36 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

hy has the field of instructional design failed to move forward? That is, for-ward with innovative ideas, forward

with innovative methods of teaching and learn-ing using technology, and forward with innova-tive theories of the use of educational technol-ogy? What we say as practitioners is important.The field of instructional design has frequently promised rich, authentic, effective learning through the use of technology. As instructional designers, and in terms of learning, however, we aren’t rich, we’re simple. We habitually find

ourselves recreating the teaching and instructional methods of the past cen-tury using whatever recent technological innovations arise.

Clark (1994) held that learning from instructional media would only change

when the instructional method changed, re-gardless of media. In other words, using the same ways of instruction would always lead to the same results in learning. Media debate aside, our position is that use of the same methodolo-gy and processes for design typically leads to the same instructional products. Only limited suc-cess and innovation in design and research can be expected or achieved. Similarly, our designs will only change when our design methodology, perspectives, and values change, regardless of the medium of our work.

In this paper, we introduce a new conceptu-alization of the processes and methodologies of instructional design, not to replace or supplant the traditional phases of ADDIE, but rather to illustrate a revised perspective with a collection of exemplars for design practice; the instruc-tional artist, instructional architect, instruc-tional engineer, and instructional craftsperson.

We present these roles and their inherent values as a refreshing and encouraging perspective, po-tentially a metaphor, for instructional designers, both novice and expert, to reflect upon when critiquing our work and searching for avenues to advance innovation in the field. However, we must first examine the traditional instructional design methodology and discuss areas for prog-ress, advancement, and expansion, specifically in our internal design perspectives. Challenging how we view ourselves and how we can improve our own well-practiced skills can often be diffi-cult. It is our goal in this paper to stir discussion, controversy, and reflection among designers as some of the first steps toward advancement.

The traditional design processCentral to this temporary intermission of in-

novation in the instructional design field is our saluted design methodology. Before we contin-ue, it is important to note that we are intention-ally casting the field of instructional design as a “straw man” in our polemic argument for re-con-ceptualization of the traditional, often stagnant, processes and methodologies that have come to define our work. Most instructional design-ers, when questioned about their use of a design method, have a one-word answer: “ADDIE.” Ex-amining ADDIE does not provide an argument for its continued use. It is not an invented method for planning and designing in instructional de-sign, but rather a codification of established and vernacular practice. It appears to be described in a number of sources as a representation for what actually happens in many design fields, only later to be formalized through the literature of instructional design (cf. Molenda, 2003).

In common use, the ADDIE model differs very little from codified design models used in other fields, notably architecture. Architects

Role-Based Design:

A ContemporaryPerspective for Innovation inInstructional DesignBy Brad Hokanson, Charles Miller, and Simon Hooper

W

“To truly design is toextend understand ing,

to create somethingnew and innovative.”

36 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6 Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2008 37

commonly use the terms schematic design, de-sign development, construction documents, and contract administration to contractually segment the process of design and constructing a building (see, for example, the AIA General Conditions of the Contract). However, while the process can be divided into these phases (along with subse-quent client billings), within good architectural firms almost no designer limits or constrains de-sign activity to these steps. In reality, design still occurs during construction, often adding to the value of the work.

One can view the ADDIE model as a recipe for instructional design, a perfunctory and mechani-cal description or overview of the design process. Novice cooks follow recipes without modifica-tion or extrapolation, getting the expected result (cf. Bird, 2007). Completion of the process, or of being done, is desired; done well is rare. The great cook, however, does not slavishly follow the recipe, but rather extends what is prescribed. Chefs, those who need to advance innovation and momentum in the culinary field, make use of their imagination, based on established pro-cesses and values, but also are not hindered by recipes or existing procedures.

The process of design cannot be codified in a simple recipe in any sub-field, from graphic to urban design. Instructional design, although os-tensibly following a single lockstep process, also exhibits this same diversity of methodology. In a study of instructional designers, Visscher-Vo-erman and Gustafson (2004) examined the de-sign processes of instructional designers. Most followed a traditional, rational, ADDIE-based model, but their research showed that “design processes are much more heterogeneous and di-verse” than the ADDIE model suggests.

