Abstract
This article offers principles that contribute to developing the aesthetics of instructional design. Rather than describing merely the surface qualities of things and events, the concept of aesthetics as applied here pertains to heightened, integral experience. Aesthetic experiences are those that are immersive, infused with meaning, and felt as coherent and complete. Any transformative learning experience will have significant aesthetic qualities, and all instructional situations can benefit from attention to these qualities. Drawn from aesthetics theory and research and informed by current ID and learning theories, a set of five first principles and twelve guidelines for their application are described. The principles are not only compatible with existing ID theory bases but can complement and support that theory by offering ways to embody it in engaging learning experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, T. M. (1998). The art of life: Dewey’s aesthetics. In L. A. Hickman (Eds.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a postmodern generation (pp. 1–22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Anderson, C. (2004). Learning in “as-if” worlds: Cognition in drama in education. Theory Into Practice, 43(4), 281–286.
Aristotle (trans. 1984). Poetics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. Two, pp. 2316–2340). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barab, S. A., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3–13.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 269–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bolling, E. (2003). Design cultures. Retrieved January 28, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eidt/shortpapers/documents/design_cultures.html.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories: Law, literature, and life. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Campbell, J. (1968). The hero with a thousand faces (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 247–278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1934/1989). Art as experience (Vol. 10). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(1), 65–85.
Egri, L. (1942). The art of dramatic writing: Its basis in the creative interpretation of human motives. New York: Touchstone.
Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979). Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? TechTrends, 47(5), 22–25.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.
Hiemstra, R. (1997). Applying the individualizing instruction model with adult learners. In C. R. Dills, & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 555–570). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Hunter, L. (1993). Lew Hunter’s screenwriting 434. New York: Perigee Books.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2000). Preface. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. iii–ix). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kolodner, J. L., & Guzdial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. H. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Laurel, B. (1993). Computers as theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. C. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martinez, M. (2002). Designing learning objects to personalize learning. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects (pp. 151–171). Bloomington, IN: AECT.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Reseach on cognitive load theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 94–104.
Nelson, L. M. (1999). Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 241–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parrish, P. E. (2004). Investigating the aesthetic decisions of teachers and instructional designers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Available online at http://www.comet.ucar.edu/∼pparrish/.
Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.
Parrish, P. E. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.
Ray, R. J. (1994). The weekend novelist. New York: Dell Publishing.
Reed, J. H., Shallert, D. L., & Deithloff, L. F. (2002). Investigating the interface between self-regulation and involvement process. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 53–57.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 425–453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rowland, G. (1999). A tripartite seed. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments (pp. 135–148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Schank, R. (1990). Tell me a story: A new look at real and artificial memory. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons.
Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351–362.
Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 45(2), 85–115.
The PT3 Group at Vanderbilt. (2003). Three amigos: Using “anchored modular inquiry” to help prepare future teachers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(1), 105–123.
Tierno, M. (2002). Aristotle’s poetics for screenwriters. New York: Hyperion.
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1955). The fellowship of the ring. New York: Ballatine Books.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning: Introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 5–13.
Wilson, B. G. (2004). Foundations for instructional design: Reclaiming the conversation. In J. M. Spector, D. A. Wiley, C. Ohrazda, & A. Van Schaack (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 237–252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–16.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Brent Wilson, the IDEAL Research Lab at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, and the editors and reviewers of ETR&D for their many constructive criticisms and for making the writing of this article a truly aesthetic experience.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Parrish, P.E. Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Education Tech Research Dev 57, 511–528 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7