Plotting learning

Plotting a Learning Experience

Patrick Parrish
The COMET^® Program/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Phone: 1-303-497-8366

Fax: 1-303-497-8491

Email: pparrish@comet.ucar.edu

Yet, even though these technical qualities of an ID project are essential to care for, in narrowly conceiving instruction to possess only these qualities or assuming that all the other qualities are handled when these critical technical issues are well addressed, instructional designers may not adequately consider the complete nature of learning experiences. Learning experiences are always much more than the cognitive processing of well planned subject matter and structured learning activities. They also encompass how the learner feels about, values, and, ultimately, establishes a level of engagement with the instructional environment. They include the affective qualities that determine how engagement develops in a learning situation, which, while not ignored by ID, are frequently considered secondarily to or separately from the privileged cognitive qualities (for further exploration of the limitations of this dichotomy, see Parrish, 2006c). Beyond being a cognitive activity, learning experience (and therefore ID) is also political, ethical, emotional, and, perhaps most important in consideration of engagement, aesthetic in nature (O'Regan, 2003; Parrish, 2005; Schwier, Campbell & Kenny, 2004; Wilson, 2005). Beyond problem solving, instructional design is also the process of composing an experience that will stimulate the engagement that leads to learning.

In fact, learner engagement is likely the most critical factor in any learning experience. Whether learning is viewed as individual or system change, it will occur only when a learner desires the change or is shown the necessity of embracing it. Engagement describes a relationship to an instructional situation in which the learner willingly makes a contribution that is active and constitutive. Beyond task persistence, it involves investment of effort and emotion, willingness to risk, and concern about both outcomes and means. While IDs work to tame instruction into a manageable, replicable process that begins by predetermining outcomes to be measured through properly aligned assessments, engagement describes that wild aspect of the process in which the learner is as much or more in control of the activities and outcomes as the ID. Natural learning in everyday situations occurs as people willingly invest themselves in tasks, either alone or with others, with immediately meaningful goals. In formal learning situations like those offered in schools and much of professional training, that meaning, which is both a necessary precondition for and result of learner engagement, is often more difficult for learners to see. Yet the need for engagement remains high if deep and lasting learning is desired. Only when learners invest attention, effort, and emotional commitment is there a chance that they will learn deeply in the situations crafted by instructors and instructional designers.
Aesthetic Instructional Design
The aesthetic, or artistic, qualities of instructional design have received increasing discussion in recent years (Parrish, 2005; Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004; Wilson, 2005; see also Hokanson, Hooper, & Miller in Chapter 1.1). This broadening beyond the technical qualities of ID is likely to lead to many innovative approaches to the task of creating engaging instruction. However, aesthetics is a slippery construct, carrying with it many misleading, over-generalized ideas about art and artists, and some conceptions of it have less to offer IDs. This section first examines some of the less promising ideas surrounding art and aesthetics before introducing the concept of aesthetic experience, which not only has more to say about learning, but is also more successful in explaining the wide variety of artistic expression that exists.

One of these limited conceptions is that aesthetics describes those qualities of an object or event that are attractive, pleasurable, or aimed at creating feelings of delight—qualities to which artists are deemed especially attuned. While they are not without purpose, limiting our conception of aesthetics to these qualities makes it merely a motivator layered onto (or into) more substantive qualities. For instructional designers, these more substantive qualities are of course the instructional strategies that have a scientific basis, and perhaps qualities such as usability and functionality. If art is a model for the application of aesthetics, this conception seems to ignore the fact that many works of art are quite disturbing (consider King Lear, Picasso’s Guernica, or Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, for example) and do their work by challenging our expectations and desire for immediate pleasure. These works force us to grow rather than entertain or delight, as would artful works of instruction.

When art is seen as exalting the primacy of the individual, it also has little room in the work of IDs. Examples of this conception include justifying the emotional outpouring of artists, or assuming that artists are always self-referential and unconcerned with the impact of their work on others. It can also be seen in the assumption that artists tolerate no source of judgment other than their own. But of course, like all activity, art is a social phenomenon embedded in a complex activity system, and artists serve an important role or they would not be as valued as they indeed are. Artists, even popular artists, are often harbingers of social change who ask us to perceive the world in new ways, but they function within society, and have obligations to it just like the rest of us. Even though large parts of society may not immediately see the value of some works of art, or may at first be upset by the change in perception they are being asked to undertake, in the end society doesn’t tolerate insular artists that don’t attempt a connection, and their works fade away from notice. Nor would learners or clients tolerate an instructional designer that used only her own judgment as final arbiter of instructional decisions.