Our argument holds that ADDIE, as a process through which instructional designers design, develop, and implement instructional media and learning environments, does little if anything to encourage further innovation when designing. We are not arguing for the exile of ADDIE, but rather a fresh perspective and set of values in support of innovation in the design of learning experiences. Orientation of the field toward pio-neering design work that engages learners more meaningfully and effec tively requires a focus on creating rich and innovative learning experienc-es, as opposed to simply developing instructional products through staid processes. We contend that to truly design is to extend understand ing, to create something new and innovative; we be-lieve design is a goal based on a set of values and philosophies, not a process. Advancing design innovation through use of a new set of design lenses and perspectives is the foundation of our

argument. The use of prescribed methods in teaching

instructional design is understandable. Pro-viding learners with a set of procedures that generate predictable results is, to some extent, valuable. Novices commonly seek a specific set of tasks that will guarantee success, using the model with fervor, evaluated on their loyal steps in the process, as (theoretically) consistent with design skill. In real-ity, this practice perpetu-ates a process of design that is lockstep in execu-tion, removes creativity from much of the process, and isolates the engaging aspects of the work in the early stages. We feel it is a disservice to the nov-ice instructional designer to present this meth-od as the sole process of instructional design. Later aspects of the process are demotivating; implementation is viewed as simply getting the job done and/or drudgery; evaluation, if remembered, is an afterthought. However, as designers mature and address more complex problems, they do generally decrease use of specific sets of ordered actions and advance through an evolution of internalized design values, perspectives, frameworks, and philoso-phies. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) noted that novices in any field tend to seek rules and fol-low rule-based behavior; as an individual de-velops (design) skills, the value of a model de-creases, knowledge becomes less tacit, rules less explicit, and capability less defined by declared knowledge. We contend that designers should be ‘role-based’ as opposed to ‘rule-based’.

Design is, of course, never done; good de-signers have in their psyche an impatience, a dissatisfaction with the status quo. They seek the challenge, the unexpected result. The goal of design education is not to produce consis-tent designs, particularly those that replicate previous work. The goal must be to produce better designers and hence, designs as yet un-conceived. Inherent in this goal for the pro-fession is one of constant improvement and innovation of the design process. Any design process has a series of different activities, with attention spent in various different aspects of the work. A broad understanding of the proj-ect is needed, as well as a background in the field and ability in each aspect of the work. In addition, time must be dedicated to the experimental aspects of the work, both on specific projects and to generally advance. A rigorous understanding and evaluation of

“Good designers have in their psyche an impatience, a dissatisfaction with the status quo.”

38 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

the field’s body of knowledge must be applied. Ultimately, the project must be implemented with skill and continuous improvement of

the design, even after for-mal completion. Seasoned instructional designers understand and execute this dynamic progression in their work. However, the process and method-ologies we use to describe and define ourselves as a field, both to newcomers and alternative domains, do little to encourage the intricacies of the design experience when truly pushing design forward. We feel our methodologies have lost, if not forgotten, the crucial values and per-spectives that promote de-

sign innovation and advancement.

A contemporary perspective fordesign innovation

A number of theories and ideas guide the practice of instructional design; in addition, we are irrevocably guided by our perceptions of our own practice. How we describe the work of instructional design is how we do the work of instructional design. “As individuals express their life, so they are” (Marx & Engels, 1845). For example, if we view the work of instruc-tional design as the application of theories of cognition and learning, the inherent value is one of the learning sciences or perception. Similarly, if we view the process as simply the production of instructional materials, we may create work that is complete but limited in innovation. We must seek to include the full range of roles of the designer in every project, extending our self-image beyond that of the instructional engineer or manufacturer.

One way to organize and present the values of instructional design is to use and emulate a series of roles as models or exemplars for suc-cessful design practice. Being a designer and acting as a designer, therefore, becomes more important than understanding what tasks a designer does, just as being creative is much more important (and difficult) than knowing what creativity is. Presented here is a contem-porary perspective of instructional design, one which entails a number of “roles” rather than tasks. We acknowledge that good and experi-enced instructional designers encompass some

or all of these roles in their work; however, when describing their profession or mentoring future designers, the inherent values, perspectives, and philosophies of each are often lost in translation. We believe there are roles that procedurally lead one through instructional design, and, more im-portant, act as exemplars, which if followed, may help to improve quality and innovation within the field.

