Dichotomy in Design
And other problems from the swamp
Jan de Lange
Dichotomy
Google for Educational Design
Google for Educational Design Research
Aspects of the Art of Assessment Design:
‘Educational Design in general is largely
underestimated and unexplored area of design,
and its relationship with educational research
can be characterized as somewhat less than
satisfying’.
‘What we need is a tight linkage between
research and the creation of mathematically
rich and revealing tasks for productive
classroom use’.
Jan de Lange (2007)
‘In an attempt to bridge the cultures of
educational research and educational design
we recommend more research focused on
the design process so that educational
designers can sharpen their professional
vision’.
Alan Schoenfeld (2009)
The Question: Does Educational Design
Research enhance and improve the world of
designers, does it help designers to sharpen
their professional interventions?
To find an answer we follow Lageman
(2002):
‘Educational Design Research is particularly
concerned with developing usable
knowledge; the products of research should
be relevant for practice’.
Or:
‘Educational Design Research describes a
family of approaches that strive toward the
dual goal of developing theoretical
understanding that can be of use to others
while also designing and implementing
interventions to address problems in
practice’.
Susan McKenney & Thomas Reeves (2012)
‘(Educational) Design Research is not defined
by its methods but by the goals of those who
pursue it. Design research is constituted
within communities of practice that have
certain characteristics of innovativeness,
responsiveness to evidence, connectivity to
basic science, and dedication to continual
improvement’.
Carl Bereiter (2002)
My first try at an answer: No, EDR
does not sharpen my professional
vision; it hardly results in usable
knowledge for designers.
Example 1:
‘Formula for conceptualizing design
principles:
If you want to design intervention X [for
purpose/function Y in context Z]; the you
are best advised to give that intervention
the characteristics C1, C2,..Cm [substantive
emphasis]; and do that via procedures P1,
P2, Pn [procedural emphasis]; because of
theoretical arguments T1, T2,…Tp; and
empirical arguments E1, E2, …Eq’.
Jan van den Akker (1999,2010)
Example 2:
“Design & Construction” Chapter in
McKenney and Reeves (2012)
Offers practical suggestions for design;
but does not give a theoretical
underpinning for educational design on
the micro level. Nor does it sharpen the
vision of the designer.
Design
Kernel of Design
What is missing: the Art of Design &
Construction
The three components of Educational Design
are:
-Educational Context & Community
-The Science and Research
-The Art of Designing
‘Since mathematics incorporates a systematic
body of knowledge and involves cumulative
reasoning and understanding, it is to that extend
a science. And since applied mathematics
involves choices which must be made on the
basis of experience, intuition, and even
inspiration, it partakes the quality of art. Thus in
(theoretical)mathematics there are certainly to
be found both art and science, and there is
science in both pure and applied mathematics, as
there is art’.
Peter Hilton (1976)
So we are looking for something like:
Since educational design theory incorporates a
systemic body of knowledge and involves
cumulative reasoning and understanding, it is to
that extend a science. And since design and
construction involves choices which must be
made on the basis of experience, intuition, and
even inspiration, it partakes the quality of art.
Thus in design theory there are certainly to be
found both art and science, and there is science
in both the design theory and in design and
construction, as there is art.
It’s good news for design when intuition is recognized
as the important and effective skill that it is — a skill
that takes years of experience and practice to
develop. Designers have always relied, to some
degree, on intuition and personal style. There are
times when a designer is right just because he/she is
right.
Nathan Sinsabaugh 2009
In a knowledge-intensive world, design
thinking is critical to overcoming the
biggest block: overcoming analytical
thinking and fear of intuitive thinking.
Roger Martin 2009
DESIGN &
DICHOTOMY
Question:
Is the dichotomy between Research Based
Educational Design and Educational Design
Research helpful, especially for designers?
(Inspired by McKenney/Reeves 2012 page 29).
My first try at an answer:
No, or not yet
‘In the swampy lowlands, problems are messy and
confusing and incapable of technical solution. The irony of
this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend
to be relatively unimportant to individuals or to the
society at large, however great their technical interest
may be, while in the swamp lie the greatest problems of
human concern.
