This paper presents my critical reflection on how the concept of design is conceptualized and applied across a selection of research articles in the learning sciences through this semester. Design in education is more than just arranging content or selecting tools, it’s about making purposeful decisions on theory, context, and values. Drawing on multiple theoretical frameworks and design principles, my reflection will explore how learning environments can be more intentionally structured to support equity, engagement, and deep learning. As an instructional designer working in a continuing education context, engaging with these articles has significantly shaped my thinking around my research interests on professional development (PD). Specifically, it has deepened my understanding of how learning sciences scholars use theoretical frameworks to guide research design and the design of learning environments. This process has helped me reflect on what it means to create learning experiences that are meaningful, responsive, and transformative. Throughout the semester, I developed a clearer distinction between theoretical frameworks and design principles. Theoretical frameworks provide a lens to understand learning, while design principles are more practical; they guide the actual structuring of learning activities and environments. Effective design is never one-size-fits-all. Instead, it requires careful consideration of who the learners are, what they bring, and what kind of educational change we hope to foster. In the context of my own research, like “Cooking with the Right Ingredients,” where frameworks help me identify which ingredients to use, while design principles help me decide how to cook with them and how those ingredients are combined and applied to create a learning experience that is purposeful and impactful.
To structure my reflection, I will mainly focus on the three major themes identified from the course reading list. These themes helped clarify the evolving role of design in education and its relationship to practice: Theme 1: Education design: Evolving Metaphors, Theme 2: “Practice” and “Justice” in Educational Design, Theme 3: Grappling with design principles. Each theme offers a unique lens for examining how educational design is conceptualized and applied in educational contexts. They provide a foundation for understanding how learning environments can be designed to be more responsive, equitable, and grounded in real-world practice. By exploring these themes, I reflect not only on the readings but also on how these ideas inform my own work as an instructional designer in continuing education.
Theme 1: Education Design: Evolving Metaphors
Many of the articles begin with understanding what learning is, as a social, embodied, and relational process, moving beyond traditional individual, cognitive, or static views (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Rahm, 2024; Schön, 1984). Rahm (2024) used sociocultural and cultural-historical theories to look at how students learn science, with a unique focus on the “entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect” (Rahm, 2024, p.183) to shape students’ identities and their experiences of dignity in science classrooms. This perspective challenges the idea that learning is only about remembering facts or following steps (Rahm, 2024), which reminds me that effective learning design must consider the emotional and cultural dimensions of student experience, not just content. Schön (1984)’s work on architectural studios introduced the idea of “reflection-in-action”, where “talking and drawing make up a single language” (p.4), emphasizing that learning happens through doing, like drawing and talking at the same time, not just thinking abstractly. He also argued that professional education must resolve the “dilemma of rigor or relevance” (Schön,1984, p.2) by grounding learning in real-world practice rather than abstract theory. This idea aligns with my own work designing professional development (PD) for instructors. It encourages me to design PD activities that are interactive, reflective, and closely tied to the actual challenges instructors face. Instructors are not just simply applying theories, they are constantly experimenting, adjusting, and reflecting in real time. They need time and space to explore and refine their practices in response to student needs. Similarly, Palincsar and Brown (1984) drew from Vygotsky’s developmental theory about learning through interaction and introduced “reciprocal teaching,” to help students learn by practicing strategies like summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting through social dialogue, leading to a “gradual internalization” (p.153). I find their work valuable because it shows how theoretical frameworks can be translated into practical, impactful instructional strategies. This is something I’m looking for in my own PD design, turning theory into action. Akkerman and Bakker (2011) examined how learning happens across boundaries, like between different disciplines, roles, or communities. Through their comprehensive review of “boundary crossing” and “boundary objects”, defining boundaries as “dialogical phenomena,” (p.132), and identify “four mechanisms of learning at the boundary, which summarize as identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation” (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011, p.142). Their article emphasized how sociocultural differences, when effectively navigated through dialogue, can become valuable resources for developing new identities and practices. They also viewed that communication as a back-and-forth process where people collaborate and make meaning together, not just pass information along. This has helped me think more intentionally about how PD can support instructors who move across contexts and need to adapt their teaching to new audiences or technologies.