Role-Based DesignThe design roles we present here are arche-

types, i.e., romanticized versions of real pro-fessions, exemplars of behavior and practice, and personifications of value sets and philoso-phies—applicable perspectives for professional behavior in instructional design. As exemplars, we seek from them the best of their practices; for example, from the artist, creativity, and from the craftsperson, patience and advancement through practice. Each of the roles we have selected is well known through our society: artist, architect, en-gineer, and craftsperson. The roles we highlight have been present in design for a long time, and most earlier design practices necessarily includ-ed all these attributes. In the Renaissance, these roles were blurred, integrated into the single individual or practice; for example, Leonardo da Vinci was artist and engineer, architect and craftsperson. This is in contrast to current prac-tice in instructional design, with strictly defined and limited responsibilities. Instead of being an integrative approach, the process is sequential and segmented.

The two roles we believe are most present in current instructional design practice are the instructional engineer and the instructional manufacturer. Understanding the interplay be-tween these roles and their innate perspectives describes traditional practice in the field.

The Instructional Engineer(scientific realization)

Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives. While scientists ex-plore nature in order to discover general prin-ciples, engineers apply established principles drawn from mathematics and science in order to develop economical solutions to technical problems. We use the term “instructional engi-neer” as an aspect of instructional design that is emphasized in instructional design programs. The instructional engineer focuses on applying research to learning. This is close to our vision of scientist—someone seeking new knowledge

“We must seek toinclude the full

range of rolesof the designer

in every project, extending our self-

image beyondthat of the

instructional engineeror manufacturer.”

38 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6 Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2008 39

through research—but here, as the role is an ap-plied one, the term “engineer” is more relevant. Indeed, some argue that the field of “instructional design” itself is mis-named: “Some object to the word ‘design,’ suggesting as it does a rather arty orientation, and insist that what we really need is ‘instructional engineering” (Sheperd, 2002). We contend most in the field do function as and seek to be instructional engineers (Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004).

In our perspective, the role of the instructional engineer is one of instructional problem solving. Most engineers, either in the instructional field or in the major sub-fields of engineering such as civil, structural, or mechanical engineering, are highly trained professionals. In education, the instructional engineer ensures a product that is usable by the target audience and achieves its ed-ucational goals. Contemporary, research-based ideas are used to develop instructional materials; educational theory is an important component of the work of the instructional engineer. The principle goal of the engineer is the functional efficiency of the work, planning and organizing the project. These are aspects of the design pro-cess that can advance the value of the work.

In current practice, most designs completed by the instructional engineer are passed on to technicians with little opportunity for change. At some point in any design project the conceptual-ization, the planning, and the broader view have been completed, and the work must be imple-mented. Here again there are significant ques-tions of a choice between completion and craft. Most instructional design work these days is manufactured, where ideas developed elsewhere are implemented by workers divorced from con-cept, aesthetics, or theory.

The Instructional Manufacturer (efficient production)

Instructional design materials are often pro-duced by a manufacturer and not by an engineer. The manufacturer frequently is a technically skilled individual applying a pre-defined design template to solve an educational problem, deliv-ering results as efficiently as possible. The solution to an educational problem is given or dictated to the manufacturer, whose responsibility is one of formatted production. Production consistency and stability are of primary value, resulting in products that are predictable and functional. As one expects a recipe from a cookbook to be pre-dictably good and what was intended, one should expect the results from a manufacturer to pro-duce consistent but not innovative work. For ex-

ample, when asked to develop distance educa-tion materials, the instructional manufacturer might employ traditional instructional design methods to develop instructional materials emphasizing content presentation and applica-tion. Such materials are commonly delivered to learners via the most efficient technologies (e.g., online quizzes, Blackboard/WebCT tem-plates, PowerPoint presentations, etc.). Most of these technologies are stable and, at the core, are based on educational theories such as con-structivism, collaboration, or cognitive sci-ence—but such theories are remote from the manufacturer. However, the role of the manu-facturer is to implement the technology that best fits the dictated need, regardless of align-ment with pedagogical theory. Models for the manufacturer’s design process primarily focus on the functional (i.e., “form follows func-tion”). As with the architecture in the 1960s, an aesthetic could develop based on making the technology work, one based on utility.

