Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Faculty Publications

2016

The Application of Layer Theory to Design: The Control Layer The Application of Layer Theory to Design: The Control Layer

Andrew S. Gibbons III Brigham Young University, andy_gibbons@byu.edu

Matt Langton BYU

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub

Part of the Educational Methods Commons, Educational Psychology Commons, and the Educational

Technology Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Gibbons, Andrew S. III and Langton, Matt, "The Application of Layer Theory to Design: The Control Layer" (2016). Faculty Publications. 2968. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/2968

This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact scholarsarchive@byu.edu, ellen_amatangelo@byu.edu.

TheApplicationofLayerTheorytoDesign:TheControlLayer

AndrewS.Gibbons MatthewB.Langton

BrighamYoungUniversity

Abstract

Validation of an architectural theory of instructional design layering is accomplished for one of the proposed layers by verifying the theory’s claim that for every layer there exists a body of design theory from outside the field of instructional design that is capable of informing design within that layer.

“Oftenthemainvalueofatheoryliesinthenewkindsofresearchitgenerates.” N.L.Gage(1964,p.281)

Prologue

In1985StephenHawkinglostthelastvestigesofhisvoice,andhiscommunicationchanneltotheoutsideworldnearlyclosed.AllofHawking’smotorfunctionshaddeterioratedduetomotorneurondiseasetothepointwhereeventhesimplestmovementsrequiredstrenuouseffort,andin1985hehadatracheotomythattookawayhispowersofspeech.Thisseemedtobetheendofabrilliantcareerincosmologicalphysics.Incredibly,intheyearssincelosinghisvoice,andinthefaceofadvancingincapacitation,Hawking’sscholarlyoutputhasactuallyincreased:

Onhisownwebsite,Hawkinglists194publicationsthroughNovember2008(http://www.hawking.org.uk).Thismorecompletelistincludesitemssuchasbooks,significantlectures,andawardessays.(Lehman,2011,p.6)

Since2011,theyearoftheauthor’s69thbirthday,thereareadditionalpapers,anautobiography,andtwonovelsforyoungreadersoncosmology—thelatestinaseriesofnovelswrittenwithhisdaughter.(Lehman,2011givesmanymoredetailsofHawking’swritinghistory.)

Thisremarkablerecordofproductivity,whichamountstomillionsofwordsofoutput,hadtobeachievedthroughtheuseofacontrolsystemoperatedbyasinglecommandaction:thepressingofaswitch.ThissystemisdescribedbyMehtainachapterappropriatelytitled,“WhenaSingleButtonisAllThatConnectsYoutotheWorld”(Mehta,2007;seealsoMedeiros,2015).

ThecontrolswitchitselfthatoperatesHawking’seditingsystemisnottheinnovation.Later,whenpressingaswitchbecameimpossible,thetwitchofafacialmusclewasusedasacontrol.ThekeytoHawking’sexpressivecontrolconsistsofananticipatory,feed-forwardinterpretationsystemcapableofusingthecontroloperationanditscontexttopredictexpressiveintent,andbydoingsoofferappropriateshorthandcontroloptionsthatmultiplythepossiblemeaningsofasinglecontrolactuation.

Thedesignofthiscontrolsystemconsistsofdesignsforeverythingfromtheswitch/twitchrespondertothetexteditorinterfaceandallofthepredictivesoftwareinbetween.Thedesignofthissystemisanexampleoftheapplicationoftheoreticalprinciplesforcontroldesign.Overtheyears,specifichardwareandsoftwarepartsofHawking’ssystemhavecomeandgone,butthetheoreticalprinciplesunderlyingthedesignhaveremainedthesame.Hawking’scaseisoneofmanycasesthatdemonstratethatthedesignofcontrolsystemsis,orcanbe,morechallengingandmoretheoreticalthanonewouldthink.

Purpose

Thispaperreportsresearchonthevalidityofatheoryofdesignlayers.Gibbons(2014)proposesthatindividualfunctionallayersofadesignconstitutearchitecturalfeaturesofaninstructionaldesignthroughwhichtheoreticalprinciplescaninfluencedesigns.Specifically,thisstudyexaminesasinglefunctionallayer--thecontrollayer--intermsoftheoriesofcontroldesignborrowedfromdisparatedesignfields.Itarguesthatprinciplesforinstructionalcontroldesigncanbederivedfromthetheoriestakenfromtheseotherfieldsandappliedbeneficiallyintoinstructionaldesigns.

Theresultsofthisstudyappeartosupportthepositionthatlayersdoconstituteavalidchannelfortheoreticalinputtodesignforthefollowingreasons:

● Theoriesforcontroldesignfromotherfieldsdocontributeprinciplesthatcanbeabstractedandappliedtothedesignofinstructionalcontrolsystems.

● Theseprinciplesfocusdesignerattentionmoredirectlyonissuesofcontrolsystemdesignbypointingoutconsiderationsthatmightotherwisehavebeenoverlookedbyinstructionaldesigners.

● Applyingtheseprinciplesimprovestheoperationandthedesirablequalitiesofthedesignedartifact.Asdesignsinotherfieldshavebecomemoresophisticated,controldesigntheorieshavebeenshowntobeimportantfordesigningcontrolsystemswithdesirablepropertiesdiscussedinthispaper.Maturingintellectualconceptsofinstructionaldesignandrisingconsumerexpectationsofinstructionalexperienceswillinthefuturemakeitnecessaryforinstructionaldesignerstobecomemorefamiliarwiththetheoreticalbasesoftheircontrolsystemdesigns,apatternthathasalreadytakenholdinotherdesignfields.

Method

Ourmethodhasbeen:

1. Toexaminetherangeofcontrolsusedininstructionaldesignstobringintofocustheextentofthecontroldesignproblem.

2. Toidentifyalistofdesirablepropertiesofcontrolsystemsfoundinotherdesignfields.3. Toidentifytheoreticalprinciplesforcontroldesignfromotherdesignfields.4. Toextrapolatetheapplicationofthosetheoreticalprinciplestoinstructionalcontrolsystemdesign,

showinghowtheorycanleadtonewinsightsforinstructionaldesigners.5. Toidentifyinstanceswhereattentiontocontroldesigntheoryhasimprovedthequalityand

effectivenessofdesignedartifacts.Thecontrollayerwasoriginallyselectedforthisstudywithexpectationthatitwouldprovidearelativelyuncomplicatedexplorationofcontroldesigntheoriesandtheirproperapplicationthroughdesignlayers.Emphasiswasonestablishingthecontrollayerasalegitimateareaofdesignfocus,thereforeaddingvaliditytothetheoryofdesignlayersitself.Asthestudyprogressed,itbecameapparentthat:(1)controlsystemsforinstructionalpurposesweremuchmorecomplexandvariedthanwehadexpected,especiallyformoreadvancedformsofinstruction,(2)thedesirablepropertiesofcontrolsystemsingeneral,andbyextrapolationofinstructionalcontrolsystems,weremorenumerousandexactingthanwehadanticipated,(3)thenumberofcontributingtheoriesfromotherdesignfieldsweremorenumerousandmorefullyevolvedthanwehadexpected,(4)thatthelargenumberofapplicabletheoreticalprinciplesmakesitinfeasibletodescribemorethanahandfulofexamples,ratherthanthemoreexhaustivetreatmentwehadhopedfor,and(5)thatthenumberofexamplesofcontroldesigntheorycontributionstodesigneffectivenessisalsosolargeastopreventafulldescription.

Inbrief,wefoundthatthelayerwehadchosen--theonewethoughtwouldleadtoaquickandsimplecasestudy--wasonewithpracticalimplicationsthatreachedintotheverycoreofinstructionalconversationdesign--thedesignofinteractiveandadaptiveinstructionalexperiences.Thevolumeofcontroldesigntheoriesandprinciplesinvirtuallyeveryotherdesignfieldlengthenedthisstudybyanadditionalyear,andwestillfeellikenovicesonthislargesubject.

Assumptions

Ourprimaryassumptionisthatapplyingtheoryimprovesdesigns.Ifthisassumptionisnotcorrect,thenteachingtheorytonovicedesignershasnopurpose.If,ontheotherhand,instructionaldesignsareimprovedbyapplyingtheory,thenthemannerbywhichtheoryisappliedtodesignsshouldbestudiedinasmuchdepthaspossible.

Asecondassumptionisthatwhatwenormallyrefertoasinstructional“designs”arenotmonolithicentities,butratherintegratedcollectionsofsub-designs,interfacedtooperatetogetherharmoniously(Brand,1994;Gibbons,2014).ThefunctionaldecompositionofdesignproblemsdescribedbyGibbonsiscommoninalmostalldesignfields.Itisdescribedintheliteratureofarchitecture(Brand,1994),computerdesign(Baldwin&Clark,2000),business(Martin,2009),andsoftwaredesign(Fowler,1999).Whatisnewistheapplicationofthisprincipletoinstructionalexperiencedesign.ThecontroldesignlayerwhichisthesubjectofthispaperisjustoneofthefunctionallayersproposedbyGibbonsinanarchitecturaltheoryofinstructionaldesign(Gibbons,2014).Itrepresentsasub-designproblemthatcanbesolvedsemi-independentlyandintegratedwithothersolutionsfromotherlayers.Theprincipleofmodulardesignappliestoinstructionaldesignsaswellastodesignsinotherfields.

TheoryAboutTheory

Theuseoftheterm“theory”inthisstudyrequiresclarification.Thetermisusedintwosenseshere:(1)torefertoscientifictheoryastraditionallydefined(see,forexample,Dickmeyer,1989),and(2)torefertotechnologicaltheoryasithasbeenmorerecentlydefined(Simon,1999;Venable,2006;Carlisle,1997;Vincenti,1990;Constant1984).Scientifictheoryisusedbyscientiststosummarizeandexplainobservedphenomena.Technologicaltheoryisusedbydesignerstoimagineanddevisetoolsandprocessesthatdonotyetexist.Dorst(2010,2015)suggeststhatthisreliesheavilyonabductivereasoning(seealsoKlir,1969;Walton,2005;andJosephson&Josephson,1996).

Scientifictheoryisaffirmedbyrepeatedexperimentalconfirmationofthepredictionsofmodelsthatscientistsbuild.Scientifictheoryiscapableoffalsification.Twocompetingtheoriesattemptingtoexplainthesamephenomenonarepittedagainsteachotheruntilresearchdemonstratesthatoneprovidesthebetterexplanation.(Consider,forexample,thestrugglebetweentheCopernicanandPtolemaicmodelsofthesolarsystem.)

Technologicaltheoryisnotcapableoffalsification.Manydifferenttheoriescancontributetotheevolutionofasingledesign.Technologicaltheorysuggestsstructurestoadesignerthatarecapableofharnessinganddivertingnaturalenergiesandinformationforhumanpurposes.Scientifictheorymaydescribeacomplexrelationshipofentitiesandvariableswithoutsuggestinghowthatrelationshipcanbeused.Therefore,technologicaltheoryguidesdecisionmakingandactioninawaythatscientifictheorycannotaccomplish.Scientifictheorydoesnottranslatedirectlyintotechnologicaltheory,andmuchtechnologicaltheoryevolveswellbeforescientifictheoryisinventedtoexplainhowandwhythingswork.

EducationaltheoristslikeBruner(1966),Gage(1964),andDewey(1929)argueinfavorofthedistinctionbetweenscientificandtechnologicalformsoftheory.Deweyobservedthat“Thesciencesofmechanicsandmathematicsare,inthemselves,thescienceswhichtheyare,notsciencesofbridgebuilding.Theybecomethelatterwhenselectedportionsofthemarefocusedupontheproblemspresentedintheartofbridgebuilding”(p.35).FromtheperspectiveofgeneralsystemstheoryKlir(1969)arguestheimportanceofthisdifference,showingthatthoughbothscienceandengineeringstudysystems,theyarestartingfromdifferentperspectivesandcreatedifferenttypesofknowledge(seealsoVincenti,1990).ThesymbioticrelationshipofscienceandtechnologyinhumanknowledgecreationisdescribedbyGibbonsandBunderson(2005).Thetranslationfromscientifictotechnologicaltheoryisnon-trivialandincludesaprocessnormallyreferredtoasresearchanddevelopment,orineducationalcontexts,“design-basedresearch”.Translationiscritical,however,becauseitiswhatallowsdesignerstoconvertabstractrelationshipsofforcesintostructuringsthatchanneltheforcestowheretheycanproduceanintendedeffect.

Inadditiontothescience-technologytheorydichotomy,thereexistsapossibilityofdistinguishingatleasttwovarietiesoftechnologicaltheoryimportanttothisstudy:(1)designtheory(Simon,1999),and(2)domaintheory(Schon,1987):

● Designtheoryisconcernedwiththemannerinwhichdesignsaremade.Itdescribesapproachestodesignproblemsolvingthatcanhavedirectinfluenceonthedesigner’schoiceofactivities(Simon,1999).Designtheorytendstobeportableacrossdesigndisciplines.Gibbons’theoryoflayersisanadaptationoflayertheoryfrommanyfields,tocreateadesigntheoryforinstructionaldesign.

● Domaintheoryguidestheselectionandarrangementofdesignelementswithinaparticularlayerofadesign(seeSchon,1987).Domaintheoryisusuallyframedwithinaparticulardesignfield.Insomecases,domaintheoriesareportablebetweenfields,butingeneraltheoriesofelectricalgriddesigndonotapplytothedesignofinstruction.Domaintheoriestendtoberelatedmainlytothedesignquestionsofalimiteddomainofartifactsandtheconcernsofaparticularfieldofdesignanditsimmediateneighbors.

