Proposing a Learning Method to Deal with IllDefined Problems in The Real World According to The Characteristics of the Design Problem

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Faculty of Design, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran.

2 Faculty of Design, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

The The real world is characterized by deep similarity and interdependence with ill-defined problems, observable
in different contexts. Every day, thousands of ill-defined problems are analyzed by people in various sciences, and
among the solutions, one is chosen for implementation. Addressing such questions requires a unique ability, and this
feature creates a distinction between professionals and beginners in the relevant field. Therefore, the ability to identify
such problems is very important, because solving these problems with a limited vision may lead to an inadequate and
incomplete solution, which sometimes leads to irreparable consequences in various fields. For this purpose, educational
design models were examined in this research. This study was conducted according to the characteristics of the design
problem, with the aim of choosing a suitable model to address and solve ill-defined problems in different areas of the real
world.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Almeida, B. (2021). The law and its limits: land grievances, wicked problems, and transitional justice in
Timor-leste. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 15(1), p. 128-147.
Ally, M. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson & F.Elloumi (Eds.),
Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca: Athabasca University.
Arık, S., & Yılmaz, M. (2020). The effect of constructivist learning approach and active learning on
environmental education: A meta-analysis study. International Electronic Journal of Environmental
Education, 10(1), p. 44-84.
Aslami, M., & Ojaghi, N. (2022). Identifying the competency components of instructors in e-learning
environment based on a constructivist approach. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher
Education, 28(4), p. 143-169.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning.
Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), p. 66-70.
Batres, R. (2022). Teaching ill-defined problems in engineering. International Journal on Interactive Design
and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 16(4), p. 1321-1336.
Chang, Y. K., & Kuwata, J. (2020). Learning experience design: Challenges for novice designers.
Chi, M. T., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem-Solving Ability.
Conklin, J. (2001). Wicked problems and fragmentation. Unpublished working paper.
Conklin, J. (2006). Wicked problems & social complexity. 11. CogNexus Institute Napa, USA.
Costa, J. M., Miranda, G. L., & Melo, M. (2022). Four-component instructional design (4C/ID) model: A
meta-analysis on use and effect. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), p. 445-463.
Crowley, K., & Head, B. W. (2017). The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: Revisiting Rittel and
Webber. Policy Sciences, 50(4), p. 539-547.
Eseryel, D. (2006). Expert conceptualizations of the domain of instructional design: An investigative study
on the deep assessment methodology for complex problem-solving outcomes.
Fardanesh, H. (2013). Instructional design, foundations, approaches and applications. Tehran, Samt
publication.
Goel, V., Pirolli, P (1992). The structure of design problem spaces.Cognitive Science. 16, p. 395-429.
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design issues, 19(1), p. 72-88.
Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998). Contents and structure in design reasoning. Design issues, 14(3), p.
85-100.
Gu, P., Zhang, Y., & Gu, H. (2020). Creating a technology-enhanced constructivist learning environment
for research ability development in a BA Thesis Writing course. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
33(5-6), p. 538-566.
Head, B. W. (2022). The rise of ‘wicked problems’—uncertainty, complexity and divergence. In Wicked
Problems in Public Policy: Understanding and Responding to Complex Challenges, p. 21-36. Springer.
Hedberg, J., Oliver, R., Harper, B., Wills, S., Agostinho, S. (2002). Formalising the descriptions of learning
designs. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and
Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). p. 496-504. ACT Australia: HERDSA.
Hong, S., & Lee, J. Y. (2022). Evaluation of therapeutic communication education for nursing students
based on constructivist learning environments: A systematic review. Nurse Education Today, 119, 105607.
Jonassen, D., & Tessmer, M. (1996). An outcomes-based taxonomy for the design, evaluation, and research
of instructional systems. Training Research Journal, 2(1996), 97.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving
learning outcomes. Educational technology research and development, 45(1), p.65-94.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4), p. 63-85.
Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive
processing. Human development, 26(4), p. 222-232.
Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think (4
th edition). In Architectural Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
Major, C. H., & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning in higher
education: Lessons from the literature. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 5(1), p. 4-9.
McCarthy, S. n. R. (2012). Relational reinvention: writing, engagement, and mapping as wicked response.
Merrill, M. D. (2012). First principles of instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
Mogens Myrup, A., & Niels Henrik, M. (1997). On the identification of Product Structure Laws. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Wdk Workshop on Product Structuring — 1997, p. 1-26.
Pham, C. T. A., Magistretti, S., & Dell'Era, C. (2023). How do you frame ill‐defined problems? A study on
creative logics in action. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(3), p. 493-516.
Reilly, C., & Reeves, T. C. (2024). Refining active learning design principles through design-based
research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), p. 81-100.
Rhodes, A. E., & Rozell, T. G. (2017). Cognitive flexibility and undergraduate physiology students:
increasing advanced knowledge acquisition within an ill-structured domain. Advances in Physiology
Education, 41(3), p. 375-382.
Richards, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Applying learning design concepts to problem-based learning. Paper
Presented At The Proceedings Of The 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2),
p. 155-169.
Savery, J. (1994). What is problem-based learning? Paper presented at the meeting of the Professors of
Instructional Design and Technology, Indiana State University, Bloomington, IN.
Spiro, R. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex
content domains. Technical Report No. 409.
Spiro, R. J. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.
Technical Report No. 441.
Voss, J. F. (1987). Learning and transfer in subject-matter learning: A problem-solving model.
International Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), p. s607-622.
Wood, P. K. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structure: Implications for cognitive development.
Human Development, 26(5), p. 249-265.
Zajda, J. (2021). Constructivist learning theory and creating effective learning environments. Globalisation
and Education Reforms: Creating Effective Learning Environments, p. 35-50.