Earlier today I had a Zoom call with a doctoral student interested in having me on her comprehensive examination committee. During our conversation, she expressed interest in understanding the idea and process of design, particularly as it applies to educational software. She was well versed in the learning sciences but unsure about how this this knowledge could be converted into a piece of software. As I tried to point her toward relevant resources, I was reminded of the first peer-reviewed journal article I had ever published. When I tried to find it on my website, I drew a blank. Which was surprising since I tend to blog pretty much everything I publish. I realized that this was most probably because it was published before I had started blogging seriously.

As I dug it out of my Dropbox archives, I took a minute to skim it, just for old-times sake. The paper, titled “From Concept to Software: Developing a Framework for Understanding the Process of Software Design,” was co-authored with Yong Zhao and Sophia Tan and published in the Journal of Research on Computing in Education in 1999. (Full citation and link at the end of this post).

The paper is strongly based on a chapter from my dissertation, and therein lies a story.

For my dissertation, I aimed to help students understand the periodic system of elements in chemistry. The periodic table is crucial for understanding chemistry, yet students typically encounter only one representation of it, the standard tabular format. In reality, scientists have developed hundreds of alternative representations (spirals, 3D models, trees) that highlight different relationships among elements. My dissertation involved creating FLiPS (Flexible Learning in the Periodic System), a web-based environment where students could explore multiple representations of the periodic system. My plan was to design this software and study how learners engaged with it through a range of measures (think-alouds, navigation logs, interviews, and other assessments). But, I was interested in more than documenting learning outcomes. I was equally interested in understanding the design process itself, how transforming theoretical principles into functional educational software involves complex decision-making that shapes the final learning experience, and saw this as being a key chapter in my final dissertation.

A variety of different representations of the periodic table

As it happens, my committee was dead set against including this chapter, in large part because it did not fit into the standard dissertation structure, and saw it as possibly a digression from the “real work.’ I am sure they were also prompted by a concern for getting me to graduate on time. For now, they suggested, focus exclusively on the educational aspects of the dissertation and getting your degree, not how it had been created. Their suggestion was to drop it from the dissertation and write it after I had graduated.

I stood firm. I argued that this was a critical aspect of educational technology that had been systemically overlooked. The process of design itself warranted serious scholarly attention, we needed to unpack this ‘black box’ that was too often treated as mere implementation. I contended that design was not simply a straightforward mapping of scientific knowledge onto a problem, but rather ‘a complex and multifaceted process requiring the understanding and implementation of a range of skills and knowledge domains.’ This blind spot in our field represented a form of magical thinking, as if theory could somehow implement itself without being transformed by the myriad decisions made during the design process. These design decisions, I argued, could fundamentally reshape or even subvert the best theoretical and pedagogical intentions. Understanding this process was not optional, but essential.

At the end of the day, I think I just wore them down and the chapter ended up in my dissertation. Later when I moved to Michigan State, Yong Zhao, Sophia Tan, added another layer to it, and I wrote it up for publication.

In the paper, we examined the design processes behind two different software programs and identified twelve themes that characterize design. For instance, we explored how “design is aesthetic”—meaning that good design creates a sense of completeness, coherence, and unity that goes beyond pure functionality. We also discussed how “design is an ongoing conversation” where the designer engages in a dialogue with materials, constraints, and users, constantly adjusting as new understandings emerge. Design remains a “complex process that is intensely personal, emotional, cognitive, social, and contingent on history.” Understanding this complexity is essential for creating educational technologies that truly serve learning. These 12 interconnected themes painted a picture of design as a rich, multi-dimensional activity rather than a simple linear process.

What struck me most while looking at the paper after so many years was how closely I still align with what I had written over 25 years ago. And the gap I had described still remained, i.e. the field of educational technology still often treats the journey from concept/theory to software implementation as if it were straightforward and inevitable. It’s not.

I’m also struck by how these principles have guided my theoretical understanding of design throughout my career. While I had always been a designer since my IDC days, this paper marked the beginning of my journey into educational design theory. It was the first time I formally contextualized design principles within educational contexts and began developing a theoretical framework around them. It has led to masters and doctoral courses (in fact one I am teaching this semester) and has influenced my approach to almost everything I do.

What began as an analysis of software design processes gradually evolved into a broader perspective on how design based approaches can transform educational experiences. Over the years, I’ve come to see design not just as a process for creating software or artifacts, but as a mindset that informs how we approach teaching, learning environments, and educational systems. Design-based approaches allow us to navigate the complex spaces between theory and practice, between human needs and technological possibilities. In fact, the work that started with FLiPS as an example of designing an artifact eventually led to the “5 spaces for design” framework that Melissa Warr and I co-developed, where we conceptualize design as spanning artifacts, processes, experiences, systems, and culture. It was part of the school design project I led (which ended up being the topic of my TED-Ed talk).

Of course there are parts of the paper that appear dated, specifically anything to do with the technology of the day (Macromedia Shockwave anyone?). But overall, the themes in the paper hold up really well.

I am glad I stood up to my committee. My instinct, on the importance of design, was right on. Citation and abstract below:

Mishra, P., Zhao, Y., & Tan, S. (1999). From concept to software: Developing a framework for understanding the process of software design. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(2), 220-238.

Abstract: To understand technological innovation (be it the design of a mouse trap or a piece of computer software), it is crucial to understand the process of design. Design is not simply a one-to- one mapping of scientific knowledge or theoretical frameworks onto a problem. Design is a complex and multifaceted process requiring the understanding and implementation of a range of skills and knowledge domains. The design of software in particular entails a lot more than just representing in a computer program the original concepts or learning theory that motivated it. This article offers a framework for understanding the complex process of design by examining the design process of two computer programs: FliPS and Tiger. FLiPS is a multi-media program for learning complex concepts in chemistry, while Tiger is an automated manuscript submission and review system. We examine the process of design by identifying and highllghtlng some significant common themes that underlie the design processes of these two different computer programs. We believe that this framework has much to offer the theory and practice of educational software design.