Finally, art is at times linked to an irrepressible urge to innovate with little concern for productive outcomes. While a quick review of twentieth century art, especially the visual arts, might lead one to this conclusion, I suspect this aspect of recent art is more a reflection of the cultural upheaval caused by rapid technological and social change that pervades the times, and isn’t the nature of art itself. Viewing art in the longer term, or keeping the popular arts in mind, one can see more emphasis on convention than on innovation. Every artist is concerned with productive outcomes—namely the aesthetic experience of those who appreciate her work. Innovation in technique, material, or subject matter, or choosing to investigate cultural changes not yet visible to most people, is one tool for achieving this. But extravagant innovation for its own sake is the strategy of minor artists who are missing the point, or perhaps brief flirtations with the muse for the better ones. Even great artists never quite live down their technical failures. Stories about Frank Lloyd Wright’s leaky roof (mentioned in Chapter 1.1), or Bernini’s sinking foundation are often told as parables to self-indulgent, young artists and designers (Schama, 2006: Hokanson, Hooper, & Miller, Chapter 1.1). IDs bent on innovation for its own sake may amuse learners for a time, but this approach has the potential to become a self-indulgent distraction to learning.

Certainly, creating pleasurable experiences, using one’s connoisseurship to judge instructional quality, and seeking creative solutions are all valuable attributes of a successful instructional design practice, and in balance with the other important qualities of good design, can lead to well rounded products (See Hokanson, Hooper, & Miller, Chapter 1.1). But limiting aesthetics to any or even all of the three senses described above places it in a distant position in the minds of IDs, who are primarily concerned with qualities of their work that can directly impact learning and serve their clients in appropriate and affordable ways. In other words, an instructional artist, if described as exhibiting the above predilections to the detriment of serving learning, would not last long in practice.

However, the concept of aesthetic experience has a more fundamental contribution to make to instructional design (Dewey, 1934/1989; Jackson, 1998; Parrish, 2005). Aesthetic experience describes a type of experience in which our awareness is heightened and a sense of meaning or unity becomes pervasive—clearly a condition that is ripe for learning. This type of experience can emerge during any meaningful activity, but it is particularly characteristic of and more frequently acknowledged to exist in our experiences with works of art, simply because art is expressly created to evoke it. For this reason, works of art can provide models for approaches to the design of aesthetic experiences in other life activities, including learning and instruction, and the lessons they can teach go far beyond the over-generalizations described above.

Whether the work of art takes the form of painting, sculpture, architecture, drama, dance, fiction, or film, our experience of it has narrative qualities. This narrative follows a pattern of inquiry, similar to the pattern of disciplined inquiry, in which we perceive the object or situation and over time, through engagement with it, come to sense its meaning or unity. This general pattern of experience, as described by Dewey (1934/1989), unfolds in the following way when applied to learning situations:

• 
  A felt need, tension, or puzzlement that impels a learner to resolve an indeterminate situation.
  
• 
  A sustained anticipation of outcomes that helps to maintain the initial engagement.
  
• 
  Intent action or observation on the part of the learner, including a concern for immediate qualities and things (not merely a focus on goals or instruction as a means to an end).
  
• 
  Consideration of how these observations bear on the anticipated end.
  
• 
  A consummation that unifies the experience (not merely terminates it) and makes it significant.
  

Aesthetic experiences are those in which engagement is sustained by virtue of this recognizable pattern and the unity of experience it brings (Dewey, 1934/1989). This form of experience is played out in our engagement with any art form, either explicitly in the stories we read or see performed in plays or movies, or more subtly when we enter the world of a painting or listen to a musical composition (Berleant, 1991). But it is also indicative of all our inevitable struggles to learn about and interact with the world around us. In fact, as Dewey proposes, it is from these everyday struggles and their empowering effect that the urge for aesthetic experience arises. Aesthetic experiences are unified in intent and purpose, and include following through toward a conclusion that satisfies the initial felt need. This narrative unity is precisely the meaning missing from many formal learning situations, which may be more episodic than unified in treating learning objectives unconnected to a driving goal or question.

As a pattern of inquiry, the concept of aesthetic experience is not foreign to instructional designers at all (Parrish, 2006c). Many instructional design models stress meaning making as a central condition of learning. Inquiry-based (Collins & Stevens, 1983), goal-based (Schank, Berman, & Macpherson, 1999), case-based (Kolodner & Guzdial, 2000), problem-based (Savery & Duffy, 1996), and problem-centered (Jonassen, 2004) learning, as well as similar generative approaches to ID, each offer strategies for creating learning experiences with the potential to become aesthetic. However, when these ID models become rigid templates or merely new technical solutions, applications of them may nonetheless miss out on addressing the full range of qualities inherent in a learning experience and in doing so, slight the need to care for learning engagement. Seen in this way, aesthetic instructional design involves a particular stance toward the design task, the tools for accomplishing that task (including ID models), the instructional goals, and the learner. It suggests approaches compatible with many ID models, and is supportive of those models as a way to enhance their application. On the other hand, it is much more than simply a layer of pleasantness or excitement added to the otherwise technically competent models. It is as much about what is important for learners to experience as how they might experience it (Parrish, 2006a).
Designing for Aesthetic Experience
One way for instructional designers to better plan for aesthetic learning experiences is to pay particular attention to the narrative that unfolds as a learner engages in learning. Viewing learning as a narrative in no way trivializes it or reduces instruction it to a form of entertainment. As the pattern of experience described above demonstrates, narrative is a fundamental way of knowing about the world—perhaps our most fundamental way of deriving its meaning (Bruner, 1990, 2002; Polkinghorne, 1988). Narrative is the story-logic we find in, or impose upon, any experience we consider meaningful. Any narrative, and any meaningful experience, possesses five necessary components—an Agent, an Action, a Goal, a Setting, and a Means (Burke, 1945, as cited in Bruner, 2002). The fact that these fundamental components are also present in the pattern of inquiry, or any intentional act for that matter, reveals the powerful role narrative plays in our interpretation of the world.