Thisstudysurveysportabletheoriesofcontrolsystemdesignfromanumberoffieldsastheyapplytothedesignofeducationalexperiences.

TheControlLayer

ThecontrollayerisoneofsevenlayersnamedbyGibbons(2014)inanattempttodefineanapproachtolearningexperiencedesignbasedonthefunctionalityoftheartifactsbeingdesigned.Alayerisadivisionofadesignproblemdeterminedbythedesignertohavesemi-independenceofotherpartsoftheoveralldesignproblem.Layersareanindividualchoiceofthedesigner.ThesevenlayersofaninstructionaldesignsuggestedbyGibbonsaredividedandsubdividedintosub-layersthatfocusthedesigner’sattentiononspecificareasofthedesign,whileatthesametimeallowingindividuallayerstobeintegratedandharmonizedwitheachother.Layersservepurposesofdivisionoflabor,productmodularization.Mostimportanttothisstudy,layersaidinidentifyingandorganizingbodiesoftheorythatafforddesignprinciplestoinstructionaldesigners.Layersmakeitpossibleforthedesignertoseeentrypointsthroughwhichtheoreticalprinciplescaninfluenceadesign.

Thecontrollayerwasselectedforthisstudybecauseitislessobvioustomostinstructionaldesigners.Fewwouldsuspectthatitwouldbeafitsubjectfortheoreticalstudy.Controlsystemsareanafterthoughtinmanyinstructionaldesigns.Weoriginallyfeltthatifwecouldshowthattheneglectedcontrollayerpossessedarelevantbodyoftheory,thenwemightusethecontrollayerasapatternforillustratingtheory-designlinkagesfortheremaininglayersaswell.

Initsnormalfunction,thecontrollayerisoneofthreesemi-independentlayersthattogetherdefinethe“interface”ofaninstructionaldesign.Besidesthecontrollayer,theotherlayersthatparticipateincreatingtheinterfacearetheMessagelayerandtheRepresentationlayer(seeGibbons,2014).Functioningtogether,thesethreelayerssupplythemeansforatwo-wayconversationbetweenalearningsourceandalearner.Thoughthelayersofadesignfunctiontogether,thedesignrequirements,designquestions,anddesigntheoriesforeachlayerdifferconsiderably.

Incontrollayerdesign,adesigneranticipatestherangeofcontextsinwhichthelearnerwillbeplacedandtherangeofpossiblelearnerintentionsthatneedexpressionwithinthosecontexts.Controlsystemdesignthereforeconsistsofprovidingtoolsfortheexpressionoflearnerintentionswithindesignedlearningcontexts.

Thecontrollayerentailsthedesignoflearner-operatedexpressivecontrols.SinceWWII,controlsystemdesignhasgrownrapidlyasanareaofthestudywithinhuman-machineinterfacedesign.Vincenti(1990)providesanextensivecasestudyofthegrowthofcontroldesigntheoryinaeronautics,notingthatoneofthechallengeswastonoticetheprobleminthefirstplace:“Theengineeringcommunitydidnotknowatthebeginningofourperiod[of25+years]whatflyingqualitieswereneededbypilotsorhowtheycouldbe

specified”(p.51).Describingvirtuouscontrolqualitieswasaproblemthathadtobesolvedoverthecourseofmorethantwodecades.Asmoresophisticatedaircraftdesignsemerged,newaspectsoftheproblembecameapparent.Asthesophisticationofinstructionaldesignsincreasesduetonewcompetitivepressures,wewonderwhetherasimilarperiodofdiscoverywillberequiredtodefinevirtuouscontrolqualitiesforinstructionaldesigns.

InstructionalControlSystems

Instructionalcontrolsystemsseldomreceiveattentionintheeducationaltechnologyliteratureintheirownright.Therefore,thissectiondescribesaselectionofcontrolsystemtypesunderfivecategoriesofcontrolfunction.

AdministrativeControls

Administrativecontrolsareusedincontextsfreeofspecificsubject-matter.Administrativecontrolslaunchprogramsandservices,provideadministrativecommunication,andsupplyhelp.Administrativecontrolsarefoundontherepresentationalsurfacesofoperatingsystems,applicationsoftware,andwebbrowsers.Administrativeinterfacesnormallyprovidesomanypotentialactionsthatsomecontrolsarehiddenwithinmenuhierarchies.Administrativecontrolstaketheformoficonsusedtorunapplications,foldersthatcanbeopened,andoptionlistsonthecontrolpanel.

Inaddition,forinstructionaldesigners,administrativecontrolsperformactionsindependentofspecificsubjectmatter.Therefore,administrativecontrolsareimportanttolearningmanagementsystems.Figure1illustratestheTREKKERsystem,asetofcontrolsforlaunchinginstructionaleventsandmakingadministrativedecisions.Usingsuchcontrols,theuserislikeatrekker,whohasemergedfromthewoodsintoaclearingtoscantheterrainandchartapath.Context-sensitiveTREKKERcontrolscanofferappropriatechoicesatkeytransitionpoints--betweeninstructionaleventsorevenwithininstructionalevents.

Figure1.TREKKERadministrativecontrols(FromGibbons,1997)

Inbothbetween-eventandwithin-eventcontextstherearecontrolsfor:(1)seekingorientation,(2)evaluatingcurrentstatus,(3)formingandexpressinggoals,and(4)expressingactionplans.Thecrossingofthetwocontextswiththefourfunctionscreateseightseparatecontextsfortheprovisionofcontrols(andrelateddecision-supportingdata).

NavigationControls

Navigationcontrolsareassociatedwiththeexplorationofinformationandactionspaces.Theyaffordmovementwithinthespace,facilitateinspectionofthecontentsofthespace,andbringtheusertoplaceswhereactionispossible.GoogleEarth,theAuthorwarecamerademonstration,andresourcesearchingusingasearchengineprovideexamplesofthistypeofcontrol.

GoogleEarthisaverylargesetofcontrolsforexamininggeographicsurfacesandtheirrelateddatabases.GoogleEarthcontrolspermittheusertonavigatetoanypointonanaturalsurfaceusingavarietyofcommands.Controlsfunctionwithpinpointaccuracytotaketheusertoasetofcoordinatesortoaphysicalfeature.Controlsarealsoprovidedtorevealoverlaymarkingsrepresentingroads,politicalboundaries,namedplaces,advertisedplaces,photographplacements,andotherdataitems.

TheGoogleEarthcontrolspermittheaspectandrangeoftheuser’sviewtobechanged.Othercontrolsallowseamlesssurveyingofamovingterrain,thedepositionofcommentsandvisuals,thereplayofcommentsandvisuals,andthecaptureoftracesintheformoffly-buys.

ThecontrolsetofGoogleEarthhasbeenabstractedandfittedtomultiplesimilarproducts.IthasbecomeaproductandametaphorinitsownrightthroughapplicationtosuchapplicationsasGoogleMoon,GoogleMars,andGooglesky.

TheAuthorwarecamerademonstration(usedasamarketingtoolforAuthorware,a1980sdevelopmentsystemthatisnolongersupported)providesthebasisforanotherexampleofnavigation—thistimebyexemplifyingwhatisnotthere.TheAuthorwarecamerademonstrationoriginatedinthe1980sasanauthoringdemonstrationforathenpopularauthoringsystem.Usingthedemonstration,ausercouldsettheF-stop,shutterspeed,andfilmISOvalueonacameraandthenpressashuttercontrolonthedisplay(seeFigure2).Asnapshotdepictingtheresultsoftheuser’sthreesettingswouldthenappearinasmallwindowatthebottomofthedisplay.Fromthistheusercoulddeterminetheeffectsofthesettingsontheappearanceofthesnapshot(dark,washedout,etc.).Afterviewingthisimage,theusercouldthenchangethesettingsandsnapanotherpicture,viewingtheresultsinanewimagedisplayedinthesamewindow.Thisprocesscouldberepeatedasmanytimesastheuserwished,eachtimeproducingthesamepicture,conditionedbythenewsettings.

Figure2.Re-creationoftheAuthorwarecamerademonstrationdisplay.

Thedemonstrationwasapowerfulmarketingtool,butitfellshortinstructionally.Thefaultlayintheinabilityoftheusertocomparesnapshots.Eachtimeapicturewastaken,thepreviouspictureintheviewingwindowwasoverwritten.TheviewspacetheoreticallybeingnavigatedbythemissingcontrolsetisillustratedinFigure3asifithadexisted.Additionalvaluecouldhavebeensuppliedbytheabilitytocomparechangesinthepicturevaluefromthepreviouspicture.Multiplecontrastsrepresentingdifferentsettingswould

eventuallycreateamatrixofcontrastingpicturesalongthreedimensions.Givingtheusertheabilitytonavigatetrajectorieswithinthismatrixwouldallowtheusertoviewthosecontrastsandstudythecombinedeffectsofdifferentsettingsofthethreecontrols.Notonlyweretherecontrolsforsettingpicturevariables,buttherecould/shouldalsohavebeencontrolsfornavigatingaroundthespaceofpicturestakenwithdifferentsettingscombinations.Thus,onefunctionofnavigationcontrolscanbetoallowthelearnertoexplorespaceslookingfordifferencesorcontrasts,ratherthanobjects.

Figure3.TherepresentationspacenavigatedbythemissingAuthorwaredemonstrationcontrols.

AnadditionalcontrolsetofthistypeisdemonstratedbyHansRoslingusingsoftwarecalledGapminder(SeeFigure4).TheprincipleofGapminderisthatamultivariatedatabaseisvisualizeddynamicallyinwhichonedimensionrepresentschangeovertime.WhenRoslingpressesthePlaycontrol,thechangesovertimebecomerepresentedasmovementsofgraphicalobjectsrepresentingpointswithinthedataspace.Inasense,Gapminderaddsdynamismtothecontrol-drivenexplorationofadataspace.AcontrolsystemusedforsettingrangevaluesandnamingdatavectorsisusedtosetdisplayparametersbeforethePlaycontrolisevenpressed.Onceplayisinitiated,graphicalrepresentationsofthedataarecreatedaccordingtothecontrolsettings.Thesecontrolscanbecategorizedasnavigationcontrols,becauseeachsettingmadecontrolstheunfoldingofamotion-dynamicdataspacethattheusercanthenobserve.Changesincontrolsettingschangetheunfoldingandthereforetheinformationavailablewithintherepresentationofthespace.

Figure4.Gapminder’sdynamicdisplayofdatabasevalues.(fromhttp://www.gapminder.org/)

Weblinksarealsoexamplesofnavigationalcontrols.Wecommonlyreferto"navigating"theweb.OnemeansofnavigatingistochainfromWebpagetoWebpage,alonganunplannedpathoverwhichwe“drilldown”acrossseverallinkedpages.

ActionControls

Actioncontrolsareassociatedwithactioncontexts—forexample,wherelearnersareoperatingorcontrollingtheprocessesofasystemoradeviceforexperimentalorproceduralpurposes.Themostcommonexamplesofactioncontrolsarefoundwithinsimulations,whichinvolveperformingactionsondynamic,computedmodelsofcause-effectsystems.Mostgamecontrolsareincludedwithinthiscategory.Actioncontrolsareoftenassociatedwithcontinuousmodelingprocessesthatrequireregulation,adjustment,andongoingattention.Theoperationofactioncontrolsusuallytakesplacewithinacontextwheretracking,differencedetection,andcyberneticcourseadjustmentareinvolved.

Thecontextofactioncontroloperationisoneinwhichalearnermakesacomparisonofapriormomentarystatewiththecurrentstateandactstobringaboutadesiredfuturestate.Trackingandrespondingtodynamicmodelstatechangesarekeyconceptsforthiskindofcontrol.Themodelprocessescontrolledmaybeeithersingle-cycleorcontinuously-cycling.Therefore,thecontrolsthemselvesmaybeoperatedineitherdiscreteorcontinuousmodes,dependingonthetimingofthesimulatedprocess.

StatementandQueryControls

Statementquerycontrolsareassociatedwithcontextswhereverbalorsymbolicexpressionsareexchanged.Controloperationstaketheformofasemanticallysignificantentry:eitheraquestionorananswertoaquestion.Sincesymbolicactionsareincludedinthisgroupofcontrols,raisingahandinaclasssettingconstitutesacontrolinthissense.Statementandquerycontrolsallowthekindsofexpressionsthatmakeupaconversationalexchange.

StatementandQuerycontrolscanhavegreatersemanticrangethanothertypesofcontrol.Therefore,mayconsistofcommenting,annotating,responding,composing,seeking,creating,structuring,hypothesizing,requesting,suggesting,explaining,asking,sketching,outlining,arguing,requesting,claiming,givingevidence,

countering,relating,asserting,disputing,countering,illustrating,proposing,exemplifying,connecting,imagining,persuading,agreeing,supporting,orconcluding--allexpressiveorinquiringactsofaconversation.

Statementandquerycontrolsarecommonlyfoundinhomeworkassignments,classexercises,discussions,quizzes,andtests.Theyarethemostcommonformofclassroomcontrolexercisedbyalearnerduringinstructionalconversations.Achievingamorerobustimplementationofstatementandquerycontrolsusingtechnologicaldeviceshasbeenthepreoccupationofnaturallanguageprocessingresearchformanydecades.Thefruitofthisprocessingresearchisnowappearingon"smart"phoneseverywhere.Thoughthesemanticprocessingofspokenandtypedcontrolsislessthanperfect,lexicalandsyntacticprocessinghasimproved,andnaturallanguageinterpretationtoolsarefoundonalmosteverycomputerandinsearchengines.Searchenginecontrolswerealsomentionedinconnectionwiththenavigationcategory.Thisdemonstratesthatmultiplecategoriesofcontrolmaybeaffordedtotheuseratanygivenmomentduringtheuseofanapplicationandalsothatthesecategoriesblurattheedges.

