds to Gospel teaching (see "Teaching the Gospel Handbook"). It also corresponds to the content vs. context debate that has raged on in the field of education psychology.

Dr. Gibbons also made the distinction that the 3-Person Theory is really a domain theory of Instructional Strategy. In other words, it is a theory that provides teachers with a strategy for teaching. I also believe that the 3-Person Theory applies to the domain of learning strategy. In other words, it provides learners with a strategy for learning. This is an extremely important distinction as I believe that learning strategy is an impoverished domain as far as research int he field is concerned. But that is just my opinion...