Using narrative as a guiding force for instruction, as is done implicitly in each of the ID models mentioned above, can be a powerful way to stimulate learning engagement. Like a narrative, effective learning situations will have well established beginnings, middles, and endings that follow the pattern of aesthetic experience and contain the narrative components described above, revealing a necessary struggle to resolve a problematic situation that leads to learning. Whether the problematic situation is a true problem, a stimulating question or issue, or merely puzzlement or new experience that throws current knowledge into doubt, it is a call to seek out the information that allows one to test possible answers. Any of these situations initiate a sequence of events similar to the dramatic arc found in nearly all narratives, but which also comprise aesthetic experiences of whatever kind (Dewey, 1934/1989).

Caring for and assessing the potential for the aesthetic or narrative qualities of instruction can be accomplished by writing fictional design stories, or scenarios of learner experience, during the design phase of an ID project (Parrish, 2006b). Design stories are short first-person narratives written by designers from the imagined point-of-view of a user. They explore either an episode of use of a key or problematic design feature or a complete, coherent experience with the designed product, using the process of story writing to allow designers to exercise empathy toward users and make better design decisions. For instructional designers, they explore learning experiences, taking into account the expected qualities of instructional settings and of learners, including their motivations, ambitions, desires, and potential frustrations in learning.

The act of creating design stories can help designers build empathy with learners as they imagine learning experience to a degree of detail not possible through traditional analysis processes, and not possible in the often-constrained conditions of formative evaluation either. Writing design stories, which stimulates a thought process that exhibits a blend of analysis and synthesis, also makes the compositional nature of design more explicit, avoiding an artificial division of analysis and synthesis in design deliberations (Lawson, 1997; Nelson & Stolterman, 2003).

Teachers of fiction writing like Ray (1994) advise writers to position their key plot elements along the incline to ensure that each of the prescribed plot structures are defined by those elements, and that the beginning, middle, and end are well delineated by plot points. A well plotted diagram whose elements fit logically together in a cause and effect relationship will be more likely to engage an audience and provide a satisfying dramatic or reading experience. (Narratives can be developed with symbolic or lyric relationships of plot elements as well, but these are not as common, and are often more challenging and less satisfying for some.)

The use of the incline can be explained best by example. Figure 2 shows how it can be applied to a recent work of fiction familiar to millions of international readers, The DaVinci Code (Brown, 2003). As a novel, Brown’s book probably does not rate as highly sophisticated, yet its skillfully conceived plot structure creates such a high degree of engagement in its readers that the book has reached record-breaking bestseller status—one not completely attributable to its controversial subject matter.

Figure 2: Aristotle’s Incline applied to the plot of The DaVinci Code (Brown, 2003)

While the pattern of rising action in many fictional narratives may be much more subtle, it usually exists nonetheless. For example, in another popular, recent novel, Never Let Me Go (Ishiguro, 2005), the author employs a first-person narrator whose naiveté allows a satisfactory understanding of the situation to be only slowly revealed. There are no dramatic moments of truth as there are in The DaVinci Code, but only a growing and never complete understanding of truth. Of course, this is probably a more realistic depiction of how we come to answers for the big questions of life, and it is what gives the novel its surprising power and narrative sophistication. Even though they are revealed the narrator in an understated way, a reader can still identify the significant plot points that are key contributions to her growing knowledge. The plot, divided into three parts separated chronologically by several years, is also given a well-defined three act structure befitting Aristotle’s poetics.