The practitioner [researcher] is confronted with a choice.
Shall he remain on the high ground where he can solve
relatively unimportant problems according to his
standards of rigor, or shall he descend to the swamp of
important problems where he cannot be rigorous in any
way he knows how to describe?’
Donald Schön (1995)
A Report from
the Swamp
1.Design
The science of design plays a minor role
in in Education Design (Example: Bridges
Conference Baltimore 2012)
2. Art
The role of experience, intuition and
inspiration is missing
3. The Science ‘Educational Research’ is to
much ‘high ground’
4. Developmental Research (Leen Streefland,
1980) & Didactical Engineering (Hans
Freudenthal, 1979) are losing their academic
status; just like research based design.
5. Designers fail to making their mode of
operations explicit
6. Political Elements such as
standards, high-stakes accountability
and pre-selection of textbooks can
reduce curriculum innovation (by
schools). (OECD, 2012).
(Note: don’t pay to much attention to
OECD reports, they do not
necessarily reflect reality, but
perceived reality by politicians).
Standards: Mathematically proficient students
understand and use stated assumptions,
definitions, and previously established results in
constructing arguments. They make conjectures
and build a logical progression of statements to
explore the truth of their conjectures. They are
able to analyze situations by breaking them into
cases, and can recognize and use
counterexamples. They justify their conclusions,
communicate them to others, and respond to the
arguments of others. They reason inductively
about data, making plausible arguments that take
into account the context from which the data
arose. (Etc).(CCSS, 2011)
7. In practice these aspirations are rarely reflected
in high stakes assessment. This fact makes live of
designers even more complex: teachers teach to
the test, not according to the standards.
8. Technology: trend is clear: It throws us,
conceptually, always backwards
(Example Dutch Examinations, 2012; many more: Sept 4,
2012: ‘Replace all textbooks by iPads with textbooks on
them; Ed Nijpels, former politician in Volkskrant).
9.Technology: only a useful supplement.
Existing tools lack possibilities that designers
would love to have.
10. Technology: Designing Electronic Learning
Environment (Peter Boon 2012) is complex
and should be done with content experts;
designers are reluctant.
11. Technology: The ‘Lore’ of Facebook:
Generic ‘share’ tools independent of content;
And Echo360 (Forbes, August 30, 2012)
12. Technology: Incidental or Ad
Hoc Apps (Motion Math, 2011).
13. No time, no money for ‘slow’ design (Jan
de Lange, 2008)
14. Very different models for Design (& role of
designers)
15. It’s for the eyes, not for learning (Looks vs.
Brains: Form over Function)
The Future of Educational Design
and Research in Educational
Design
1. There needs to be two way traffic
between Educational Design & Research in
Ed. Design.
2. There need to be more collaboration with
Design; more out-of-our box action
3. There need to be more attention to the
‘Art’ of design; intuition; inspiration; etc
4. Design is a coherent discipline in its own
right; there exists a designerly way of thinking
and communication that is different from
scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry
when applied to its own kinds of problems
(Bruce Archer,…) and we need to establish an
epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic,
intuitive processes which designers bring to
situations of uncertainty, instability,
uniqueness and value conflict (Donald Schön, 1990)
5. Design is teamwork; but the team needs
to be interdisciplinary
6. Design of content materials needs to go
hand in hand with tools, new media, etc.
They cannot be developed independently.
7. Designers need to contribute to new
knowledge, especially for researchers
8. Innovation needs to get more room: less
standards, less high-stakes accountability, less
pre-selection of textbooks; here lies a task for
educational designers.
9. Designers can contribute to closing the gap
between aspirations (Standards) and reality
(Assessments); they need to provoke political
discussions about this ‘fraud’. But only in close
cooperation with other communities. As long
as high-stakes test are commercially produced
little hope remains.
10. How and where can we help people to
become good designers?
11. More attention for the communities of
practice.
12. All kind of educational institutions in
many different countries fail to innovate,
are part of the system, are in there for the
money, to please politicians, etc.
There is a need for independent thinkers
that can be taken somewhat seriously,
and take children and students seriously,
as well as what is really taught at schools,
and at home. Maybe local ISDDE’s?