Elsevier

Design Studies

Volume 64, September 2019, Pages 64-89
Design Studies

Moving between material and conceptual structure: Developing a card-based method to support design for learning

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.05.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The (re)design of environments for learning is a major trend shaping education.

  • Educational design is ill-equipped to connect conceptual and material structure.

  • Designing for learning requires deep knowledge about how humans learn.

  • We present the development of a card-based method to support heterogenous teams.

  • This method has broad application in environments undergoing change.

This article traces the development of a card-based method that weaves the conceptual structure of learning theories into the material practises of those involved in design for learning. Inspired by design thinking and design anthropology, this method also draws on the literature of education and the learning sciences and it is the embodiment of the ACAD framework. Developed in response to challenges encountered communicating research findings to heterogenous design teams, the ACAD cards have been used in (re)designing curricula and facilities in school and university settings in Australia and New Zealand. We argue this method supports educational innovation through abductive sensemaking or design synthesis and has the potential to support the reconciliation of material and conceptual structure in other contexts.

Section snippets

Designing for learning—what can we learn from educational research?

Traditional definitions of learning tend to privilege learning as acquisition (Learn, 2018) where what is being acquired is a stable body of knowledge that, once mastered, can be demonstrated through a persistent or sustained change in behaviour. This pairing of acquisition and transmission is at odds with many current theories of learning. Richer conceptualisations of learning include the collaborative creation of knowledge through sustained activities involving shared knowledge objects and

Designing for learning—what can we learn from design research?

The rapid diffusion of ‘Design Thinking’ has created a demand for clear and actionable knowledge about design methods, and in response Dorst (2011) describes the underlying logic of various forms of reasoning commonly used in problem solving (Table 1). In doing so, he highlights disciplinary differences, not in terms of absolutes, but as a necessary precursor to understanding when designerly ways of thinking ought to be brought to bear on a problem and how they might be said to work in practise.

Deriving a design-based method from an educational framework

Many card-based methods are described in the literature with examples dating back to the 1950s (for comprehensive reviews see Roy and Warren, 2019, Wölfel and Merritt, 2013). Many recent card-based tools focus on user experience or human-centred design. Examples include Envisioning Cards that encourage designers to incorporate human values into their processes (Friedman & Hendry, 2012), Tango Cards that make knowledge about designing tangible learning games accessible to a broad range of

Bringing it all together—the ACAD cards in use

This section is presented in two parts. In the first we reflect on how the material properties of the cards support collaborative sensemaking. In the second we explore the user experience based on a video recording of a workshop and an interview with a colleague who has used the ACAD framework and cards in designing and delivering academic professional development workshops.

Conclusion

The ACAD cards evolved in response to challenges we encountered communicating educational research to heterogenous teams engaged in designing for learning. This included difficulty identifying and articulating individual beliefs about learning that confounded convergence on a shared epistemology of learning, difficulty focussing on the designable and resisting premature solutions, and difficulty imagining innovative design alternatives.

This article draws on deep theoretical roots in education

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This method draws on research carried out by both authors with the support of Professor Peter Goodyear as part of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Laureate Fellowship (FL100100203). Pippa Yeoman's contributions to writing this paper were further supported by ARC Discovery Grant (DP150104163).

References (68)

  • S. Paletz et al.

    The dynamics of micro-conflicts and uncertainty in successful and unsuccessful design teams

    Design Studies

    (2017)
  • R. Roy et al.

    Card-based design tools: A review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing

    Design Studies

    (2019)
  • J.F. Schønheyder et al.

    The use and evolution of design methods in professional design practice

    Design Studies

    (2018)
  • J. Sweller

    Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning

    Cognitive Science

    (1988)
  • D. Wardak

    Gestures orchestrating the multimodal development of ideas in educational design team meetings

    Design Studies

    (2016)
  • S. Adams Becker et al.

    The NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition

    (2018)
  • C. Alexander

    The nature of order: The phenomenon of life

    (2002)
  • C. Alexander et al.

    A pattern language

    (1977)
  • B.B. Bernstein

    Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity

    (2000)
  • B. Bloom et al.

    Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals

    (1957)
  • L. Carvalho

    A sociology of informal learning in/about design

    (2010)
  • L. Carvalho et al.

    CmyView: Learning by walking and sharing social values

  • L. Carvalho et al.

    The architecture of productive learning networks

    (2014)
  • L. Carvalho et al.

    Place-based spaces for networked learning

    (2017)
  • L. Carvalho et al.

    Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice

    British Educational Research Journal

    (2018)
  • A. Clark

    Supersizing the mind

    (2010)
  • N. Cross

    Design thinking

    (2011)
  • C. Damşa et al.

    Shared epistemic agency: An empirical study of an emergent construct

    Journal of the Learning Sciences

    (2010)
  • Y. Deng et al.

    Tango cards: A card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games

  • A. Dix et al.

    Externalisation and design

  • B. Friedman et al.

    The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalysing humanistic and technical imaginations

  • S. Gioia

    Seven motions: How we interact with decks

    (2014)
  • M. Golembewski et al.

    Ideation decks: A card-based design ideation tool

  • C. Goodwin

    Embedded context

    Research on Language and Social Interaction

    (2003)
  • Cited by (20)

    • How can we design for learning in an AI world?

      2022, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
      Citation Excerpt :

      Yeoman (2015) suggested the use of the ACAD wireframe to map (via a grid) in a single view (Fig. 4), where the multiple designable elements from ACAD are laid out at different levels of granularity – micro, meso, and macro. Drawing on the ACAD framework, the wireframe, and design anthropology (Gunn et al., 2013), Yeoman and Carvalho (2019) created the ACAD Toolkit, which consists of a cards-based method, task scaffolds, learning scenarios, and images, which are used to facilitate theoretically informed educational design discussions. As such, the toolkit has been used to support educational design teams by scaffolding processes of knowledge sharing and knowledge integration (McDonnell, 2009), often used as conversational prompts to encourage negotiation of shared meaning, with respect to valued forms of learning activity and the designable elements that can come together in support of these (Goodyear, Carvalho, & Yeoman, 2021; Yeoman & Carvalho, 2019).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text