Another interesting idea that emerged across the articles used frameworks that challenge traditional views of how learning works within school subjects. Rather than treating learning as neutral or one-size-fits-all, authors emphasized how power, identity, and equity shape who gets to succeed and how educational design can either reinforce or challenge systems of marginalization (Adams, 2022; Agarwal & Sengupta-Irving, 2019; Engle & Conant, 2002; Sengupta-Irving, 2021; Philip & Sengupta, 2021). For example, Sengupta-Irving (2021) drew on the “anthropology of learning”, which views learning as “becoming something or someone in a particular place, time, and setting” (p.187). She wanted to challenge the usual ways schools blame marginalized students for not doing well, by showing how unfair systems in classrooms and society label some students as “undesirable” (around p.188). Tools like positioning theory and storylines are used to analyze how students’ identities are shaped and sometimes constrained within classrooms. Similarly, Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving (2019) expanded on Engle and Conant’s (2002) Productive Disciplinary Engagement (PDE) framework by introducing Connective and Productive Disciplinary Engagement (CPDE), which integrates power, different ways of knowing (epistemic diversity), history, and identity into the study of disciplinary learning. Their goal is to make “visible unseen identities and generative resources” (Agarwal & Sengupta-Irving, 2019, p.349) among minoritized students and to address “epistemic injustice” that traditional approaches might overlook. This can guide the creation of learning environments to include diverse cultural knowledge and ways of thinking. Philip and Sengupta (2021) took this even further by arguing that any theories about how people learn are really also theories about what kind of society we believe in. Their “contrapuntal” approach helps uncover the hidden racism, imperialism, and exclusion built into ideas about what counts as “real” or “authentic” knowledge/learning, especially in fields like computer science. Adam (2022) brought “deficit narratives and corresponding oppressions” (p.199) in the concept of BlackJoy, a framework specifically for “designing research-to-practice spaces that centre Black liberation and flourishing for authentically equitable learning engagements” (p.199). Her goal is to promote Black excellence, inventiveness, kinship, and aesthetics in science education. All these authors argued that learning is not just about mastering content, it’s about recognizing and changing the systems of power that shape who get to belong, succeed, or even feel seen in education, which brought attention to equity and identity in design. Most importantly, learning is deeply connected to larger social and political systems that we need to address these systems if we want truly equitable education. These articles have prompted me to re-evaluate my own learning design practices. As an instructional designer, I now recognize that the frameworks I choose carry ethical and political implications. They might influence whose knowledge is valued, whose voices are heard, and whose experiences are legitimized. Moving forward, I aim to make equity and inclusion explicit goals in my PD design, choosing frameworks that support instructor agency, student diversity, and social justice for online continuing education environments. Frameworks/approaches like CPDE (Agarwal & Sengupta-Irving, 2019), BlackJoy (Adams, 2022), and the contrapuntal method (Philip & Sengupta, 2021) remind me that the design of learning environments is inherently political. They challenge me to move beyond surface-level engagement and intentionally create PD that fosters belonging, values diverse ways of knowing, and recognizes systemic barriers. These perspectives remind me that even small design choices, such as how a course is structured or how a reflection prompt is framed, can either support or hinder inclusive and equitable learning.
Many articles emphasized the why it’s important to intentionally design the learning experiences, consider the specific contextual factors, and use the diverse resources for fostering real engagement and support learning in complex or uncertain situations (Engle & Conant, 2002; Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Across the articles, it became clear that the theoretical frameworks selected by researchers strongly influenced their design decisions. For example, Engle and Conant (2002) proposed four guiding principles for Productive Disciplinary Engagement (Problematizing, Authority, Accountability, and Resources) based on their observations of effective classroom learning. These principles are meant to be “general enough to be useful in understanding other cases and guiding future design efforts” (p.401). For me, I find this kind of framework helpful because it bridges theory and practices, offering tangible guidance for instructional decisions. In continuing education, instructors often need support in designing authentic, inquiry-based assignments that go beyond standard lectures or quizzes. Frameworks like PDE provide a flexible structure for that support. They encourage instructors to pose meaningful questions, share authority with students, and offer resources that promote deeper engagement, without prescribing one right way to teach. Similarly, Palincsar and Brown (1984) designed “reciprocal teaching” intervention, which was “based on the notions of expert scaffolding and proleptic teaching” (p.122) from Vygotsky’s developmental theory, which demonstrates how a theoretical framework can directly inform the construction of a pedagogical method with specific activities (such as summarizing, questioning, clarifying, predicting), showcasing the value of design studies in testing and applying theory in educational settings.