Aresearchprojectinthe1980scalledCSILE(Computer-SupportedIntentionalLearningEnvironments)(Scardamalia,2004),whicheventuallyevolvedintotheKnowledgeForum(c)commercialproduct,exemplifiesatechnology-basedinstructionalinterfacethatmakesnon-trivialuseofstatementandquerycontrols.

CSILEisavirtualcollaborativeproblem-solvingspace.IntheCSILEspacelearnersconductpersonalprojects,whileatthesametimereviewingandcritiquingtheprojectsofotherlearnersusingthesamevirtualspace.Interactionsrelatedtoprojectscanconsistofsimplecommentaries,engageddebate,orcollaborativeresearchasateam.Intermsofusercontrol,interactionsbetweenusersarecarriedoutthroughastructuredconversationinwhichonlyahandfulofcommonexpressiontypesarelegitimizedaswhatarecalled"scaffolds"thatdisciplinecommenttypes.

Scaffolds,whicharepreselectedbythespacedesigner,mayinclude"proposeatheory","supplyevidence","supplycounterevidence","proposeanexplanation","hypothesize","proposeanexperiment",andothers.ManykindsofprojectscanbecarriedoutinaCSILEspace,includingdebates,jointexperiments,textcomposition,andgroupcreativework.Scaffoldschosentostructurecommunicationsareinessencemeta-controls:controlsthatarecomposedofmoreelementalcontrols.Theydisciplinetheconversation,andovertimetheybecomeinternalizedastypesthatcanbeusedoutsideoftheprojectspace.Statementandquerycontrolsusedduringconversationalinteractionscanresembleactioncontrols,especiallywhenexpressionsconsistofarrangementsofsymbols,icons,ormanipulatives.

AnexampleofthisisprovidedbytheOsmo(c)interactivelearninggames(seeFigure5).AnOsmomirrorredirectsaniPadcamera’sfieldofviewdownward.WhentheiPadisplaceduprightinabase,theredirectedcameraturnsadesktopintoaworksurfaceonwhichobjectscanbearranged.Osmosoftwarecanidentifytheshape,arrangement,andcolorofobjectsontheworksurface.Itcomparestheseagainstanticipatedarrangements.Whenamatchisdetected(e.g.,lettersinatargetwordoraspecificarrangementoftangramshapes),pleasantsoundsandsightssignalsuccesstotheuser,andpointsareawarded.

TheOsmosystemcombinesActioncontrols(arrangingthesymbolsorobjectsontheworksurface)withStatementandInquirycontrolsinauniqueway,becauseactionsareusedtoformexpressionsthatareinsomewaygrammaticalandsemanticallymeaningful.Usingmanipulativesascontrols,theusercreatesexpressions,andthenthecomputerrespondswithajudgmentofwhatitsees.

Figure5.TheOSMOinterface,inwhichthecontrolsaremanipulativesdetectedbyadownward-lookingcamera.

Oviatt(2013)describesaclassofcontrolsthatemploysanelectronicpencapableofwritingnotes,marks,anddiagramsonthedisplaysurfaceinacapturableway.Thesecanbeconsideredaslinguisticandsymbolicexpressions.OsmoprovidesthiskindofcontrolalsoinagamecalledNewton,wherewrittenmarksonasheetofpaperareinterpretedandprocessedasbarriers.BouncingpelletsfallfromthetopoftheOsmodisplayuntiltheyhitabarrier,whichcausesthemtobounceaway.ThegoaloftheNewtongameistodrawbarriersonpaperthatbouncethepelletsontheiPaddisplayintotargetsthatOsmohasplaced.Theremarkablefeatureofthiscontrolsystemisthatthecontrolemergesfromtheuser’schoicesandactionsinrealtime.Thereisnobarrieruntiltheuserdrawsalineoracurveonthepaperwithinthecamera’sview.

NegotiationControls

Negotiationcontrolsareassociatedwithcontextsinwhichcommitmentsarebeingmadeandfulfilled.Thisnormallyinvolvestheprocessofsettingandmonitoringtheattainmentoflearnergoalsortheadjustmentofsomeaspectofthelearningstrategy.Negotiationcontrolsareaspecializedsubsetofstatementandquerycontrols.Theirsignaturefeatureisthepersistenceofthecommitmentmade,whichallowsperiodicmonitoringofaccomplishment.Negotiationcontrolsareformativeconversationsinwhichtheagencyoftheuserandtheagencyofaninstructionalsourcecometoamutualagreement.Whatisbeingnegotiatedisacooperativecontractorcompactbetweenthelearnerandthelearningsourcethatwillrequiretheeffortsofbothpartiesforfulfillment.

QualitativeDimensionsofControlSystems

Controlsystemsarecentralelementsofvirtuallyeveryhuman-machinesystem,ofwhichinstructionalsystemsareanexample.Industrialapplicationsofcontrolsystemsaretoonumeroustocatalog.Perhapsthebestmetaphoricalinstanceofacontrolledsystemisthecomputer.

Cyberneticssuppliestheprincipaltheorybaseforcontrolledsystems.Acyberneticsysteminfluencesitssurroundingsbutalsosensestheenvironmentandmodifiesitsbehavioronthebasisofwhatitsenses.Duringaninstructionalconversation,thecyberneticelementsincludearesponsivesourceoflearningexperience(instructor,mechanism,etc.)andoneormorelearners.Aslearnersact,thelearningsourcesensesandrespondsaccordingtowhateverfixedprogramorintelligenceexistsinthesource.

Conversationalinstructionalinteractionrequiressomemeansforthelearner(s)toexpressaction,whichimpliesacontrolsystem.Controlsystems,whethersimpleorcomplex,possesspropertiesthatassociatedesignswiththeoreticalprinciples.Manyofthesepropertiespertaintocontrolsystemsinanyfieldofdesign:anaircraftcockpit,anautomobileinterior,aheavyequipmentoperatorstation,oraworkplaceenvironment.Ergonomicstudieslistingreatdetailthequalitiesrelatedtocontrolsystemswithacceptableproperties.Thelistbelowisrepresentativeofapoolingofqualitativeconcernsfromavarietyofdesignfields.(See,forexample,Yehetal,2013(aviation);InternationalOrganizationforStandardization,ISO4040:2009(2014)(automotive);Greenetal,1994(automotivenavigation);AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials,2013(medicalequipment).Thelistbelow,whichisabstractedfromstandardssimilartothosereferredtoabove,suggestsarangeofqualitiesdesignersofcontrolsystemsshouldconsiderastheydesign.

Transparency

Controlsystemsshouldnotcallattentiontothemselves,excepttomaketheiraffordancesapparenttotheuser.Controlsystemsshouldminimizecognitiveloadoverandabovetheprocessingrequiredbythetargetperformance.Acontrolsystemshouldavoidtherequirementforspecialtrainingincontroluse.Acontrolsystemshouldallowtheusertomaintainanadequatelevelofconcentrationonthetargettask.(Topromotetransparency,acontrolsystemdesignshouldbeaccompaniedbyamessagingandrepresentationdesigncapableofsupplyingsystemdatanecessaryforoperation.)

Efficiency/Responsiveness

Controlsystemsshouldrespondrapidlytochangesinuserinput.Theyshouldsynchronizecloselywithchangesintherepresentationofindications.Controlactionsshouldrequiretheminimumnumberofoperations.Controlsshouldbeoperablewithaspeedandaccuracyappropriatetoperformancecriteria.Operationsoncontrolsshouldbeaccompaniedbyconfirmationthatoperationshavebeenacceptedandprocessed.

Affordance

Controlsystemsshouldoffertheusertheabilitytocarryoutactionsappropriatetothecurrentperformancegoal.Controlsshouldbesalientinproportiontotheirimportancetotheperformanceand/ortheurgencyoftheiruse.Controlsshouldbereadilydistinguishablefromeachother.Controlsthatlooksimilarshouldbeseparatedsufficientlytopreventunintendedoperation.Controlsshouldbedesignedtosuggesttheactiontheyperform.

Fidelity

Controlsystemsshouldlook,feel,andactnaturallyiftheyareusedinsimulations.Controlstateshouldbeclearlyvisible.Controlsoperateduponshoulddisplaytheirnew,changedstateifthereisone.Controlfeedbackshouldbecontinuousiftheoperationitselfrequirescontinuousaction.Responsetocontrolsshouldbeconsistentlyinproportiontothedegreeofcontroloperation.

Anticipation

Acontrolsystemmayanticipateanactiontoaffordtheuserifithelpsthecontrolsystemtobemoretransparent.Controldesignshouldtakeadvantageasmuchaspossibleofexistingconventions(e.g.,QWERTYkeyboardlayout,habitualpatternsofuse).

UnderlyingModel

Acontrolsystemshouldbebasedonasingle(mental)modeloftheoperatedsystemthattheuserisexpectedtopossess.Acontrolsystemshouldbestyledaccordingtoaconsistentmetaphorical,semantic,orstylistic“theory”ofthecontrolsystem.

Consistency/Unambiguity

Controlsshouldoperateinthesamewayeachtimetheyareaffordedtotheuser,producingthesameresultwhenusedinthesamecontext.Voiceactivatedcontrolsshouldproducethesameinterpretationofcommandsoverrepeateduse.Voiceinterpretationshouldbeunambiguousandaccurate.

Depth/Hierarchy

Acontrolsystemthatishierarchicalshouldrevealnewcontroloptionsinanorderconsistentwiththeuser’smodelofthesystembeingoperated.Acontrolsystemshouldnotincludehiddenfunctionsthatrequirespecial,non-intuitiveoperationstomakethemvisible.Acontrolsystemthatemploysmodesofoperationshouldavoidthepossibilityofbecomingtrappedwithinamode.

Precision

Acontrolsystemshouldbematchedinprecisionwiththedataavailabletotheuserduringoperation.Acontrolsystem’responseshouldbepreciseacrosstheentirerangeofaction.

Expressiveness

Acontrolsystemshouldprovideadegreeofexpressivenessthatisconsistentwiththecriterionoftheperformancebeingmeasured.Acontrolsystemshouldallowausertoexpressallappropriateintentionstothesystem.Acontrolsystemshouldbeawareofthecontextofcontrolactionifthatisnecessarytointerpretationoftheuser’sintention.

Accessibility

Controlsshouldbemadeaccessibletoalluserswithinthetargetdemographic.Acontrolsystemshouldbedesignedforeaseofuseinthetargetenvironment(includinglighting,posture,easeofmovement,etc.).Allpartsofacontrolsystemshouldbedesignedwithadefinedmodeloftheuserandusercapabilitiesinmind.

Safety

Acontrolsystemshouldnotleadtoinjurytotheuser.Acontrolsystemshouldnotcreateasurprisingorstartlingdistractionfromthetaskbeingperformed.Acontrolsystem’soperationalrangeshouldbelimitedtowithinsafeboundariestotheextentpossible.Controlsystemsshouldbedesignedtoreduceuserfatigue.

Recovery

Acontrolsystemshouldallowausertorecoverfrommistakenactions.

Summary

Thislistofcontrolsystempropertiestakenfromavarietyofcontroldesignstandardsisnotexhaustive,butitsuggestsanunexpectedlybroadrangeofpracticalprinciplesthatdesignersmustobservetomakecontrolsystemsusableanduseful.Thesepropertiesapplytoinstructionaldesigns.Thedevelopmentofcontrol

designprinciplesovertimehasbeentheresultofeitherpost-incidenterroranalysisorproactiveresearchanddevelopmentinvolvingsomecombinationofparticipatorydesign,prototyping,and/oruser-testing.

Theseprinciplestakenasawholearetheproductofhuman-machinestudiesthatacceleratedwiththeincreasingcomplexityofsystemsbetweenthefirstandsecondworldwars.Duringthislonghistory,controldesignprincipleshaveemergedfromtwosources:(a)practicalconsiderations,and(b)applicationoftheory.Itisappropriate,therefore,toconsiderthesepropertiesasentrypointsfortheoryintocontrolsystemdesigns.

ExaminingtheTheoreticalBasesofControlSystemDesign

Instructionalcontrolsystemsaredesignedtosupporttheexerciseofcriticalmentalprocessesthatwillleadtoanincreasedprobabilityoflearning.Weassumethatcontroldesigncanbeinformedbytheory.Understandingtheoryallowsthedesignertotranslateconceptualstructuresintorealstructuresthatpreservetheenergyofthedesigner’sintent.Thissectionattemptstorelateseveralcontrol-relatedtheoriestoprinciplesforcontroldesign.

Weexaminetheory-designrelationshipsatmultiplelevels.First,weconsiderthetraditionaltheoreticaldivisionsofbehaviorism,cognitivism,andconstructivismfortheirimplicationsforcontroldesign.Second,weconsideranumberofothertheoriesoriginatingindiversefields.

Behaviorism,Cognitivism,Constructivism

Threeschoolsoflearningandinstructionaltheoryarefrequentlytaughtininstructionaldesignprograms:behaviorism,cognitivism,andconstructivism(see,forexample,Lowyck,2014;Ertmer&Newby,1993).Thesedivisionsoftheorydifferintheirconcernforcontroldesignprinciples.

Behaviorism

Skinnerianbehaviorismhadgreatimpactinthe1960’sontheformativefieldofinstructionaldesign,producingresearchonteachingmachines:anemphasisthatlatermorphedintoresearchonmachine-lessprogrammedinstruction(Benjamin,1988).Thevariedformsofprogrammedinstructionpossessedincommonarequirementforfrequentrespondingonthepartofthelearner,usuallywithinthecontextofa“frame”(Markle,1969).Stylesofprogrammedinstructionwerecharacterizedbydifferentdefinitionsof“frame”anddifferentmodesofresponding.