Speed and consistency are the values of the manufacturer; however, there are inherent problems with this simplified process. First, the experience and technical skill that may be present with the manufacturer seldom inform the design direction—design ceases with the conclusion of the engineering phase and all prospects for qualitative improvement stop in a traditional manufac-turing process. Second, criteria for success of the manufacturer are based upon quantity, not qual-ity. While efficiency may improve, quality remains constant at most.

We seek to replace the role and inherent perspective of the instruc-tional manufacturer with that of a craftsper-son. The values of the craftsperson are critical to the quality of the artifact; a part of the full design process. For the health of the design process and the participant designers, we ar-gue that this portion of the work be positive, additive, generative, and ultimately forward thinking to ensure a gradual increase of quality in future designs. At this point, it is important to note that we do not view these roles as sepa-rate entities, but rather a unique collection of perspectives and values that an individual in-structional designer, or team of designers, can bring to their design work.

“The instructional engineer focuses on applying research to learning.”

40 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

The Instructional Craftsperson (experienced evolution)

The instructional craftsperson encompasses the work of development and implementation, but also seeks to improve the project design. Traditionally, craftwork implies a high level of skill in execution, and while not focusing on the research or theoretical foundations, there exists a solid theoretical understanding of the field.

As a verb, ‘to craft’ seem-ingly means to participate skillfully in some small-scale process. This implies several things. First, it af-firms that the results of involved work still surpass the results of detached work. To craft is to care. Second, it suggests that partnerships with tech-nology are better than autonomous technology.

For example, personal mastery of open-ended software can take computers places that deter-ministic software code cannot. Third, to craft implies working at a personal scale—acting locally in reaction to anonymous, globalized, industrial production—hence its appeal in de-scribing phenomena such as microbreweries. Finally, the usage of ‘craft’ as a verb evades the persistent stigma that has attached itself to the noun (McCullough, 1998, p. 21-22).

In society today, we have a view, a vision, of “craftsperson”—a highly skilled trades worker creating exceptional work; a benevolent artisan. Historically, a craftsperson was a highly skilled guild member, required to mentor an appren-tice to continue and advance the guild mission. Inherent in the role of master craftsperson was the requirement of building the work and the next generation. One can imagine a craftsper-

son building a boat or wood strip canoe by hand. The work is comparable to manufactured efforts, but while similar, it does not regress to the level of detached reproduction. The maker, the indi-vidual, is engaged with the work. To some ex-tent, the craftsperson is somewhat isolated from concerns of reality; in their own time, patient and still efficient, the work, not the schedule, is of prime importance. In other words, the design is done when it’s done.

Our vision of instructional craft includes a high level of implicit knowledge developed from experience. Craftspersons seek quality in both technical and aesthetic terms. They value the fi-nal product equally to, if not more than, the user or client; we expect physical manifestations of their work in their lives—calluses and patience.

Many practitioners today might adopt this characterization for final phases of their work as an easy change in their current process of instructional design. Adding the title “craft-sperson” to the completion phase of the work does not, however, change the process. If the craftsperson is an appendage, a renaming of the manufacturing role, there will be no true design improvement and will have the same real impact as calling in the graphic artist to apply visual aesthetics at the completion of the project. For there to be value in craft, it must have a voice throughout the design and exhibit real value in execution. Many in the field may share the val-ues of the craftsperson, but still be constrained by practice, economics, or choice. The goal is to encourage thoughtful and engaged completion of instructional design projects.

The building craftsperson, the mason of the Renaissance, evolved through time to become the contemporary architect (as buildings are now designed). There are still masons today whose focus is more on production, but as design has become more complex and multifaceted, and as design has separated from construction, the role of architect has evolved as separate. As a profes-sion, architecture still values craft and seeks to train new architects in production techniques. It also educates practitioners in the results of re-search and values aesthetics and craft. This holis-tic view, a broader approach and perspective to the design process, also applies to instructional design.

Today, architects often integrate all the func-tions of the design process, from initial concep-tualization to final evaluation. Architects are current with contemporary research and tech-nologies, have the skills to work in various me-dia, and integrate the needs of the user and the client through design ideas.

