The article, Reframing design in education: Proposing a framework to support pre-service teachers in adopting designerly stances by Clark et al. (2024), introduced a six-dimension framework to help pre-service teachers adopt designerly thinking in their instructional design practices. Drawing on existing literature and data from the pre-service teacher coursework, the study aims to support teachers in moving beyond rigid, top-down models toward more adaptive, student-centered, and equity-oriented teaching.
Several key phrases in the title of article immediately caught my attention: “Reframing design” “framework,”and “adopting designerly stances.” These concepts closely align with my focus on designing targeted and ongoing professional development (PD) for post-secondary instructors.
In particular, the idea of reframing design invites me to rethink the traditional top-down approach, and encourages me to adapt more responsive, context-driven instructional design approaches, which are something I believe is essential for addressing the evolving needs of both instructors and students in today’s online and hybrid environments. What stood out to me is that in the article, Clark et al. (2024) examined traditional instructional design approaches, such as “backward design.” While these approaches promote alignment among learning goals, assessments, and curriculum, the authors argue they are limited by their foundation in a “technical-rational” perspective (Clark et al., 2024), which often treats “practitioners as ‘instrumental problem solvers’ applying well-defined solutions to well-defined problems” (Anderson & Coleman, 2015, p. 270). A core limitation, Clark et al.(2024) noted, is that these approaches “tend to focus less explicit articulation and emphasis on reconsidering the framing and nature of these challenges” (p.614). As a result, this “model of top-down instructional design has not helped teachers or students thrive” (p.616), as it overlooks fundamental design principles like being user-centered, needs-based, and informed by iterative feedback and stakeholder input. As an instructional designer in higher education, my position is that PD should equip instructors with teaching strategies and support them in developing a designerly mindset, one that encourages experimentation, critical reflection, and responsiveness to student needs. My experience shows that instructors, especially those transitioning from industry or subject-matter expertise, benefit most from PD that allows them to explore and reframe challenges in their own teaching contexts.
The framework proposed by Clark et al. (2024) is relevant to the direction of my research, which aims to help instructors move beyond prescriptive models and adopt more flexible, inquiry-driven approaches to course design. This involves shifting instructors’ position as designers who continually refine their practices based on student feedback, technological affordances, and disciplinary goals. I am in the process of identifying a framework that can guide my design of PD trainings for instructors. Given the so many frameworks already out there, my challenge is not just about choosing one specific model, but rather drawing on the most relevant elements from multiple frameworks to construct a practical, research-informed tool that aligns with the specific needs of my audience. My position is that PD frameworks should serve as guiding tools, offering principles, strategies, and reflective practices, rather than strict templates for implementation.
Furthermore, the article’s focus on adopting designerly stances in pre-service teachers, which reflects on my work supporting the University’s continuing education instructors. Clark et al.’s (2024) call for future research into how teachers can best develop designerly stances through their daily design experiences or through structured engagement with frameworks, which speaks directly to my own research goals. I aim to explore how PD can nurture these stances among post-secondary instructors. Encouraging instructors to view teaching as an iterative design process can foster more personalized, responsive, and innovative learning experiences for diverse students. Many instructors in continuing education, particularly those with strong subject-matter expertise but limited teaching experience, need structured opportunities to develop designerly habits of mind into their course design. Integrating design thinking principles into PD can help them better reflect on instructional challenges, respond to learner needs, and adapt strategies in purposeful, evidence-informed ways.
Finally, I feel that Chark et al.’s (2024) article complements the work of Hora et al. (2021), who introduced the concept of “agentic synthesis,” and Marshall and Horn (2025), who examined how teachers recontextualize PD to fit their unique classroom settings, by addressing the needs for improve PD and support teacher learning, and providing a framework that support adaptive, context-responsive instructional practices. Overall, these studies emphasize that meaningful PD must acknowledge instructors’ agency and situational realities, rather than relying on rigid models of “fidelity of implementation.” My research builds on this foundation by proposing that PD should equip instructors with strategies and empower them as adaptive, reflective designers to be capable of making informed decisions within their unique teaching environments.
References
Anderson, L., & Coleman, C. (2015). Action learning: Approaches, applications, and outcomes. In K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. Rebelo dos Santos, & S. Malvezzi (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of training, development, and performance improvement (pp. 261–277). John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, D. B., Scott, D., DiPasquale, J. P., & Becker, S. (2024). Reframing design in education: Proposing a framework to support pre-service teachers in adopting designerly stances. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 33(4–5), 613–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2024.2397762
Hora, M. T., Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2021). A sociocultural approach to communication instruction: How insights from communication teaching practices can inform faculty development programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4–5), 747–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936533
Marshall, S. A., & Horn, I. S. (2025). Teachers as agentic synthesizers: Recontextualizing personally meaningful practices from professional development. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2025.2468230
Leave a Reply