Teachingmachinecontrolswerephysicalandprovidednumberedorletteredbuttons,levers,keyboards,touchpads,and/orsmallopeningsforwrittenanswers.Paperprogramsusedeithermaskingcardsorpageseparationtohidecorrectanswerswhilethestudentresponded.

Thephysicalcontrolmechanismsofteachingmachinesturnedouttobenon-essential.Thiswasoneofthemainreasonsforthedisappearanceofthemachineasarespondingdevice.Itwasapparentthataprogram’seffectwascreatedbytherequirementforconstantresponding,evenifinsomecasesitwascovert.Controldesignremainedanintegralelementofprogramdesign,becauseothermechanismsforhidingandthenrevealingthecorrectresponsewerestillused.Controldesignwasnottreatedatthetimeasatopicinitsownrightintheliterature,otherthanasanecessarycharacteristicofresponding.

Arobustcultureofresearchonprogrammingprobedmanypossibleconfigurationsofframesandframesequences.Variablesincludedsizeofframe(internally),andstepsizebetweenframes(pace),degreeofprompting,rateofpromptfading,typeoffeedback,acceptableerrorrate,errorcorrectionlogic,andothers.In1967,atthepeakofinterestinprogrammedinstruction,Anderson(1967)observedthat,“itisnowwidelybelievedthatthebehavioralsciencemustbeengineeredintoteachingmethodsandmaterials”(Anderson,p.129).Bythathemeantmanipulationofframeproperties,whichincludedthetypeandrateofresponding.

Designatthetimewasempiricallybased,involvinggoalidentification,behavior/subskillanalysis,“andasmanycyclesoftryout,reanalysis,andrevisionofthelessonsasarenecessarytoattaintheobjectives”(Anderson,p.129).Designwasnotatthetimeconsideredapredictivetheoreticalexerciseasmuchasanempiricalone.SusanMarkle,Skinner’sprotege,stronglydefendedthisempiricalapproachtoprogramdesign(Markle,1967).

Thecommonthreadrunningthroughprogrammedinstructiondesignswasacontinualcycleofresponding,followedbyfeedback.Thedifferencesweremainlythelengthoftimeand/ortheamountandtypeofinformationthelearnerexperiencedbeforetheopportunitywaspresentedforresponding.Weestimatethatcontroldesignwasinfactasimportantinprogrammedinstructiondesignastheprincipleofreinforcementitself,sincecontroloperation,whateverformittook,wasthemainmechanismfordeliveryofthereinforcement.Inmanyformsofprogrammedinstruction,itmightbequestionedwhethertruereinforcementwasoccurring,becauseofthelackofadeprivationstateinthelearner.Itcannotbequestioned,however,thatexercisingcontrolwasaconsistentdesignfactorininstructionalprograms.

Cognitivism

Behaviorismmanipulatedvariablesexternaltothesubject’smind;cognitivismconcentratedonthestudyofmechanisms(informationprocessing)andknowledgerepresentations(models,schemata,etc.)withinthemind.Externalizedcontroloperationsandrespondinginsmallincrementsbecamemuchlessimportant.Mandler(2002)describesthe“cognitiverevolution”thattookplaceoveraperiodofroughly10-15years,fromabout1955toabout1965.Instructionaldesignerswholivedthroughthisrevolutionsawbehavioristtermssuchas”stimulus”,“elicit”,“feedback”,“responding”,and“reinforcement”largelydisappearfrompsychologicalliterature.Wilson,Jonassen,andCole(1993)describetheimplicationsofthisshiftfortheinstructionaldesigner:instructionbecamemorejob-like,instructionalgoalsbecamemorecomplexandhigh-end,andtheconceptoflearningenvironmentsgainedtraction.Progressionsoflearningchallengesandenvironmentsbecameasubjectofstudy.Abodyofliteraturegrewdescribingcognitivetaskanalysismethods.Learnergoalprocessesandknowledgestatesbecameafeatureofadaptive,intelligenttutors,andartificialintelligenceandexpertsystemsappearedinthedesigner’stoolbox.Asthedescriptionofthelearnedcontentgrewincomplexity,sodidthecomplexityofassessmentsandthejudgmentrubricsusedtodeterminecompetence.

Theconcernsoftheinstructionaldesigner,therefore,changedfromframesandfrequentrespondingtocreatinglearningenvironments(e.g.,simulations,microworlds,collaborativespaces)forproblemsolvingand/orexploration.Assessmentsfocusedonhigher-order,lengthier,andcomplexperformances.Verbalrespondingmethodsweresubordinatedtoactualperformancewherepossible.

Attentionshiftedfromempirically-basedtoprinciple-andtheory-baseddesign.Controlsinthenewinstructionalsettingbecamemoreexpressionsoflearnergoalsandnavigationalintentionswithinproblemenvironmentsandlesscorrectresponsestostimuli.Directinstructionalmethodswerejoinedbynewmethodsthatenlistedthelearnerinsolving,discovering,anddesigning.Modesofcontrolexpressionlikenavigationandnegotiationbecamemorecommon,allowinglearnerstooperatewithinchoice-andinitiative-richlearningenvironments.

Equallyimportant,themeaningfulnessofindividualcontroloperationschanged,andthesemantic,context-dependentdimensionofcontroloperationbecamemoreimportant.Operationsofcontrolsbecamemeaningfulexpressionssubjecttosomedegreeofinterpretationtodeterminethelearner’sintentatthemomentofuse.

Constructivism

Theeducationalphilosophyofconstructivismmaintainsthatdifferentpeopleconstructtheirownrealities.Withineducation,constructivistsviewlearnersasconstructingknowledge;theytendtoseeinstructionasaprocessofsupportingknowledgeconstructionbythelearner(seeCunningham&Duffy,1996).This

philosophyhaspromulgatedabroad-rangeofinstructionalmodelsthatemphasizescaffolding,ill-structuredproblems,feedback,collaborativelearningenvironments,andknowledge-building(Scardamalia&Bereiter,1994).

Sociallearningtheorymergedwithcognitivism,introducingnewchoicesfordistributingrolesandresponsibilitiesamonglearners,instructors,andpeers(Lave&Wenger,1991).Thisledtotheprinciplethatinitiativecouldbeshareddynamicallyamongparticipants.Thetheoryofcognitiveapprenticeship(Collins,Brown&Newman,1989)isanexpressionofconstructivism,joinedwithsociallearningtheory.

Inthesamewaycognitivismreducedthedemandforexternalandfrequentrespondingcomparedtobehaviorism,constructivismreducedattentiontothenatureandformofcontroloperationscomparedtocognitivism.Witheachchangeofworldviewonlearning,greateremphasiswasplacedonagentivelearning,self-regulation,learningwithincommunities,andtheinstructor/designerintheroleofacoachandmentorratherthanadeterminer,chooser,andjudge.

Thereducedattentiontothespecificsofcontroloperationsbythelearnerateachstepdidnotremovethedesigner’sresponsibilityforselectingappropriatekindsandamountsofcontrolaction,relativetothegoaloflearning.However,guidelinesfordesignersofcontrolsystemswereleftamatterofindividualpreference,andsystematicattentiontotheprinciplesofcontroldesigndisappearedasatopicformostinstructionaldesigners.Onlyinthefieldofsimulatordesigndidcontroldesigncontinuetoexistandgrow.Consequently,thedevelopmentofcontroltheoryconceptshasbecomelargelyneglectedasatopicintheliterature.

SpecializedTheoriesofControlDesign

Overtime,thetraditionaltheorytypesreviewedabovemigratedawayfrommakingstatementsregardingcontroldesign.Asaresult,thereislittleliteraturegivingguidancetotheinstructionaldesigner,whononethelessmuststilldesigncontrolsystems.Thesectionsthatfollowdescribeseverallocaltheories,mostlyfromoutsideofeducationaltechnology,thatdocontributetocontrolsystemdesignsinsignificantways.However,animportantdistinctionmustfirstbedrawnbetweenthedesignofcontrolsystemsandthedesignofinterfaces.

InterfaceDesign

Wefeelthereisanimportantdistinctionbetweenwhatisgenerallyreferredtoas“interface”designandwhatweareherecalling“controlsystem”design.Theconceptofaninterfaceismoreinclusive;acontrolsystemisbutonepartofaninterface.

Interfacedesignliteratureaddressesthetotalityofanexperiencegeneratedby:(1)arepresentation(sourceofsensoryexperiences:visual,auditory,kinesthetic),(2)asetofcontrolsforuserresponding,and(3)messagesthatdrivethecontentoftherepresentation.ThedivisionoftheinterfacedesignintothesethreefunctionalpartsisproposedbyGibbons(2014),witheachfunctionalareaoftheinterfacebeingconsidereda“layer”oftheinterfacedesign.Thisdivisionencouragesthedesignertoseeandrespondtomoredetaileddesignquestionswhoseanswersdrawupondifferentbodiesoftheory.Themessagelayertendstoderiveprinciplesfromconversationtheory;therepresentationlayeristotheoriesofsymboliccommunication,includingbothpsychologicaltheoriesandsemiotics;thecontrollayerdrawsuponcontrolsystemdesigntheory.

Cybernetictheoryinformsandunifiesthedesignofinterfacesasawhole.Cyberneticsisthestudyoffeedforward(anticipatory)andfeedback(responsive)systems.Inbothofthesecases,asystemanditsenvironmentinteractina“conversational”manner,eachinfluencingtheother.Someofthecontroldesigntheoriesreviewedlaterinthissectioninvolvecyberneticprinciples,buttheemphasisofthereviewswillbeonthecontributionofthatpartofthetheoryrelatedtocontroldesign.

TheoriesforControlSystemDesign

Theoriesrelatedtocontrolsystemdesigncanbefoundintheliteratureofdevelopmentalpsychology,educationaltechnology,computerscience,gamedesign,ergonomics,andcomputerinterfacedesign.

PapertandResnick:Constructionism

Constructionism(Papert,1980;Resnick,1997)isatheoryoflearningbyaction-takingbasedonconstructivistprinciples.Action-takingprovideslearnersthemeansforexperimenting:hypothesizing,making,executing,andobservingresults.Performedmultipletimes,thisexperimentalcycleallowsalearnertocreatepersonal“theories”thatturnintoknowledge.

ThepsychologicalcoreforconstructionistidealsistracedtoPiaget,butmanyadditionaltheoreticalcontributionsinformconstructionisminitscurrentstate.Theseincludeconceptualadditionsembodiedintopracticalinnovations,usuallyintheformofcomputerprogrammingsystems.KeyembodiedsystemsincludetheLogo(McNerney,2004)andScratch(Resnicketal,2009)programminglanguages(andtheirinterfaces),andLegoMindstormscreatedincooperationwiththeLegoCorporationasacommercialproduct(Resnicketal,1988;LEGOMindstorms,n.d.).

Supportforaction-takingisthekeyprincipleunderlyingconstructionism,andmanykindsofoccasionhavebeendevisedtomotivateaction,virtuallyallofthembasedinsomeformofconstructiveplay.Learnersuseconstructionistenvironmentstodesign,invent,discover,andcreate.

AtheoryofcontroldesignisembodiedbytheScratchprogramminglanguageanditsinterface.Asmallnumberofcolor-codedgraphical“programmingblocks”(representingexecutableprogramactions)aredraggedintosequencesinagrowingprogramwithinaworkbench-likevisualspace.Theshapesofconnectorsontheblockssuggestlegalconnections.ThecurrentcontroldesigntheoryforScratchincludesmakingit“tinkerable”(userscanstartbuildingrightawayatanintuitiveinterface),meaningful(permittingdiverseprojects,easy-to-createandpersonalizedcontent),andsocial(encouragingjointprojects,collaboration,communitysharing,andremixing).Allofthesequalitiesofthelanguageandinterfacearecenteredonbasicprinciplesforallowingthelearnertotakeaction.

TheScratchinterfaceistheforwardprojectionofyearsofexperiencewithpredecessorobject-orientedandvisualprogrammingsystemsliketheLOGOandSmallTalk(ref)programminglanguages.Thesepredecessorswereexperimentsinmakingcomputerprogrammingeasierandmoreapproachabletoalesstechnicalaudience.Theprinciplesofmostimportance,refinedovertimethroughtheseexperiments,includecontrolsthat“offer”themselvesandscaffoldtheirownusethroughshapes,colors,andsimplicity.Visibleshapesconstitutetermsintheprogramminglanguagebutalsodoubleascontrolsthatareoperatedbothbymovingthemintoplaceandbyexecutingtheiractions.

Limitingthenumberofprogramcommands(controls)inordertomaintainsimplicityhasbeenachallenge.ThebasicpaletteofScratchcontrolsintroducesbasicprogramingconcepts,buttheseareonlythebeginningofmorepowerfulbutabstractconceptsthatcouldbeembodiedincontrolsandofferedtotheuser(Maloneyetal,2010).MultiplyingcontrolsthatoperateatdifferentlevelsofabstractionandcomplexityisaproblemthattheScratchdevelopmentteamwillsolveastheyinventnewtheoreticprinciplesofcontroldesign.

Wertsch:MediatedAction

Thetheoryofmediatedactionisrelevanttothestudyofcontrolsystemdesignbecauseitisatheoryofhowindividualsactonandinfluencetheirenvironment.JamesWertsch(1998)studiesmentalfunctionintermsofmediatedaction:actionbyanagentthatemploysaninstrumentalityortool.