“We seek to replace the role and inherent

perspective of the instructional

manufacturerwith that of a craftsperson.”

Figure 1: Current practice in instructional design. The manufacturer produces the design of the engineer; each project is separate and does not advance the field. The quality of design does not improve.

40 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6 Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2008 41

The Instructional Architect(holistic conceptualization)

We view the role of instructional architect as one who has a balanced approach to instruction design, values aesthetics and innovation, applies current research, and who critically examines solutions to increase user engagement, motiva-tion, and interaction. Instructional architects are not satisfied by simply solving the problem; the architect is motivated by extending the bound-aries of the resources to explore solutions that enhance learner experience, moving beyond the educational and technological specifications of the instructional problem (i.e., design beyond done), and ultimately striving for innovative and transformative potential.

Developing an understanding of an entire project (i.e., having a holistic view of the design challenge) is critical to the design process. In-herent in this understanding is an identification and recognition of the assumptions of the design problem, and a questioning of the design prob-lem itself; what is the true nature of this design problem? This phase also examines the resources at hand and the theoretical and philosophical ori-entation of the project. The architect’s approach to instructional design attempts to balance util-ity, usability, and aesthetics (cf. Kirschner et al., 2004). By extending the engineer’s functional solution and attempting to incorporate aesthet-ics at the core of the design process, the architect explores divergent solutions that extend and cul-tivate the affordances of a medium.

Having a broad design perspective is essen-tial to a project’s success, but beyond that wide view, the designer needs to specifically address the development of new ideas. Unfortunately, in many design projects, a single driving concept is selected very early in the process and essentially “passed down through the ranks.” These ideas are generally pre-conceptions, ideas of what works and what could easily be done, and sadly, they are also ideas that have been previously execut-ed. In order for innovative ideas to be adopted or even conceived, the successful designer needs to explore many alternatives; ideas that are differ-ent, unusual, that may fail or that will break the mold. In short, the instructional designer must also work as an artist.

The Instructional Artist(playful experimentation)

The instructional artist is an iconoclast; one who diverges from the norm and embraces ex-perimentation and failure, who examines ideas that ultimately may not work, paths that are not expected, and allows for more diverse concep-

tualization. Within the field of creativity train-ing, there are several techniques that encourage examining wrong answers or the opposites of the expected results. Similarly, the path of the instructional artist is fraught with failure, and one that diversifies thought. Here is where most innovation in the field will occur. The wager of the artist is to win big, balancing attendant risk with the potential for substantial increases in the value of designs.

We view artists as those with a mastery of a medium, with an intense focus on their work and a concern for user experience and aes-thetics. They exhibit a high level of creativity, even to the point of working outside of society. Failure, unexpected results, and disturbance of the status quo mark the work of the artist; producing a finished product is not necessarily important, but rather the goal is to advance the understanding and development of new ideas. The artist stimulates divergent thinking at the beginning of any project; provides aesthetic di-rection and inspiration throughout the project, and acts as the “what if ” person on a project team.

The artist is an instructional explorer, using instructional problems as stimuli to experiment with media and affordances. The instructional artist may work without client or audience, only later attempting to apply to instructional practice what has been learned through the artistic experience. The artist embraces failure and engages in continuous self-criticism while attempting to understand both the problem and self.

Roles as processIt must be understood that each exemplar role

participates throughout the design process. For example, parallel to the engineer perspective, the sensibilities of the artist must remain pres-ent. Complementary to the architect’s holistic perspective is the evolved and orchestrated exe-

Figure 2: Improved practice in instructional design. The artist provides divergent thinking, the architect provides holistic project understanding, but the project is still completed by a manufacturer.

42 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6

cution of the craftsperson. We view these roles as generally sequential. Each role, in turn, leads the project, applying their own expertise: Artist, Architect, Engineer, and Craft-sperson. This sequence is, of course, comparable in action to many other iterations of the design process, but given the use of these roles, these exemplars, each phase has its own values and quality.

Each role, from the creativity of the artist to the care of the craftsperson, is critical at some point in the process; each serves as check and balance for the other roles, the engineer bringing the artist back to earth, the architect reminding the craftsperson of the needs of the client; and each is constant and integrated into the entire process, not taking the lead all the time, but present and engaged throughout.

As with many other disciplines, the methods and prod-ucts of instructional design represent the values of the de-signer; our arguments here may be ones of belief or per-sonal philosophy. Present today in the instructional field is a belief that design is a purely rational and logical solution of problems, or a belief that inherent in any design must be

Embracing Role-BasedDesign

In lieu of a re-articulated summary of the Artist, Ar-chitect, Engineer, and Craftsperson roles, we conclude with a collection of 12 questions one can reflect upon be-fore, during, and after each design project. The premise of Role-Based Design is illustrated in people, not steps or processes; Role-Based Design encompasses the values, mindsets, philosophies, characteristics, responsibilities, traditions, and practices of real designers. As a sequence of inspirations, or even as a representative design team, this “role-based” design perspective is intended to encour-age innovation in the instructional design field and pro-mote higher quality design of learner experiences. These are the attributes that ultimately lead to innovation. The attributes that follow are not to be used as a checklist, but rather to create an understanding of different components of a complete designing experience.

Artist (playful experimentation)• When listening to the initial problem, how

did I freely explore a variety of aesthetic, technological, and pedagogical possibilities (rather than applying past design solutions to the current obstacle)?

• What are some of the creative, unique, sim-plistic, complex, innovative, and bizarre ideas I exhausted when exploring the problem?

• In what ways have I successfully failed during my design experimentation?

Architect (holistic conceptualization)• What are the pedagogical, technological, and

aesthetic characteristics/affordances of the proposed solution?

• How does the conceptualized solution provide oppor-tunities for transformation in learning and/or instruc-tion?

• What steps have I taken to create an instructional ex-perience for the learner, as opposed to an instructional product?

Engineer (scientific realization)• What are the physical, logical, pedagogical, technologi-

cal, and cultural constraints of the design and implemen-tation?

• What structural and technical features have I implement-ed to ensure scalability and sustainability of the solution over time?

• What measures have I taken to ensure a reliable, valid, and pedagogically sound solution?

Craftsperson (experienced evolution)• How have I improved upon the design conceptualized by

the architect?• How have I affected the quality of ideas, processes, and

production? What are six things I could have done bet-ter during this project (i.e., conceptual, procedural, and developmental items)?

aesthetic, spiritual, and philosophical aspects, or a belief that design must be inclusive and spring from the ideas and actions of the learners. The proposed Role-Based De-sign perspective can be of value for instructional designers of all levels. For the experienced designer, a procedure for design is often already in place. The use of a role-based perspective will remind the experienced designer of other divergent aspects of design methods and serve to stimulate directed reflection as part of the process. The Role-Based Design perspective can be used to organize and manage large teams or it can be used for projects designed by small teams or individuals. Applying new models or roles will help change the outlook and results.

For the beginner, using roles as a formalized linear design perspective, maybe even a process, can lead one through a challenging sequence of procedures; as artist, architect, en-gineer, and craftsperson. Using Role-Based Design to com-plement ADDIE may encourage an inexperienced designer to include aesthetic components throughout the design process, to view the entire process as a whole, and be en-couraged to innovate as opposed to replicate former design models.

Figure 3: Role-Based Design. The craftsperson advances the design to the next level; improvement and innovation is inherent and valued at each phase of the work.

42 TechTrends • November/December 2008 Volume 52, Number 6 Volume 52, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2008 43

• What have I learned from this proj-ect that will ensure a higher quality of design and user experience for my next project?

Brad Hokanson isan associate professor in the College of Design at the University of Minne-sota. While most of his classes are in the area of graphic design and multimedia, he also teaches critical thinking and creative problem solving. He received his Ph.D. in Instructional Technol-ogy in 2000. His research focuses on creativity and the use of technology to aid cognition. He is a registered architect in the State of Minne-sota with a number of award winning projects, although no longer in active practice. Frequent visits to Buenos Aires support his Argentine tango habit.

Charles Miller is an assistant professor in the Learning Technologies program at the Universi-ty of Minnesota. His research explores the design of technologies to transform the instructional experience, moving beyond the surface-level ac-tivities of centering face-to-face affordances and diagnosing efficiency obstacles in traditional instructional design. He has developed and in-structed undergraduate and graduate courses on educational multimedia development, new media and traditional graphic design. He re-ceived his Ph.D. in Learning Technologies from the University of Minnesota. He has an active practice in nature and landscape photography.

