Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making practices: a conceptual framework to support learning design in a digital age

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Digital learning environments are dynamic systems that require learning designers to leverage environmental conditions and the needs of their learners. While many frameworks and studies have explored pedagogical reasoning, little emphasis has been placed on the dynamic decision-making processes of learning designers. To advance the exploration of pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making in digital learning environments, we proffer a conceptual framework that supports these practices through the promotion of reflection-in-action, external representations, and the use of conjecturing strategies to maneuver through the learning design space. Theoretical and practical implications are considered for how pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making can be integrated into learning design curricula and educational policy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baaki, J., & Tracey, M. W. (2019). Weaving a localized context of use: What it means for instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 8(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, L. J., & Christensen, B. T. (2019). Advancing an understanding of design cognition and design metacognition: Progress and prospects. Design Studies, 65, 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2008). Artifacts as tools in the design process. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 685–690). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis–matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision making: Human control of complex systems. Acta Psychologica, 81(3), 211–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2019). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Capelo, C., & Dias, J. F. (2009). A feedback learning and mental models perspective on strategic decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 629–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choy, B. H. (2016). Snapshots of mathematics teacher noticing during task design. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(3), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2013). The teacher as re-designer of technology integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 447–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., et al. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(7), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S., Mullan, J., & Feldman, P. (2017). Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education? (pp. 49–50). Oxford, UK: Higher Education Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, 4(3), 319–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., & Phillips, M. (2018). If there’s TPACK, is there technological pedagogical reasoning and action? In Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 2051–2061

  • Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Verplanken, L., & van Braak, J. (2017). Eliciting teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 96–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers and Education, 101, 70–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner and Sweller. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2019). Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first principles on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 665–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G., & Hay, D. (2001). Use of concept mapping to integrate the different perspectives of designers and other stakeholders in the development of e-learning materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Identifying cross-domain distinguishing features of cognitive structure. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 817–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, S., Panizzon, D., Mitchell, I., Loughran, J., Tham, M., & Rutherford, L. (2017). Routes into student engagement as part of the pedagogical reasoning of teachers. In International Organization for Science and Technology Education International Symposium 2016. Centro Universitário de Formiga, pp. 278–283

  • Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and design thinking: A framework to support ICT lesson design for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1109–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopcha, T. J., Neumann, K. L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over product: The next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 68(2), 729–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(6), 699–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, P. R., & Dennen, V. P. (2017). Social presence, identity, and online learning: Research development and needs. Distance Education, 38(2), 137–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, T., & Baaki, J. (2019). Graduate students using concept mapping to visualize instructional design processes. TechTrends, 63(4), 451–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, A. W., Hollebrands, K., Lee, H., Harrison, T., & Mutlu, A. (2018). Factors that influence secondary mathematics teachers’ integration of technology in mathematics lessons. Computers and Education, 123, 26–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meloncon, L. K. (2017). Patient experience design: Expanding usability methodologies for healthcare. Communication Design Quarterly, 5(2), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murty, P. (2009) Comparing paradigms with practice: The design conjecture cycle. In: N Gu, MJ Ostwald, A Williams (eds.) Computing, Cognition and Education: Recent Research in the Architectural Sciences. ANZAScA, in Association with The University of Newcastle.

  • Nguyen, G. N., & Bower, M. (2018). Novice teacher technology-enhanced learning design practices: The case of the silent pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1027–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M., & Meuleman, N. (2017). Reflections of a new educational designer. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 21(2), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2017). Expanding teachers’ technological pedagogical reasoning with a systems pedagogical approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öllinger, M., Hammon, S., von Grundherr, M., & Funke, J. (2015). Does visualization enhance complex problem solving? The effect of causal mapping on performance in the computer-based microworld Tailorshop. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 621–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1321–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pella, S. (2015). Pedagogical reasoning and action: Affordances of practice-based. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(3), 81–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randles, C. A., & Overton, T. L. (2015). Expert vs. novice: Approaches used by chemists when solving open-ended problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 811–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J. M., & Koehler, M. J. (2018). Context and teaching with technology in the digital age. Teacher training and professional development: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1595–1622). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, N., Nemorin, S., & Johnson, N. (2017). High-tech, hard work: An investigation of teachers’ work in the digital age. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). A rational account of pedagogical reasoning: Teaching by, and learning from, examples. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 55–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shifflet, R., & Weilbacher, G. (2015). Teacher beliefs and their influence on technology use: A case study. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 368–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 1, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starkey, L. (2010). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 16(2), 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., & Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Stapleton, L. (2017) Insitu design: An exploration of design decisions made by instructional designers. Association for Education Communications and Technologies. Jacksonville, Florida.

  • Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020). Leveraging dynamic decision-making and environmental analysis to support authentic learning experiences in digital environments. Distance Education Journal, 64(20), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2013). Developing designer identity through reflection. Educational Technology, 53(3), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 263–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for teaching and learning. Educational Technology and Society, 15, 381–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Phillips, M., Trevisan, O., de Rossi, M., Smits, A., La Roi, H., & Fisser, P. (2019). Practicing and prospective teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about using technology in their educational practice: Part 1. In Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 13–16

  • Warr, M., Henriksen, D. & Mishra, P. (2018). What do we mean when we “design” e-Learning solutions? An analysis of discourses on design, technology, and education. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 717–722). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 18, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/185025/.

  • Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 102(2), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, 850 College Station Road, 221 Rivers Crossing, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Jill Stefaniak & Meimei Xu

  2. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA

    Tian Luo

Authors
  1. Jill Stefaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tian Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meimei Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Stefaniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefaniak, J., Luo, T. & Xu, M. Fostering pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making practices: a conceptual framework to support learning design in a digital age. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2225–2241 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09964-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09964-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation