Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User-design in the creation of human learning systems

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

Abstract

Systems theory and thinking are fundamental for the effective application of human performance technologies and instructional design to organizational and educational change efforts. One of the cornerstones of systemic change is the involvement of all stakeholders in what is termed participatory- or user-design. While the value of including the users in the creation of large systems of education and human performance (such as training, computer systems, and curriculum) is apparent, the reality of such inclusive efforts has a history of failure. Meeting the challenge of shifting power dynamics, empowering stakeholders and educating for design must, at some level, fall to the leaders of any dynamic organization. This paper describes systemic change as a context for user-design and defines user-design in that context. Approaches to user-design are explored, including ethnographic field methods, cooperative design, and action research-based user-design as applied to the creation and implementation of new technologies. A proposed research plan for the advancement of user-design practice concludes the work.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, M.C. (1985).Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B.H. (1991).Educational systems design: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H.S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods.Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1979).Mind and nature, a necessary unity. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhola, H.S. (1977).Diffusion of educational innovation. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.),Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodker, S., Gronbaek, K., & Kyng, M. (1993). Cooperative design: Techniques and experiences from the Scandanavian scene. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.),Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1990).On dialogue. Ojai, CA: David Bohm Seminars.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K.E. (1985).The world as a total system. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1994). Practice at the periphery: A reply to Steven Tripp.Educational Technology, 34(8), 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. (1978).Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1982).The turning point: Science, society and the rising culture. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A.A. (1995a). Performance technologist preparation: Investing in our future (Special issue).Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4).

  • Carr, A.A. (1995b). Stakeholder participation in systemic change: Cornerstones to continuous school improvement. In P. Jenlink (Ed.)Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school. (pp. 71–85). Palatine, IL: Skylight Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A.A. (1996). Distinguishing systemic and systematic!Tech Trends, 41(1), 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, A.A., Jonassen, D.H., Litzinger, M.E., Marra, R.M. (in press). Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedagogy.Theory into Practice.

  • Casey, C. (1996). Incorporating cognitive apprenticeship in multi-media.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavalier, J.C., Klein, J.D., & Cavalier, F.J. (1995). Effects of cooperative learning on performance, attitude, and group behaviors in a technical team environment.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(3), 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1981).Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C.W. (1968).The systems approach. New York: Delacorte Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1993). Anchored instruction ansd situated cognition revisited.Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, D.E. & Fox, R. (1993). Participatory research as critical theory: The North Bonnevile, USA, experience. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson, (Eds.)Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daresh, J.C. (1992). Impressions of school-based management: The Cincinnati story. In J.J. Lane & E.G. Epps (Eds.).Restructuring the schools: Problems and prospects. Berkeley: McCutchan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davydov, V.V. (1995). The influence of L.S. Vygotsky on education theory, research and practice.Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demming, W.E. (1982).Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: IT Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. & Johnson, F.C. (1993). Quality systems in performance improvement (Special issue).Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(3).

  • Duffy, T.M. & Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology?Educational Technology, 31(5), 7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J. & Wager, W.W. (1992).Principles of instructional design. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, J.W. (1963).Self-renewal. New York: J.W. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism.American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayeski, D. (1995). The changing role of human performance technology (Special issue).Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2).

  • Gilbert, T.F. (1978).Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasersfeld, E. von. (1995).Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Washington, DC: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A.D. (1962).A methodology for systems engineering. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, W.W. (1984). How I learned to love the future.World Future Society Bulletin, 18(6), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L. (1996). Instructional design of interactive multimedia: A cultural critique.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, T. (1996). When states and cities seize control of schools.USA Today, p. D8.

  • Hitch, C.J. (1955). An appreciation of systems analysis. In S.L. Optner (Ed.),Systems analysis. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, L.D. (1972). The learner-centered approach to instruction.American Vocational Journal, 47(1), 32–34, 53–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, B.D. (1993). The Appalachian land ownership study: Research and citizen action in Appalachia. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson, (Eds.)Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, C.L. (1996).Systemic thinking: Solving complex problems. Aurora, CO: Professional Development Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, G.M. (1972). The systems approach. In J. Beishon & G. Peters (Eds.),Systems behavior. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenlink, P.M. (1995).Systemic change: Touchstones for the future school. Palatine, IL: Skylight.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jewell, S.F. & Jewell, D.O. (1992). Organization design. In H.D. Stolovitch & E. Keeps (Eds.),Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J.C. (1970).Design methods: Seeds of human futures. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (1994).Out of control: The new biology of machines, social systems, and the economic world. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M. & Hannafin, M.J., (1996). A conceptual framework for the development of theories-inaction with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeCompte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993).Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lineberry, C. & Carleton, J.R. (1992). Culture change. In H.D. Stolovitch & E. Keeps (Eds.),Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher, F. and Tetreault. (1994).The feminist classroom. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B., & Jackson, T. (1993).Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd. edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petroski, H. (1994).Design paradigms: Case histories of error and judgment in engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quade, E.S. (1963). Military systems analysis. In S.L. Optner (Ed.),Systems analysis. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participatory inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.)Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (1993). Principles of educational systems design.International Journal of Educational Research, 19(2), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (1995).Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Making change our friend: The design perspective.Educational Technology, 33(7), 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1994) Designing for human performance (Special issue).Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3).

  • Sarason, S.B. (1995).Parental involvement and the political principle: Why the existing governance structure of schools should be abolished. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, D. & Namioka, A. (1993).Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1990).Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, D.L.M. Bransford, J.D., Goldman, S.R., Risko, V.J., Kinzer, C.K., & Vye, N.J. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, G.P. & Klein, J.D. (1995). The effects of cued interaction and ability grouping during cooperative computer-based science instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silber, K.H. (1992). Intervening at different levels in organizations. In H.D. Stolovitch & E. Keeps,Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolimowski, H. (1985).The cooperative mind as partner of the creative evolution. Paper read at the first international conference on the mind-matter interaction, Universidad Estadual de Campinas, Brazil.

  • Stepien, W. & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets.Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolovitch, H.D. & Keeps, E. (1992).Handbook of human performance technology: A comprehensive guide for analyzing and solving performance problems in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, E.T. (1996).Action Research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert, W.R. (1981). Why educational research has been so uneducational: The case for a new model of social science based on collaborative inquiry. In P. Reason & J. Rowan (Eds.),Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990) Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy.Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbanski, A. (1995) Learner-centered schools: A vision for the future.Educational Policy, 9(3), 281–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidich, A.J. & Lyman, S.M. (1994). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vise, D.A. (1996, November 16). D.C. Control board takes charge of public schools.The Washington Post, p. A01.

  • Volk, T. (1995).Metapatterns: Across space, time, and mind. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy, L. (1968).General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J.N. (1994).A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J.D. (1996). The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on performance in learner controlled computer-based instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(2), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems, College of Education at Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Alison A. Carr (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Alison A. Carr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, A.A. User-design in the creation of human learning systems. ETR&D 45, 5–22 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299726

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299726

Keywords

Search

Navigation