Theme 2: “Practice” and “Justice” in Educational Design
To further understand how theory translates into practice, I looked closely at the articles grouped under Theme 2 and Theme 3. Each provides a compelling case of how design principles are grounded in specific theoretical frameworks. In theme 2, diverse frameworks and approaches are used to examine and reimagine educational practices, particularly in teacher education and subject-specific pedagogies, whole consistently emphasizing the role of design, whether in pedagogy, curriculum, learning experiences, or teacher education programs themselves. Bellino and Adams (2017), for example, used Critical Urban Environmental Pedagogy (CUEP), grounded in critical pedagogy and participatory methods. Their work invites students to engage in “knowledge production” through tools like photovoice, helping them reflect on their own experiences in urban environments. This reinforces my belief that meaningful learning design must be personal, participatory, and situated in learners’ lives. Nicol et al. (2019) conducted collaborative action research to explore STEM education using the framework based in critical mathematics education and social justice pedagogy, emphasizes how “creating, adapting, and extending tasks for their students are significant aspects of pedagogical practice and require ongoing professional learning” (p. 1006). Their study addressed the challenges of designing tasks for different educational levels, ensuring appropriate complexity, and integrating interdisciplinary content. This highlights the importance of designing PD that mirrors the tasks instructors will eventually create for their students. Philip et al. (2019) offered a critique of the “core practices” movement in teacher education (p.251). They highlighted “deliberate and unabashed prescriptiveness” in teacher training (Ball & Forzani, 2009, p. 506; Philip et al., 2019, p.255), risks reducing teaching to a series of technical routines, thereby marginalizing social justice concerns. This reminds me to be cautious of prescriptive PD that focus too much on compliance and not enough on critical thinking or teacher identity, which may limit instructors’ ability to adapt strategies to their own teaching contexts. PD should leave room for instructors to adapt strategies to their specific teaching contexts. Finally, Deer et al. (2015) explored how Indigenous perspectives are implemented in Canadian teacher education programs. regarding Indigenous perspectives. Rather than proposing a new design framework, they analyzed the design and features of existing Indigenous-focused teacher education and integrated content initiatives, such as the University of Prince Edward Island’s BEd Specialization in Indigenous Education and OISE’s Deepening Knowledge Project (DKP) highlights common challenges: “the lack of appropriate knowledge, racism, and [teacher apprehension]” (Deer et al., 2015, p.19). Their work reminds me that design also involves addressing institutional and systemic barriers, not just creating new activities.
Theme 3: Grappling with Design Principles
The two articles in Theme 3, McDaid Barry et al. (2023) and Pierson et al. (2024), the use of Indigenous ways of knowing challenges the dominant Western approaches to science education. Both emphasized frameworks in Indigenous ways of knowing that center care, relationships, and relational accountability. McDaid Barry et al. (2023) used a framework based on Indigenous ways of knowing, referred as AOE, which stands for “Indigenous axiologies (what we value esthetically or morally), ontologies (what we believe to be real and how we enact those beliefs), and epistemologies (what we know and how we know it)” (p.384), which emphasize the ideas that nature, including plants and animals, should be seen as relatives or beings with personhood. Pierson et al. (2024) built on this, arguing that care is a “core and generative constituent of science practice” (p.1609), though often invisible in classrooms. They described an “axiological reorientation” (p.1611), where care, whether for people, plants, or animals, is central to how students engage in scientific thinking. What stood out to me most is how these two studies consistently use theoretical frameworks not just to analyze learning, but to actively guide design decisions and inform design at every level. For example, in the ISTEAM summer program, students are encouraged to offer water or tobacco to plants, refer to them as “relatives” or “Elders,” and use first-person narratives to describe plant biology (McDaid Barry et al., 2023, around p.385). In Pierson et al. (2024)’s study, a pen pal exchange allowed students to express care for guppies and their peers through handwritten letters, fostering both “instrumental care (caring for guppies/pen pals in service of the scientific investigation) and intrinsic care (valuing them inherently)” (p.1609). These examples show that relational design, when guided by a strong framework, can transform how students understand science, knowledge, and community. Their studies encourage designers, like me, to center care, kinship, and relationality in learning, values that are often invisible in traditional classrooms. The idea of designing spaces for emotional engagement, such as through handwritten pen pal letters, prompts me to question how much our current online continuing education environments overlook these humanizing elements. These articles challenge me to rethink what we center in learning design and to consider how care and connection can be integrated even in digital or adult learning spaces.