Simon R. Hooper is an associate professor in the Department of Instructional Systems at Penn State University. His research has shifted over time from studying how technology can be used to deliver education to his present interest in how technology can support teaching and learning. He studies the software design process, interface and usability design, and wants to un-derstand how to translate emerging technologi-cal affordances into new forms of experience. He received his Ph.D. in 1989 from Penn State Uni-versity. In his spare time he likes to play squash and run.

ReferencesBird, B. (2007) [Director]. Ratatouille. Bur-

bank: Pixar/Walt Disney Studios.Carey, J. W. (1967). Harold Adams Innis and

Marshall McLuhan. Yellow Springs: Antioch Press.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.

Johnson, P. (1994). The theory of architecture: Concepts, themes, and practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Kirschner, P. A., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Edu-cational Technology Research and Develop-ment, 52(3), 47-66.

Lumsdaine, E., Lumsdaine, M., & Shelnutt, J. W. (1999). Creative problem solving and engineering design. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1845). The German ideology. Retrieved January 2, 2008, from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/

McCullough, Malcolm, (1998). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand. Cam-bridge: MIT Press.

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model, Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-36

Sheperd, C. (2003). Engineering e-learning. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/fea-tures/engineer.htm

Turkle, S., (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Touch-stone.

Visscher-Voerman, I. & Gustafson, K. (2004). Par-adigms in the theory and practice of education-al and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 52(2) 69-89.

Other recommended readingAspillagae, M. (1991). Screen design: A location

of information and its effects on learning. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 18(3), 89-92.

Dym, C. L., Little, P. (1999). Engineering design: A project-based introduction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Eisner, E. W. (1997). Cognition and representa-tion: A way to pursue the American Dream? Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), p. 349-353.

Ertas, A., Jones, J. C. (1996). The Engineering De-sign Process. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Giedion, S. (1967). Space, time and architec-ture: The growth of a new tradition (5th ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hokanson, B. (2001). Digital image creation and analysis as a means to examine learning and cognition. In M. Beynon, C. Nehaniv, & K. Dautenhahn, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Cognitive Technology. Berlin: Springer.

Hokanson, B., & Hooper, S. (2000). Computers as cognitive media: Examining the potential of computers in education. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 537-552.

Hughes, R. (1991). The shock of the new. New York: Knopf.

Hyman, B. (1998). Fundamentals of Engineer-ing Design. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Johnson, P. (1994). The theory of architecture: Concepts, themes, and practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Jonassen, D. H. (2006). A constructivist’s per-spective on functional contextualism. Edu-cational Technology Research and Develop-ment, 54(1), 43-47.

Kao, J. (1997). Innovation: Breakthrough think-ing at 3M, Dupont, GE, Pfizer and Rubber-maid. New York: Collins.

Lavie, T., & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3), 269-298.

Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Ox-ford: Architectural Press.

Levinson, P. (1977). Toy, mirror, and art: The metamorphosis of technological culture. Et cetera, June, 151-167.

Lucie-Smith, E. (1981). The story of craft: The craftsman’s role in society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

McEwen, I. K. (2004). Vitruvius: Writing the body of architecture. Cambridge: MIT Press.

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

Olson, D. R. and Bruner, J. S., (1974). Learning through experience and learning through media. 73rd Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Parizotto-Ribeiro, R., & Hammond, N. (2004). What is aesthetics anyway? Investigating the use of design principles. Proceedings of the NordCHI 2004 Workshop, Finland, 37-40.

Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technol-ogy, 45(2), 16-24.

Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional de-sign and technology: Part I: A history of in-structional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64.

Rowling, J. K. (1998). Harry Potter and the sorcerer’s stone. London: Scholastic.

Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Hu-man factors in engineering and design. Mc-Graw-Hill: New York.

Sandoval, W. & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychol-ogist, 39(4), 199-201.

Tractinsky, N. (2004). Toward the study of aes-thetics in information technology. Proceed-ings from the 25th International Conference on Information Systems, USA, 11-20.

Turkle, S., (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Touchstone.

Wilson, B. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of prac-tice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10-15.