Wertschstudiesthe“agent-operating-with-mediational-means”(p.24),whichimpliesthathisstudiesaredirectlyrelevanttothedesignofthemeansthemselves,includingtheirvisiblemanifestationsandtheirbehavior.InWertsch’sview,mediationalmeans(tools)includenotonlyobjects,likethepoleusedbythepole

vaulter,butideas,traditions,andmeaningspassedtotheindividualthroughcommonusebyotherswhotakepartthesameculturalmilieu.

Languageisanexampleofanon-objectmediationalmeans.Peopleuselanguagetoaccomplishcommunicativeactionswithinaculturalenvironment.Languageisdefinedbyaculture,buttheactionsofanindividualcanalsoimpactthelanguage.Therefore,thereexistsatwo-wayinfluencebetweenthemediationalmeansandtheagentwhousesit.

Wertschmakestenbasicclaimsthat“characterizemediatedaction”(p.25),ofwhichtheeightconsideredbelowhavedirectimplicationsforcontrolsystemdesign:

1. Thatmediatedactiontypicallyhasmultiplesimultaneousgoals.Thestudentmaybetryingtomaximizeagrade,whileatthesametimetryingtodiscovershortcutsthatallowmorerapidcompletionofatask.TheneedforshortcutsmayindicateasituationthatWertschdescribeswhere“thegoalsoftheagentdonotmapneatlyontothegoalswithwhichthemediationalmeansaretypicallyassociated”(p.34).Controldesign,byimplication,shouldunderstandtherangeofusergoalswithinafluidcontextoflearningandanticipateuserinitiatives.

2. Thatmediatedactionissituatedononeormoredevelopmentpaths.Asusersemploymediationalmeans,bothchange:“bothagentsandtoolsarealwaysintheprocessofundergoingchange”(p.34).Atoolthatwassufficientfortheuserasanovicemayhamperexpressionofactionastheuserbecomesmorecompetent.Therefore,acontrolsystemdesignermusttakeintoaccountmaturationoftheuserandprovideawayforescalatingcompetencetobeexpressed,aswellasentry-levellackofcompetence.Aclearprincipleemergesthatthedesignofatooldefinestherangeofdevelopmentitcansupportintheagentwhousesit.

3. Thatmediationalmeansconstrainaswellasenableaction.Everytoolfacilitatesonesetofactionswhileatthesametimemakingothersmoredifficult.ThecontrolsystemweknowastheQWERTYkeyboardwasdesigneddeliberatelytoslowdowntypingtoaspeedthatearlytypewritermechanismscouldsupport.LaterinventionoftheDvorakkeyboardmadefastertypingspeedspossible,asshownintypingcompetitions.Forone-handedtypists,special“chorded”keyboardshavebeendevelopedthatsolveconstraintsimposedbyboththeQWERTYandtheDvorakkeyboards.

4. Thatnewmediationalmeanstransformmediatedaction.Changesinculturaltoolstransformpatternsofaction,sometimesmodifyingtheactionsthemselves.Newoperatingsystemtechnologieschangedthewayusersexecutedbasiccomputerfunctions;anewtoolcalledthebrowsertransformedthewaynetworkedcomputerscouldbeused.Theinvertedmousethatwecallatrackballintroducednewnavigationalpossibilitiesthatdidnotrequirearmmovement.GoogleEarthintroducednavigationaltoolsthatfacilitateexplorationofasphericalsurface.ThistoolprovedportabletoproductslikeGoogleMoonandGoogleMars.SomeelementsofthiscontrolsystemarealsousedinGoogleMaps.WertschquotesVygotsky’sobservationthat“bybeingincludedintheprocessofbehavior,thepsychologicaltool...alterstheflowandstructureofmentaloperations”(p.43).

5. Thatagents“master”mediationalmeans.Itisatemptationtothinkofcontrolsystemsasbeing“internalized”tothepointofautomatization,butWertschoffersanadditionalconceptofmastery,whichcreatesthedistinctionthatsomeoperationsontoolsmaybemasteredwithoutbecomingautomatized,andthismaybedeliberatelyso.Actsofdrivingandwalkingbecomeautomatic,buttheskillofaddingcolumnsofnumberswithcarryingdoesnotseemtomatureinthesameway.Somecontrolsystemsmaybedesignedtobeonlymastered,whileothersmaybedesignedtobecomeautomatized.

6. Thatagents“appropriate”mediationalmeans.Agentsmaybecomeproficientintheuseofmediationalmeans(suchastheabilitytoreasonwithinanideasystem)withoutbecomingcommittedtoit.Agentshaveagencybydefinition,andtheymaychoosetoresistfully-committingtocertaintools,whileacceptingtheiruse(e.g.,Algebra).Thismaybeexemplifiedbytheselectiveuseofsmartphonefunctions.Ausermayacceptthephoneitselfanduseittomakecallswhileresisting

messagingorothersocialmediafunctions.Likewise,anagentmaywholeheartedlyappropriateamediationalmeans,suchasasecondlanguage,learningtospeakitwithoutanaccent.ThefirstauthoraskedanEnglishmanifhecouldspeakwithouttheBritishaccent.Hesaid,withoutanytraceofaccent,“Yes,butithurtsmythroat.”

7. Thatmediationalmeansarenotalwayscreatedintentionally,noraretheynecessarilyusedinthewayintended.Wertschproposesthat“mostoftheculturaltoolsweemploywerenotdesignedforthepurposestowhichtheyarebeingput”(p.59).InWertsch’swritingaboutmediationalmeans,thereisastrongsenseoftheevolutionarynatureofthemeansandoftheroleofserendipityinfindingappropriatetoolsandadaptationsoftoolstonewuses.Thiswouldseemtoindicatethatthereareno“right”answerstotoolorcontroldesignquestions,butthatexperimentationmightbeusedasanapproachtoarriveatsatisfactorytooldesigns.

8. Thatmediationalmeansareassociatedwithpowerandauthority.Powerandauthorityininstructionaldesignsareoftenexpressedsubtly,evenindesignsdeliberatelyarrangedtoreversetraditionalauthorityrelationships.Wertschproposesthattheemergenceofnewtoolscantransformpowerandauthorityrelationships.However,thereisatrapinassumingthatnewtoolscompletelyreversethebalanceofpower.Ifinstructionisseenasthecooperativeinteractionoftwoagentsforapurpose,thenanappropriatewaytoconceiveoftheroleofmediationalmeans(toolsfortheexpressionofchoice)istoseeitasgrantingappropriatelevelsofchoicetoeachoftheagentsinvolvedintherelationship.Thatis,controlsbecomeacriticalpointinthenegotiationoflevelsofchoiceassignedtoeachagentandbecomeatoolinalargersensefordrawingforthandeducatingtheexecutivecompetenciesofthelearnerwithrespecttotheirowninstructionandlearning.

Wertsch’stheorydescribestheinteractionofenvironmentandtheindividualthroughtooluse.Wertsch’sprinciplescanbereadilytranslatedintoguidelinesforcontrolsystemdesign.

Crawford:LinguisticsandControlDesign

GamedesignerChrisCrawfordisvitallyinterestedinthepracticalaspectsoffullinteractiondesign.However,inhisbookTheArtofInteractiveDesign(Crawford,2003)heoutlinesatheoryofcontroldesignbasedinlinguisticprinciples.Thoughhisfirstconcernispracticaldesign,Crawfordoffersdesignadviceatamoreabstractlevel:

Thebreakneckpaceoftechnologyinducesmanydesignerstograbforquicksolutions.Butitispreciselythetorridpaceofdevelopmentthatrequiresustoconcentrateonunderstandingthefundamentalsratherthansnatchingquickiepatches.Today’ssolutionswillbeobsoleteinafewyears,butthefundamentals(andthisbook)willstillbeusefulyearsfromnow.(Fromthepreface,“ReadMe”)

Crawford’sgameinterfacesmustpossessthequalitiesoftransparency,agility,andexpressivenessdiscussedearlier.Thesegamecontrolsystemsforhimarenotancillaryinthedesign:theyareacentralissue,becauseattheircoregamesconsistmainlyofprolongedsequencesofcontroloperation(workingincoordinationwithmessageandrepresentationgeneration).

Crawford’sphilosophyofcontrolscharacterizesinteractionsasaconversation.Hestates,“Ateverystepinthedesign,youmustaskyourself,amItalkingatmyuserortalkingwithhim?”(p.29,emphasisadded).Crawfordnamesthreeactivitiesheconsidersnecessaryforconversations:listening,thinking,andspeaking.Henotesthatcomputersandhumansspeakdifferentlanguages,withthefollowingresult:

Youshoutatit,pointtothescreen,stabatthekeyboardwithyourfingers,andyouknowperfectlywellthatthecomputerseesyouasagrunting,inarticulatedeaf-mute.Youknowwhatyouwant,butyoucan’tfindthewordstosayittothecomputer….Thefailurearisesnotfromyourlackofcommunicationskills,butratherfromthedeficienciesofthelanguageofferedbythedesigner(p.49).

Crawford'sconversationaltheoryofcontroldesignuseslinguisticterms:"youmustgiveyouruserthelanguagetospeakwell"(p.49).However,hesays,"thegloriousadvancesintechnologyoverthepast20yearshavebypassedthelisteningsideofourtask"(p.50).Thecomputerhebelievestobelanguage-challengedintheexpressiveoptionsitofferstheuser.

AccordingtoCrawford,helpingthecomputerto"listen"totheuserbeginswithexpandingtheuser'sexpressivevocabulary,and“theinputdevicedeterminesthesizeofthevocabularyavailabletotheuser"(p.51).Hecomparescomputerinputmeansintermsofthevocabularytheyoffertotheuser.

● Singlebutton--Twoterms:yes/no.● Joystick--18terms:8directionsplusbuttonplusnocontrol.● Keyboard--Textcharacterentry:fewsymbols,arrowkeysfordirectionalcontrol;keycombinations

forshortcutsforpowerusers.● Mouse,pen,andtouchscreen--Pixel-addressablelocation;oneormorebuttonsforselections.● Voice--Limitedonlybyrecognitionandinterpretationsoftware.● Specializedcontroldevices--Combinationsofmultiplebuttons,joysticks,andsteeringcontrols(e.g.,

gamesystems).Crawford'scategoriesarebasedonlyonphysicaldevices.Anotherwaytocategorizecontrolsisasbeingeithercontext-insensitive(singlebutton,keyboard,andvoice),orcontext-sensitive(alloftherest).Context-sensitivecontrolsusethecombinationofdisplaylocation(definedbyhotspots,individualpixels,oraudiblecontexts)andsimultaneouscontrolactivation(buttonpress,touch,orutterance).Context-sensitivecontrolsincreasethevocabularyoftheuser,buttheyplaceonthedesigneradditionalresponsibilityfor:(a)contextdefinition,and(b)interpretation.

Contextdefinitionaddsasemanticdimensiontocontroldesign:theuser’smeaningofselectingapixelorahotspotcannotbedeterminedwithoutknowledgeofwhattheuserisexperiencingatthemomentofcontrolactuation.Thisprincipleholdstrueforaudibledisplaysaswell.Todesignacontext-sensitivecontrol,adesignermustfirstorsimultaneouslydesigncontexts,whichservesasdynamicmenuswithvirtuallyinfinitechoices.

Context-sensitivecontrolsnaturallyimposeasecondresponsibilityonthedesigner:interpretationofcontrolactuationsandsequencesofactuation.Sincetheoperationofacontrolcantakeplaceagainstthebackdropofa(virtually)infinitemenu,theintentofthecontrolatanygivendisplaylocationandmomentintimemustbeinterpretedrelativetoalocation-momentpair.Thisprincipleisclearlyidentifiableinmoving,changingdisplays,butisalsoclearlyinoperationforstaticdisplaysaswell;locatingastaticpulldownmenuitemandthenselectingitrequiresinterpretation,asdoeshighlightingdisplayoptionsusingarrowkeysandpressingenter.

Aseconddimensionofinterpretationisaddedbyvoiceandtextinput,bothofwhichrequirenotonlytheinterpretationofprimarysymbols(individualtextcharactersorspokenwords)buttheinterpretationofsymbolsequences(blocksoftextandmulti-wordutterances).Thecomplextechnologiesoftextandspeechinterpretationhaveadvancedrapidlyintothecommercialproductworldoverthepasttwodecades,butanyonewhoisspokentoasmartphone“assistant”recentlyrealizesthatthetechnologyhasfartogotorealizeitsenormouspotential.

Crawfordfurtherapplieslinguisticpatternsbyrecommendingthatafirststepincontrolsystemdesignbeidentifyingasetof"actions(verbs)[that]mostdirectlyexpresstheuser'sgoals"(p.62).

Ifyouaredevelopinganeducationalprogram,whatisthelikelymindsetofyouruser?Whatdoesshealreadyknow,andwhatdoyoudesiretoteach?Donotlookatitfromyourpointofviewastheteacher;lookatitfromthestudent’spointofview.Specifically,don'tjustorganizelotsofinformationintotidylittlestructuresthatmakeperfectsensetosomebodywhoalreadyunderstandseverything.Trytoimagineyourselfignorant;whatquestionswouldyouask?Bywhatcircuitousroutesmight

yourcuriosityleadyoutotheinformation?Rememberthatyoucan'tteachanybodyanything;youcanonlyfacilitateaperson'sownlearningprocess.Whatactions,then,wouldacuriousstudentneedtotaketolearnthematerial?(p.62-3).

Controlsystemdesignforinstructionalpurposesinvolvesanticipatingusergoalsinadvancewithinthedifferentcontextsofactionthatwillexistatanygivenmoment.Toavertcontrolchaos,thismeansdefiningacoresetofactions(verbs)andinadditionasetofobjects(nouns)thatcanbeactedupon,aswellasthecontextsinwhichtheyareactive.

"Doit"isanevenmoreabstractformofthecommand;itrequiresthattheverbinquestionbesetuppreviouslybygrabbingthedevice[displaysymbol]orotherwiseunambiguouslyspecifyingthe"it"tobedone(p.65).

Crawfordorganizes"its"intothreemaingroups:menus(andmenuitems),maps,andgizmos.These"it's"supplynoun-objectsthatcanbeactedupon.Menusandtheirhierarchicalstructuresarefamiliartotheaveragecomputeruser.Mapsarealsofamiliar,especiallyforusersofvirtualnavigationsystemslikeGoogleEarth;however,filingsystemsthatplacelikeitemswithinahierarchicalgrouping(folder)arealsoatypeofmap.Gizmosincludefamiliarcheckboxes,buttons,andtextentryfields,buttheyalsoincludehypertextlinks.

Crawford'slinguisticapproachtocontroldesigntheoryishome-grown.Crawfordisagamedesignerwhoseexperience,viewpoint,andcredentialsareclearlyestablishedintherealworldofproductionandplay.Histheoryisbuiltfromtheground-upexperienceaswellastop-downimpositionofalinguisticmetaphor.Itisatheorybuiltthroughabstraction:"assystemsgrowbiggerandmorecomplex,theyevolvemoreabstractstructurestocopewiththeincreasingcomplexity"(p.250).Crawford'stheoryisanabstractionfromhisownindividualgamecontroldesigns,throughmultiplegamesandversionsofgames,thathasfoundausefulandmeaningfulexpressionandlinguisticterms.

WinogradandFlores:ConversationalforAction

WinogradandFlores(1987)dealdirectlywithcontrolsystemdesignissuesinastudyofsocioculturalinfluencesonhuman-machineinterfacedesign.Intheirview,"wemusttakesocialactivityastheultimatefoundationofintelligibility[betweenhumansandcomputers]"(p.33).WinogradandFloresquestiontraditionalcategoriesofinterfacedesign,levellingexistingassumptionstoconstructanewviewofinterfacebasedonthephilosophiesofGadamer,Heidigger,Maturana,andothers.

Muchofourtheoryisatheoryoflanguage,andourunderstandingofthecomputercentersontheroleitwillplayinmediatingandfacilitatinglinguisticactionastheessentialhumanactivity(p.7).

Activityimpliestheuseofdifferentcontrolstocarryoutintentions.Theoperationofcontrols,accordingtoWinogradandFlores,dependsonthe“concernful[goal-related]activity”wethinkweareengagedin.

Insteadoftryingtorationalizehowhumansshouldinteractwithcomputers,WinogradandFloresbeginwiththecaseofatypicalcomputeruser:normallysomeonewithlittleunderstandingofitsinternalmechanisms.Thefocusoftheuserisonoperatingthesoftwareandnotonhowthecomputerandthesoftwarework.WinogradandFloressaythatthecomputeruseris"thrown"intothesituationofoperatingthesoftwaretoaccomplishapurpose.

Theuseroperatesthesoftwareinpursuitofthisgoaluntilabreakdownoccurs--perhapssomeunexplainableprogrambehavior.Whenthishappens,WinogradandFloresproposethatthegoalsoftheuserchange,andtheuseris“thrown”intoanewsituationthatrequiresnewactivity,newwaysofacting,andnewunderstandingofthesoftware’soperations:implyingnewcontrolsaswell.Itistheuser’sgoalsandintentionsratherthanthetechnicaldesignofthecomputersystemthatdefinewhatisneededatthispoint.WinogradandFlorescontendthatthismakesthedesigneranswerabletotheuser’sfunctionsandintentionsratherthantothecomputer’s(p.39).

[Toachievehis/hergoals]thepersonselectsamongbasicmechanisms,thatthemachineprovides,togetworkdone.Ifthemechanismsdon'tdowhatisneeded,othersmayhavetobeadded.Theywilloftenbeusedinwaysthatwerenotanticipatedintheirdesign(p.53).

Whenusersoperatecontrolstoachievegoalsinwaysnotoriginallyintended,itisacluethatarationalizeddesignmissedsomething:thereisauserintentionforwhichnomeansofexpressionwasprovided.Thatmaybeasignthatthedesignerfailedtothinkoftheinteractioninconversationaltermsandtheuserasanagentwithintentionsthatneedtobecarriedout.

Toanswerthisneed,WinogradandFloresappealtoatheoryofspeechactsthatconsidersthehumanandthecomputerasactorsinajointdialoguedirectedatthegoalsandintentionsofboth.Theauthorsproposethat"meaningiscreatedbyanactivelisteninginwhichlinguisticformtriggersinterpretation[andacorrespondingspeechact]"(p.57).Thespeechactofoneconversantresultsinacorrespondinginterpretationandspeechactfromtheother.Speechactsconstitutesomeformofcommitment,evenifitisnothingmorethanacommitmenttocontinueinteracting.Therefore,WinogradandFlorespropose,"everylanguageacthasconsequencesfortheparticipants,leadingtootherimmediateactionsandtocommitmentsforfutureaction"(P.59).

OnthisbasisWinogradandFloresproposea"basicconversationforaction"formofinteraction,depictedinFigure6.Thisformconsistsof"requests"and"commissives"directedtoward"explicitcooperativeaction"(p.64).Thispattern,accordingtoWinogradandFlores,canfunction"asthebasisforcomputertoolsforconductingconversations”.

Figure6.WinogradandFlores’basicconversationforactionform(fromGibbons,2014,afterWinograd&Flores,1987).

InFigure6,numberedboxesrepresentstatesinaconversationforaction.Statesarereachedfollowingspeechacts--offivetypesidentifiedbyAustin(1962):assertives,directives,commissives,expressives,anddeclarations.Movementtotherightinthisformgenerallysignifiesagreementandprogresstowardagreeing

onorattainingamutualgoal.State3signifiesthatapromiseorcommitmenthasbeenmade;state5signifiesthatthecommitmenthasbeenfulfilledtothesatisfactionofbothconversants.Movementdownwardsignifieseithernon-acceptanceofaprofferedagreementandadesireofnegotiating,orrefusaltoengagefurther.

Theconversationforactionpatternisrecursive,whichisthequalitythatallowsthegoal-focusduringaninteractiontochangefrommomenttomoment.Inthecourseofnegotiatingrelativetoahigher-levelgoal,asubordinategoalmayhavetobeproposed,agreed,andsatisfiedforthehigher-levelgoaltobesatisfied.Abreakdowncanoccuratanypoint,spawninganewsubordinategoalthatrequiressatisfactoryattainmentbeforeprogresscanbeclaimed.

Theconversationforactionpatternprovidesausefulstructureforinstructionalconversationandcontroldesigninvolvinggoalnegotiationandsatisfaction.Assuch,itsuppliesapatternforcontrolsystemdesignforinstructionalconversations.Truetoitsphilosophicalbasis,itrespectstheagencyoftheuser,whomayrefuseofferedgoalsandactions,makecounteroffers,andnegotiate.Inthisrespect,itisnotaninstructionaltheoryspecifyingdesirabledegreesoffreedomausershouldbegiven:itisnotatheoryoflearnerversusinstructorcontrol.Theconversationforactionformcanbeviewedasagenericdesigntheorydefininghowcontroldesignissuesrelatetothegoalsofhuman-computerorhuman-humaninteractions.

GibsonandNorman:AffordanceTheory

AffordancetheorywasoriginallyproposedbyJamesGibson,aresearcherintheareaofvisualperception(Gibson,2014).Gibsonbelievedthatthebrainperceivedtheunchangingelementsinitsenvironmentintermsofsurfacesandedgesthatbecomerecognizedasobjectsbythereflectionoflight.Gibsonproposedthatinvariantpartsofavisualscenebecomeobjectsthat“afford”actionoruse.Thepartsofascenethatchangeprovidecontrastwiththosethatremainstable,astheever-movingeyescanstheenvironment.

ForGibson,anaffordanceistheperceivedobjectand“whatitoffers”(p.56).Mankindarrangestheenvironment“tochangewhatitaffordshim”intermsofusefulactions.Gibsonsuggeststhat“whatweperceivewhenwelookatobjectsaretheiraffordances,nottheirqualities”(p.58).Heproposesthat“whatanobjectaffordsusiswhatwepayattentionto”(p.58).

Perceivedobjectsthatareotherpersonsoranimalsnotonlycanbeactedupon,buttheyrespondtoaction:

Whentouchedtheytouchback,whenstrucktheystrikeback;inshort,theyinteractwiththeobserverandwithoneanother.Behavioraffordsbehavior,andthewholesubjectmatterofpsychologyandofthesocialsciencescanbethoughtofasanelaborationofthisbasicfact.”(p.58)

DonaldNorman(1990,1993,2013)appliedGibson’stheorytoexplorethemannerinwhichhumansmodifytheirenvironmenttoincreaseitsutilityandusability.Hestudiedhowhuman-madeartifactssuggest(ornot)howtheymightbeused.Hismostfamiliarexampleofartifactaffordancesisthedesignofaglassdoor.Somedoors,henoted,haveidentifiableelementsthatsignalwhethertopushorpull,andwheretopushorpull,toopenthem.

Normanproposesthattheabilityofausertooperatewithinanaffording(control)environmentdependsonthematchbetweenthedesigner’sconceptualmodeloftheenvironmentandtheuser’sconceptualmodel.Heemphasizes,therefore,theimportanceofthematchbetweentheuseranddesignermodels.

AccordingtoNorman(1999),theappearanceofadevicecouldorshould“providethecriticalcluesrequiredforitsproperoperation”(n.p.).Normanemphasizestheimportanceofthe“meaningfulness”ofanaffordance.Anactismeaningfulwhenauseractsbasedonsharedculturalconstraintsandconventions:thatis,onalanguageofcontrolusesharedwithinthecultureofusers.

Norman’semphasisoftheimportanceoftheconceptualmodelpossessedbytheuserdefinesamajordifferencebetweenthepsychologicalviewsofGibsonandthoseofNorman.Gibsondeniedtheclaimofcognitivepsychology,thatintermediarycognitivestructuressuchasNorman’s“models”exist.Thisdifference

ofopinionwasthesourceofaseriesoffriendlydiscussionsbetweenthetwopsychologistsoveraperiodoftime.Thepointofmentioningthisisthattheconceptofaffordanceisusefultothedesigner,despiteconflictsthatmightexistinitsdeeperexplanatory-theoreticalbasis.

Norman(1993)namessevenstagesoftakinganaction:

1. Formingthegoal2. Formingtheintentiontoact3. Specifyingtheaction4. Executingtheaction5. Perceivingthestateoftheworld6. Interpretingthestateoftheworld7. Evaluatingtheoutcome

Thesestagesshouldbeconsideredbyacontrolsystemdesigner,astheyseparatestatesofmindsurroundingtheactualuseofcontrols.Onlyinstage4isacontrolactuated.Betweenstage1andstage3agoalbecomesanintentionandameansisselected,whichincludesacontroltobeusedand,ifapplicable,thevalueofthecontroltobeexercisedorthecontentofthecontrolassertion.Stages5through7includereadingfeedbackfromtheaction,determiningwhethertheintendedactionwascompleted,andthendeterminingwhethertheactionwastherightoneandasatisficingone.ThisstructureofstagesinperforminganactionisverysimilarinformandintenttotheTOTE(test,operate,test,exit)unitproposedin1980byMiller,Galanter,andPribram,inPlansandtheStructureofBehavior(1960).

ParrishandLaurel:AestheticsofControlSystems

Controldesignisdeeplyinvolvedinlearningexperiencesthatplacelearnerswithinaroleinanarrativespacewheretheyengageinthefirst-personorasavatar-actors.Controlsinsuchsettingsarethe“means”for“agents”toexecute“actions”inthe“setting”tohelpfulfilla“goal”:inthiscase,agoalaimedatlearning(Parrish,2007).Thiskindofapplicationrequirescontrolstobecomepartofalargeraestheticexperience--navigatingaspace,exploring,solvingproblems,makingdecisions,andperhapsdesigningorcreatinganartifactintheprocess.

Designsofthiskindstringactionstogetherwitheachotheraspartofthe“telling”ofthenarrative.Therefore,“theobjectofaninterfaceisawholeinteraction,justastheobjectofaplayisthewholeaction”(Laurel,1986,p.83).Individualactionshavemeaningonlyinrelationtoaspecificpointintheever-changingnarrative,ratherthanhavingdiscreteinterpretations.Whiledesigningthistypeoflearningexperience,Parrishrecommendsthatthedesignerwrite‘designstories’todeterminethenarrativeoftheexperiencefromtheuser’sperspective(Parrish,2006).Thisneednotchartspecificpathstheusercanfollow,butitcaninvolvethat.Controlsshouldallowlearnerstoparticipateinanunfoldingnarrativeandshouldleadtonarrativeunity(2007).

Controlsinthisenvironmentaremorecloselyrelatedtotherepresentationalelementoftheinterfacebecausetheyblendwiththefictionalorimaginativeaspectoftherepresentation.Theymaybeexpectedtofunctionasanextensionoftheuser’srole,whichLaurelreferstoas“first-personness”,whichLaurelsaysis:

...affectedbytherepresentationalaspectsoftheinterface;thatis,howtheuser'schoicesandactionsareintroducedintothesystem,andhowtheactivitiesofthesystemarerepresentedtotheuser”(Laurel,1986,p.77).

Inthesecases,theexperienceitselfmaybepartoftheobjective.