In conclusion, across all the articles I reviewed this semester, one message is clear to me: theoretical frameworks are not just tools for analysis; they are essential ingredients for designing ethical, inclusive, and responsive learning environments. Like recipes that guide a cook’s choices, frameworks shape the metaphors we draw from, the problems we address, and the pedagogical possibilities we imagine. They help me make sense of what matters, what to attend to, and how to respond in ways that are principled and intentional. As I reflect on my research and design work through LT2, I see how my approach to PD for continuing education (CE) instructors must also be guided by frameworks that align with the needs of my learners and are contextually relevant to support them. As I continue to design PD for instructors in continuing education, I am reminded that “learning [is] inextricably linked to context and that teacher learning is situated within practice” (Fishman et al., 2022, p.619). Like the concepts from all the reviewed articles through this semester, the learning is inseparable from context, which is shaped by the specific social, cultural, institutional, and physical environments in which it occurs. Teachers don’t just learn through abstract theory or isolated workshops. Instead, they learn through doing by planning lessons, teaching students, reflecting on what worked or didn’t, and adjusting their practice over time (Nicol et al., 2019; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Schön,1984; Bellino & Adams, 2017). Just as a cook adjusts seasoning based on taste, instructors need time and support to refine their craft. Reviewing the articles from the course has deepened my understanding of what it means to design for learning, not just to transmit knowledge, but to create spaces where people feel seen, valued, and empowered. Whether through Schön (1984)’s reflective practice, Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving (2019)’s CPDE equity-centered engagement, or Indigenous frameworks of care and kinship, I am now more equipped to make intentional design decisions that align with both the needs of my learners and my commitment to inclusive, transformative PD in CE. Designing meaningful PD, like preparing a full meal, requires attention to context, care in combination, and a deep respect for those we serve. Moving forward, my work in LT2 will be one step toward refining that recipe, drawing on theory, shaped by real world practice, and focused on making learning equity and meaningful for everyone.
References
Adams, J. D. (2022). Manifesting Black Joy in science learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 17(1), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-022-10114-7
Agarwal, P., & Sengupta-Irving, T. (2019). Integrating Power to Advance the Study of Connective and Productive Disciplinary Engagement in Mathematics and Science. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 349-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624544
Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Bellino, M. E., & Adams, J. D. (2017). A critical urban environmental pedagogy: Relevant urban environmental education for and by youth. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(4), 270-284. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1336976
Deer, F., Preston, J. P., Favaro, B. J., L’Allier, A., Hovington, A., Lavoie, C., … & Aquash, M. (2015). Issues in indigenous initial teacher education: Canadian perspectives. Handbook of Canadian Research in Initial Teacher Education, 19. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstreams/01ffa305-2da4-4969-8c57-6d40ca4a9121/download#page=43
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and instruction, 20(4), 399-483. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
Fishman, B. J., Chan, C. K. K., & Davis, E. A. (2022). Advances in Teacher Learning Research in the Learning Sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (3rd ed., pp. 619–637). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888295.038
McDaid Barry, N., Bang, M., Bruce, F., &Barajas-López, F. (2023). “Then the Nettle People Won’t Be Lonely”: Recognizing the Personhood of Plants in an Indigenous STEAM Summer Program. Cognition and Instruction, 41(4), 381-404. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2023.2220852
Nicol, C., Bragg, L. A., Radzimski, V., Yaro, K., Chen, A., & Amoah, E. (2019). Learning to teach the M in/for STEM for social justice. ZDM, 51, 1005-1016.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01065-5
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Philip, T. M., & Sengupta, P. (2021). Theories of learning as theories of society: A contrapuntal approach to expanding disciplinary authenticity in computing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 330-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1828089
Philip, T. M., Souto-Manning, M., Anderson, L., Horn, I., J. Carter Andrews, D., Stillman, J., & Varghese, M. (2019). Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as “core”: How the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118798324
Pierson, A. E., Brady, C. E., Lee, S. J., Shuler, D., Sengupta, P., & Clark, D. B. (2024).Intrinsic and instrumental care in pen pal letters: Recognizing care in STEM classrooms. Science Education, 108(6),1608-1636.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21894
Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2-9. https://www.jstor.org./stable/1424770?seq=1
Sengupta‐Irving, T. (2021). Positioning and positioned apart: Mathematics learning as becoming undesirable. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 52(2), 187-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12378
Rahm, J. (2024). “The strawberry in the pot that became something”–entanglements of bodies, materials, and affect in science activities supported by a community organization. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(1), 180-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2024.2304583
Leave a Reply