Laurelidentifiesthreeaspectsimportantinthedesignoffirst-personcontrols:(1)interactionfrequency,(2)interactionrange,and(3)interactionsignificance(Laurel,p.78).Frequencyisacontinuumrepresentinghowoftenuserinputisenabled.Rangereferstothedegreeofconstraintplaceduponthecontrolsoffered.

Significancereferstothemeaningorinterpretationofcontrolactuationsatagivenpointinanever-shiftingcontext.

First-personnessismostcompletelyrealizedattheextremeendofeachoftheinteractivevariables'continuum:[where]frequencyiscontinuous;rangeisinfinite;[and]significanceismaximal"(Laurel,1986,p.79).

Vincenti:EvolutionofControlTheoryThroughResearchandDevelopment

Vincenti(1990)presentsadetailedcasestudyoftheevolutionofcontroldesigntheoryconductedoverfourdecades.Thecaseinvolvesofthediscoveryandsolutionofacontroldesignproblemthatelucidatedtheprocessoftheorycreation.Intheearliestdaysoftheaviationindustry,fewresearcherspaidattentiontoflyingqualitiesofaircraft.

AspilotingexperienceaccumulatedduringandafterWorldWarI,pilotsbegantorefertoplanesashaving"light","sluggish",or“firm”controlsthatmadeaircrafteithereasierorhardertofly,orinsomecasesdangerous.Comparisonsbetweencontrolsystemsaccumulatedasmakesandmodelsofaircraftproliferated.Thismadepilotsawareofthevarietyofflyingqualitiesandbroughttheproblemofcontroldesignintofocus.Thisledto"thenotionthatspecificationscouldbeusefullywrittenforsomethingassubjectivelyperceivedasflyingqualities....Itwasnotatallobviousnorobviouslyusefulideaattheoutset”(P.52).

Vincenti'scasestudyshowsthatadesigncommunitymustdetectcontroldesignasaproblem,thenidentifythevalueofasolutiontousersanddesigners,thenidentifykeyvariablesandanalyticconcepts,andfinallyperformresearchtodefineboundariesofsatisfactorycontrolperformance.Theresultofthisprocessisasetofspecificationsforacceptablecontrolsystems.

Thoughtheaviationcontrolproblemmaynotseemrelevanttothedesignofcomputercontrolinterfaces,oneneedonlyrecallthestruggletodefinespecificationsfortheApplecomputerGUI(seeMoggridge(2007).Asthesophisticationofcomputer-deliveredlearningexperiencegrows,therewillnecessarilybeasimilarprocesscarriedouttoguidetheworkofeducationalinterfacedesigners.Partoftheresultwillbeasetoftheories,norms,andstandardsforeducationalinterfacecontroldesign.Forthisreason,wesuggesttheaviationexampleishighlypertinenttolearningexperiencecontrols.

Inanearliersectionweprovidedacompositeviewofcontroldesignprinciplesgatheredfromthestandardsofmanydesignfields.Virtuallyallofthequalitieslistedtherearecandidatesasdesirablequalitiesinlearningsystemcontrols.Thoughthereisnotthesamelife-and-deathconsequenceforeducationalcontrolsthatexistsinsomeoftheotherfields,somethingevenmoreimportantmaybeatstake:thecoststotheunderachieverthatcouldbeattributedtopoorcontroldesign,viewedintheirtotalimpactacrossthousandsofusers,willbeconsiderable.JustastheevaluationofoperatingsystemGUIstandardshasimprovedtheefficiencyofthecomputeruser,reducingthetimeandattentionrequiredofthecomputerlearnerwillincreaselearningproductivity.Ifefficiencyanddepthoflearningcanbeimprovedincrementallyacrossalargepopulationofeducationalcomputerusers,theinvestmentinthestudyofinstructionalcontroldesignswillbeworththeeffortitrequires.

Vincentiidentifiesresearchstagesthroughwhichacontrolproblemisidentified,eventuallyresultinginspecifications.Instructionalcontrolsystemdesignersshouldtakenoteofandanticipatethestepsinthisresearchprocess.Inwhatfollowswewilltrytoapplylessonsfromtheaviationcommunitytotheinstructionaldesigncommunity.

1.Familiarizationwiththeproblem.

Aninitialstepfortheaviationcommunitywaslearning"thetruenatureoftheairplane"(p.102).Thoughairfoilsandcontrolsurfaces(andtheirassociatedcockpitcontrols)couldbedesigned,theycouldnotalways

bemadesafelyflyable,astheWrightBrotherslearned.Unexpectedcombinationsofforcescouldde-stabilizeanotherwisestableaircraft,resultinginsuddenlossofcontrol.Likewise,wefeelthat"thetruenatureofthelearningexperience"hasyettoemerge.

2.Identificationofbasicvariablesandderivationofanalyticalconceptsandcriteria.

Aviationhadtodiscoverbasicvariablesofcontrolsystemsbyflyingandby--overaperiodoftime--amassingmountainsofdataonaircraftperformancefordifferentaircraftdesigns.Onlyaftermuchflyingdatahadbeenrelatedtoflyingqualityreportscouldqualityconcepts(descriptions,subjectivejudgments)emergeintotheliterature,asmeasurablevariablesandcriteria.

AccordingtoVincenti:

Identificationofcriteriaincludedsuchthingsasstickforceandelevatorangleaspertinentvariables,andlong-andshort-periodmodesasconceptsindynamicstability,andstickforcepergasacriterionofcontrol.Theissueherewashowtorepresentflyingqualitiesquantitativelyinengineeringterms(p.102).

Itshouldbenotedthatastechnicalandimpersonalasthesetermsmakeitsound,theemphasisincontrolsystemresearchwasoncreatingaircraftsystemsthatweresafer,measurablyeasiertouse,andsubjectivelymoreagreeabletotheuser.Inthissimplifiedsense,studyofinstructionalcontrolsandtheirapplicationshouldbeexpectedtohaveasimilarimpact.

3.Developmentofinstrumentsandtechniquesformeasurement.

Instrumentation,theemergenceofanalyticalconcepts,andmeasurablevariablesemergedintheaviationindustryinacycleofmutualinteraction.Measureswerecenteredarounddynamicqualities,suchasaircraftstabilitymoment-to-moment.Thechallengesofaircraftandinstructionalcontrol-relatedmeasurementaresimilarinthattheydealwithcontrolwithinadynamic,changingenvironment.Theyarebothproblemsofmeasuringandmaintainingstabilitywithinanenvironment,keepinginbalanceatenuousstabilitythatisalwaysonlysecondsawayfromvanishing.

Theissueofcontrol,therefore,isnotjustamatterofacceptingandprocessingindividualcontrolinputs,butratheroneinvolvingfeedforwardandfeedbackcyberneticprocessesofcontinuoustracking,adjusting,correcting,andanticipatingofatrajectory.Thenewresearchdirectioninlearninganalyticscangiveanedgetoinstructionaldesignstudiesovertheearlyaeronauticalstudiesofinstrumentationbecauseofthecomputer'sincreasedabilitytocaptureenormousamountsofdataandsiftthemforpatternsusingsophisticatedstatisticaltechniques.However,theresultsofintensivelearninganalyticstudieswillonlybeasusefulasthecategoriesanticipatedbythevariables,theanalyticconcepts,andthegranularityofthedatacaptured.Itisunlikelythatthecurrentappreciationof"thetruenatureoftheinstructionalexperience"willsupplyanadequatebasisforrealprogress.Itislikelythatnewconceptsofdynamicallybalancedprocessesoflearningandinstructionwillberequired,justastheywererequiredinaviation.

4.Growthandrefinementofuseropinionregardingdesirableoperatingproperties

Inaviationthenumberofpilotsgrewrapidlyinbothwartimeandpost-wartimeenvironments.Similarly,wecanexpectthenumberofcomputer-usinglearnerstosurgeinthenearfuture.Pilotswerenotaeronauticalengineers,buttheirexperienceandtheirresponsetoaircraftandcontroldesign,nonethelessprovidedimportantcluesforbridgingtheworldsoftheengineerandtheuser,justaswillthejudgmentsofthelearner:

Thereasonswhyanairplanemustbestableormoreorlessobvious.Amoderatelyunstableairplanemaybeflownsafelyifthepilotcontinuallymanipulatesthecontrols.However,thisprocedureisverynerve-wrackingandtiring.Landingortake-offisdangerousinanunstableship.Inflyingblind,itisagreatcomforttoknowthatifthecontrolsarereleased,theshipwillcontinueonitscoursesafelyeveninroughair(p.72-3).

Vincentinotesthatin1910thishadbeenacontroversialidea,butthatby1935ithadbecome"obvious".Growthinthenumberofcomputer-basedlearningusersmaysimilarlyturncontroversialideasregardinginstructionalcontrolsystemdesigninto"obvious"principlestoguidedesign.Thiswillprobablyhappeninaresponsetouseropinionsthataresharedbyusersthroughsocialmedia“likes”andproductreviews.Controldesignprincipleswillprobablybeshapedasmuchbyuserpreferencesasbypsychologicalortheoreticalprinciples,andfrompatternsofuserpreferencetherewillmostlikelyemergenewtheoriesforcontroldesign.

Thisshouldnotbetakenasanexcusetoavoidtheorizingaboutinstructionalsystemcontroldesignunderdynamiclearningconditions,becauseovertheyearstheconvergenceoftheengineer’sworldandtheuser’sworldgrewtogetherasdemandsforincreasinglyimprovedperformanceescalated.Vincentidescribeshowdisagreementsbetweenpilotsandengineerswereresolvedinonecase:

[Agroupofpilotsandengineers]turnedthemselvesintoresearchpilotsandflight-researchengineers.Theprocesswasprobablyanunconsciousonethattookplacenaturallyoutofthedemandsofthejob(p.76).

Inanotherinstanceasimilarpatternwasnotedinthecooperationoftwofamoustestpilots,oneofwhomwasbytraininganengineerandoneofwhomwasbyexperienceatestpilot:

MelGough...wasverymuchinterestedinhandlingqualities.Hedidn’tknowtoomuchaboutwhyanairplanedidwhatitdid,butheknewwhatheliked.Heusedtotakemeupandshowmewhatairplaneswoulddo.Whenhegotanairplanethatwasrogue,he’dsay“IwantyoutocomeupbecauseIwanttoshowyouthis.Maybeyoucantellmehowtofixit.”Andsowedidalotofflyingtogether.Infactweevenflewonetimeinasingleseater.Ihadafootononepedalandhehadafootontheother(InterviewwithGilruth,1986,quotedbyVincenti,p.91).

Theincreasingimportanceofuseropinioninaviationcontroldesignmayhaveananalogininstructionalcontroldesign.Factorscitedbypilotsincludedfatigueexperiencedduringlongerflights,duringflightswerecontinuousmanipulationofcontrolswasrequiredtomaintainflightregime,higherperformancesystems(e.g.,speed),increasedblindflyingduetoconditions(e.g.,night,whether),increasingperipheralduties(e.g.,communications).Vincentiexplainsopened,"theartofflyinghadgrownupandbecomemorecomplex”(p.73).

Likewise,shouldwenotanticipateasimilarpatternwithinstructionaltrends:longersessionsofinstructionalinteraction(fatiguefactor),increasedrateorintensityofresponding(responsefrequencyfactor),moresophisticatedproducts(performancefactor),increasedvarietyofinstructionalplacesandconditions(environmentalfactor),anddemandsforincreasedmultitasking(peripheraldutiesfactor)?Asthesefactorsvieforthelearner’sattentionandenergy,instructionalcontrolsystemsmustbecomeincreasinglytransparentinwaysthatmaynotbereadilyapparenttoeitherthedesignerortheuserbutthatwillrequiredesigner-users-in-one-skintobridgethegap.Asthingsstandtoday,surprisinglyfewdesignersofcomputer-basedlearningsystemshavethemselvesbeenextensiveusersofthekindsofproductstheydesignforothers.Inaviation:

Howthevariousinfluencesbecametranslatedintobooksandarticlesisnotthekindofthingthatappearsintherecord.Itmusthaveinvolvedpilots,designers,researchengineers,andacademicstalkingtoeachotherandparticipatingtosomeextentineachother'sactivities.However,ittookplace,itreflectedacomplexandwidespreadlearningprocessbyconsiderableengineeringcommunity(p.73).

5.Adeliberateschemeofresearch.

Afterdecadesofuncertaintytheaviationindustryconvergedonafocusedresearchagenda,promptedbyajointcooperativeeffortofmanufacturersandgovernmentandindustryorganizations.Themulti-year

researchplanwasseededbyanaircraftspecificationthatforthefirsttimeincludedadetailedsectiononrequiredflyingqualities.Thespecification"embodiedforthefirsttimethenotionthatdesiredsubjectiveperceptionsofpilotscouldbeattainedthroughobjectivespecificationsfordesigners"(p.81).Thespecificationsappeartohavebeenarrivedatafterconsultationwithairlinepilots,engineers,andresearchers.

Inasense,thismarkedthetransitionfromwhathadbeenmainlyacademicresearch,toaprogramofcooperativeR&Dthatbroughttogetherengineersandresearchersrepresentingmanufacturers,theacademy,government,professionalorganizations,andusers.Asimilarefforttofocuseducationaldesignisunprecedented,exceptfortheperiodfollowingthelaunchofSputnikin1957.Thefocusbehindtheaviationresearchprogramwassharpenedbythecleardefinitionoftheresearchprocess,necessitatedbyinter-organizationalcoordination.Theresearchplanfollowedexactlythestagesoutlinedbyitems#2,#3,and#4above.Theresearchprogramwasfurtherfocusedbecauseitwascarriedoutwithrespecttoadesignofaspecificaircraft.

Asaircraftdevelopmentandprogrammaticresearchproceededinparallel,researchresultsfedbackintothespecificationtoimproveit.Vincentinotesthatthisistypicalofcurrentengineeringresearch:

...Engineeringresearchtypicallytakesplacewithinacontextofpracticaldemands.Sincethedemandsusuallywillnotwait,researchengineersareoftencalledupontogiveadvicewhentheirknowledgeisstillataformativestage.Doingsorequiresthemtoarticulateandsometimesalterandimprovetheirdevelopingideas.Suchconstructiveexchangebetweenthegeneratorsandusersofengineeringknowledgeisanessentialelementinthelearningprocess(p.89)

Intheend,severalthingswereaccomplishedbythisresearchprogram,themostimportantofwhichrelatesthepresenttheme:thatcontrolaspectsofthetechnologicaldesignhavegreatimportance,andthatwhatmightbeconsideredsubjectivequalitiesofthecontrolsystemdesigncanbesubjecttoempiricalresearch,development,andtheapplicationoftheory,justascantheirphysicalandmechanicalpropertiesandfunctions.Themainproblemforaviationcontroldesignsbeyondthispointbecame"mainlyoneofdesigning(i.e.,proportioning)theairplaneratherthandecidingatthesametimewhattodesignfor"(p.97,emphasisintheoriginal).

Conclusion

Thissurveyofcontroldesigntheoryandatheory-buildingcasestudyillustratesawiderangeofcontrol-relatedissuesfromthedesigner’spointofview.Itshowsthatthereexistsasubstantialbodyofrelevanttheorythatcanimproveeducationalexperiencedesignsatafundamentallevel.Designerstendtotakecontroldesignissuesforgranted,andresearchersoftenneglectthem.Webelievetheissuesofthecontrollayerdeservetobeestablishedintheinstructionaldesignliterature,iffornootherreasonthanthatsignificantinstructionalinteractivitydependsonappropriatecontroldesigns.Controlsarethemeansbywhichlearnerspracticetheuseofnascentknowledge.Controlsarewhatenablethelearnertoactinsignificantandrelevantwaysaslearningtakesplace.Controldesignshouldoneofthefirstconsiderationsofadesign,notanafterthought.

Theumbrellaterm“interface”hascenteredourthoughtsonthevisible,surfacefeaturesofinterfacedesigns,ratherthanontheexerciseofknowledgeprovidedbycontrols.Theexistenceofcontrol-relatedtheorysuggeststhatthatweshouldfocusmoreattentiononhowtoengagethelearnerinsignificantmentalprocessingthroughintelligentlydesignedcontrols.Thiswouldconstituteafirststepinunpackingtheinterfaceconcept.Wesuggestthatfurtherstepsshouldincludeconsideringlayersofmessageandrepresentationseparatelyaswell,todiscoverthetheoreticalandpracticalquestionstheseraiseforthedesignerandwhatcanbelearnedfromotherdesignfieldsabouttheselayersofadesign.

Asdesignsinotherfieldshavebecomemoresophisticated,controldesigntheorieshavebecomeimportantfordesigningcontrolsystemswithpropertiesmatchedtothelearningtask.Maturingintellectualconceptsofinstructionaldesignandrisingconsumerexpectationsofinstructionalexperienceswillinthefuturemakeit

necessaryforinstructionaldesignerstobecomemorefamiliarwiththetheoreticalbasesoftheircontrolsystemdesigns.

References

AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials(ASTM),(2013).Medicaldevicesandmedicalsystems--Essentialsafetyrequirementsforequipmentcomprisingthepatient-centricintegratedclinicalenvironment(ICI)--PartI:Generalrequirementsandconceptualmodel(ASTMF2761-09(2013)).Availablefrom:http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2761.htm.

Anderson,R.C.(1967).Educationalpsychology.Annualreviewofpsychology,18,129-164.

Austin,J.L.(1962).Howtodothingswithwords.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Baldwin,C.&Clark,K.(2000).DesignRules:Thepowerofmodularity.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Benjamin,L.T.(1988).Ahistoryofteachingmachines.Americanpsychologist,43(9),703-712.

Brand,S.(1994).Howbuildingslearn:Whathappensafterthey'rebuilt.NewYork:Penguin.

Bruner,J.(1966).Towardatheoryofinstruction.Cambridge,MA:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.

Carlisle,R.P.(1997).Therelationshipofscienceandtechnology:Abibliographicguide.AjointpublicationoftheNavyLaboratory/CenterCoordinatingGroup,andDepartmentoftheNavy(ISBN0-945274-38-6).

Collins,A.,Brown,J.S.&Newman,S.E.(1989).Cognitiveapprenticeship:Teachingthecraftsofreading,writing,andmathematics.InL.B.Resnick(Ed.)Knowing,learningandinstruction:EssaysinhonorofRobertGlaser.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

ConstantII,E.W.(1984).Communitiesandhierarchies:Structureinthepracticeofscienceandtechnology.InR.Laudan(Ed.),Thenatureoftechnologicalknowledge:Aremodelsofscientificchangerelevant?.Dordrecht,GR:D.ReidelPublishingCompany(Kluwer),27-46.

Crawford,C.(2003).Theartofinteractivedesign.SanFrancisco,CA:NoStarchPress.

Dewey,J.(1929).Thesourcesofascienceofeducation.NewYork:HoraceLiveright.

Dickmeyer,N.(1989).Metaphor,model,andtheoryineducationresearch.Teacherscollegerecord,91(2),151-159.

Dorst,K.(2010).Thenatureofdesignthinking.InK.Dorst,S.Stewart,I.Standinger,B.PatonandA.Doug(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe8thDTRSymposium:Interpretingdesignthinking.Sydney,AU,19-20October2010(ISBN928-0-9808622-2-5).

Dorst,K.(2015).Frameinnovation:Createnewthinkingbydesign.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Duffy,T.M.&Cunningham,D.J.(1996).Constructivism:Implicationsforthedesignanddeliveryofinstruction.InD.Jonassen(Ed.),Handbookofresearchforeducationalcommunicationsandtechnology(1sted.).NewYork:Simon&SchusterMacmillan,170-198.

Ertmer,P.&Newby,T.(1993).Behaviorism,cognitivism,constructivism:Comparingcriticalfeaturesfromaninstructionaldesignperspective.Performanceimprovementquarterly,6(4),50-72.

Fowler,M.(1999).Refactoring:Improvingthedesignofexistingcode.Boston,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Gage,N.L.(1964).Theoriesofteaching.InE.R.Hilgard(Ed.),Theoriesoflearningandinstruction:Thesixty-thirdyearbookoftheNationalSocietyfortheStudyofEducation,PartI,268-285.

Gibbons,A.S.(1997).TheTREKKER:Unifyingmetaphorforinterfacedesign.PresentedattheInstructionalTechnology9thAnnualSummerInstitute,InstructionalTechnologyDepartment,UtahStateUniversity,Logan,UT.

Gibbons,A.S.(2014).Anarchitecturalapproachtoinstructionaldesign.NewYork:Routledge.

Gibbons,A.S.&Bunderson,C.V(2005).Explore,explain,design.InK.Kempf-Leonard(Ed.),EncyclopediaofSocialMeasurement.NewYork:Elsevier,927-938.

Gibson,J.J.(2014/1979)TheTheoryofAffordances.InJ.J.Gieseking,W.Mangold,C.Katz,S.Low,&S.Saegert,Thepeople,place,andspacereader(1sted.).NewYork:Routledge.

Green,P.Levison,W.Paelke,G.&Serafin,C.(1994).Suggestedhumanfactorsdesignguidelinesfordriverinformationsystems.TechnicalReportFHWA-RD-94-087,OfficeofSafetyandTrafficOperationsR&D,FederalHighwayAdministration,McLean,VA.

InternationalOrganizationforStandards(2012).ISO4040:2009:Roadvehicles--Locationofhandcontrols,indicators,andtell-talesinmotorvehicles.Availableat:www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44856.

Josephson,J.R.&Josephson,S.G(1996).Abductiveinference:Computation,philosophy,technology.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Klir,G.J.(1969).Anapproachtogeneralsystemstheory.NewYork:VanNostrandReinhold.

Laurel,B.(1986).Interfaceasmimesis.Usercenteredsystemdesign:Newperspectivesonhuman-computerinteraction,67-85.

Lave,J.&Wenger,E.(1991).Situatedlearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

LEGOMindstorms(n.d.).Availableat:www.lego.com/en-us/mindstorms/?domaindir=mindstorms.lego.com.

Lehman,K.(2011).ProfileofStephenHawking.Scienceandtechnologylibraries,30:1-19.

Lowyck,J.(2014).Bridginglearningtheoriesandtechnology-enhancedmaterials:Acriticalappraisalofitshistory.M.Spector,M.D.Merrill,J.Elen,andM.J.Bishop(Eds.),Handbookofresearchoneducationalcommunicationsandtechnology(4thed.).Berlin:Springer.

Maloney,J.Resnick,M.,Rusk,N.,Silverman,B.&Eastmond,E.(2010).TheScratchprogramminglanguageandenvironment.ACMtransactionsoncomputingeducation,10(4).

Mandler,G.(2002).Originsofthecognitive(r)evolution.Journalofhistoryofthebehavioralsciences,38(4),339-353.

Markle,S.M.(1967).Empiricaltestingofprograms.InP.Lange(Ed.),Programmedinstruction:Thesixty-sixthyearbookoftheNationalSocietyfortheStudyofEducation,PartII.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Martin,R.L.(2009).Thedesignofbusiness:Whydesignthinkingisthenextcompetitiveadvantage.Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessReviewPress.

McNerney,T.S.(2004).Fromturtlestotangibleprogrammingbricks:Explorationsinphysicallanguagedesign.Personalubiquitouscomputing,8,326-337.

Medeiros,J.(2015).HowIntelgaveStephenHawkingaVoice.Availableonlineat:http://www.wired.com/2015/01/intel-gave-stephen-hawking-voice/).

Mehta,A.(2007).Whenabuttonisallthatconnectsyoutotheworld.InA.OramandG.Wilson(Eds.),Beautifulcode:Leadingprogrammersexplainhowtheythink.Sebastopol,CA:O’ReillyMedia.

Miller,G.A.,Galanter,E.&Pribram,C.(1960).Plansandthestructureofbehavior.NewYork:Holt.

Moggridge,B.(2007).Designinginteractions.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Norman,D.A.(1990).Thedesignofeverydaythings.NewYork:Doubleday/Currency.

Norman,D.A.(1993).Thedesignofeverydaythings.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Norman,D.A.(1999).Affordance,conventions,anddesign.Interactions,6(3),38-43.

Norman,D.A.(2013).Thedesignofeverydaythings:Revisedandexpandededition.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Oviatt,S.(2013).Thedesignoffutureeducationalinterfaces.NewYork:Routledge.

Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms:Children,computers,andpowerfulideas.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Parrish,P.(2006).Designasstorytelling.TechTrends,50(4),72-82.

Parrish,P.(2007).Aestheticprinciplesforinstructionaldesign.Educationtechnologyresearchanddevelopment,57(4),511-528.

Resnick,M.(1997).Turtles,termites,andtrafficjams:Explorationsinmassivelyparallelmicroworlds.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

Resnick,M.,Maloney,J.,Monroy-Hernández,A.,Rusk,N.,Eastmond,E.,Brennan,K.,Millner,A.,Rosenbaum,E.,Silver,J.,Silverman,B.&Kafai,Y.(2009).Scratch:Programmingforall.CommunicationsoftheAssociationforComputingMachinery,52(11),60-67.

Resnick,M.,Ocko,S.&Papert,S.(1988).LEGO,LOGO,anddesign.Children’senvironmentquarterly,5(4),14-18.

Scardamalia,M.(2004).CSILE/KnowledgeForum(r).InEducationalTechnology:Anencyclopedia.SantaBarbara,CA:ABC-CLIO,183-192.(Availablefrom:http://learnteachlead.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CSILE_KF-2.pdf)

ScardamaliaM.&Bereiter,C.(1994).Computersupportforknowledge-buildingcommunities.Journalofthelearningsciences,3(3),265-283.

Schon,D.(1987).Educatingthereflectivepractitioner:Towardanewdesignforteachingandlearningtheprofessions.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-BassPublishers.

Simon,H.(1999).Sciencesoftheartificial(3rded.).CambridgeMA:TheMITPress.

Venable,J.R.(2006).Theroleoftheoryandtheorisingindesignscienceresearch.PresentedatthefirstInternationalConferenceonDesignScience,ResearchinInformationSystems,andTechnology.Claremont,CA:ClaremontGraduateUniversity.

Vincenti,W.G.(1990).Whatengineersknowandhowtheyknowit.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Walton,D.(2005).Abductivereasoning.Tuscaloosa,ALA:UniversityofAlabamaPress.

Wertsch,J.(1998).Mindasaction.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Wilson,B.G,Jonassen,D.H.&Cole,P.(1993).Cognitiveapproachestoinstructionaldesign.InG.M.Piskurich(Ed.),TheASTDhandbookofinstructionaltechnology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill,21.1-21.22.

Winograd,T.&Flores,F.(1987).Understandingcomputersandcognition:Anewfoundationfordesign.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.

Yeh,M.,Jo,Y.,Donovan,C.,&Gabree,S.(2013).Humanfactorsconsiderationsinthedesignandevaluationofflightdeckdisplaysandcontrols(DOT/FAA/TC-13/44;DOT-VNTSC-FAA-13-09).Washington,D.C.:FederalAviationAdministration.