Many variations on Aristotle’s Incline exist, including a version developed by German playwright Gustav Freytag to describe dramatic tragedies, which has been used by Laurel (1993) to explore how users experience interactive software applications. In Freytag’s Triangle, shown in Figure 3, rather than level of action, the Y-axis instead depicts the level of complication. In most narratives, but particularly in tragedies, the resulting diagram appears as rising and falling lines, as complications are developed and the denouement brings resolution. In some tragedies, the rising and falling can also be seen as the state of the protagonist’s fortune, seemingly improving, then dramatically reversing in a fall to ruin. But just as knowledge drives the rise in action in The DaVinci Code, the rise and fall in Freytag’s Triangle can also be knowledge driven, where complications arise and are irresolvable until knowledge gained at the climax works to unravel those complications. In tragedy, this knowledge might mark the beginning of an inevitable fall, as Oedipus Rex falls in discovering the unwitting fulfillment of his prophecy. But in other forms of drama, the knowledge may help the protagonist achieve a more positive resolution played out in the remaining action.

Figure 3: Freytag’s Triangle, depicting increasing and falling complication.

Figure 5: The Hero’s Adventure plotted as a graph.

Like playwrights and novelists, instructors and instructional designers can use narrative diagrams as tools to help them plot the narrative of a planned learning experience. They can plot the sequence of topics and learning activities along the curve of the incline or triangle or around a circle (depending on their preference), helping to plan for a learning experience that will have the necessary structure to develop deep engagement and a fulfilling outcome. In creating such diagrams, instructional designers can also better attend to the holistic nature of the experience, and avoid exclusive focus on creating a conceptually logical content sequence or mechanical treatment of a list of objectives.

While the Y-axis in diagrams used for fictional narratives typically describes the level of action or complication, in plotting learning narratives it can be used more appropriately to depict the changing level of learner engagement and complexity of the learning task (however, the correspondence of these to action and complication should be apparent). In this case, the diagram created can be called the engagement curve, depicting the story of a developing interest, or the waxing and, at times, inevitable waning of engagement during the learner’s journey into the unknown on a quest for knowledge.

While we would like the experience of all learners to exhibit an engagement curve similar to Aristotle’s Incline (Figure 1), in practice, learning experiences rarely follow a steady rise in action or engagement. As suggested in research on aesthetic instructional design decisions (Parrish, 2004), IDs may often find that the practical constraints of formal learning situations lead to more flattened engagement curves. The rapid pace and lengthy courses of study necessary to cover content, as well as conflicting demands on attention and varied student interests and learning styles, all make sustained engagement, let alone a continuous rise, nearly impossible. Realistic engagement curves may show an initial rise in engagement if the instruction is designed to achieve it or if learners possess native interest. The middle is more likely to be relatively steady, but only if we are sufficiently clever to introduce activities that sustain or reinvigorate interest, or lucky enough to have learners with perseverance. Otherwise, the middle will likely see declines in engagement, as the initial novelty wears off and the arduous work of learning begins to test learners. Endings, with the potential consummation of unifying activities like final reports and projects and their promise of impending relief, may reveal a sharp rise in engagement corresponding to a fluster of closing activities. Figure 6 depicts an engagement curve of this sort.

Figure 6: The engagement curve of a typical formal learning experience.

Figure 7: The Student’s Adventure as a cycle.

Figure 8: The Student’s Adventure as graph.

Hurricane Strike! is an online learning module for middle school students about the science and safety of hurricanes (The COMET^® Program, 2002). From the beginning of the project, learning engagement was viewed as a central challenge, and for this reason a scenario-based approached was used to strengthen the narrative qualities of the learning experience. This did not, of course, negate the need to clearly identify the required learning objectives and to structure the scenario using a traditional content matrix, nor even to map activities according to U.S. National Science Education Standards (See Appendices A and B). Yet these alone are not enough to fully appreciate the experience of learning made possible by the module.

However, we can turn to an engagement curve to identify how a typical learner might experience the module. Figure 10 depicts how one can apply the diagram to plot key instructional events that may lead to significant changes in level of engagement. Creating this plot may reassure us that the design will hang together and maintain sufficient engagement. On the other hand, it may demonstrate flawed or incomplete story-logic. For example, we might anticipate the following:

• 
  Initial engagement is stimulated at the beginning through the use of a highly graphical and interactive design, as well as by embedding the content in the context of the story. The learner, in fact, is treated as a character within the story of a family preparing for a potential hurricane strike.
  
• 
  Plot Point 1 occurs when learners find the “Create-A-Cane” game during Day 2 of the scenario, which presents a game-within-a-story, that not only enriches the context, but also creates anticipation for more fun interactions and increasing knowledge about this interesting and dangerous weather phenomenon.
  
• 
  The middle is highly informative, and uses a series of quality interactions to help maintain engagement while learners delve deeper into the topic, but some engagement inevitably wanes.
  
• 
  Plot Point 2 marks the end of the middle and beginning of the ending as Hurricane Erin strikes and learner concerns move from learning about the science of hurricanes and safety preparations to helping friends and family survive the event. These activities consolidate what has been learned and reveal why it has been important to do so.
  
• 
  
  

Figure 9: The Hurricane Strike! online module.

A second example, the design of a module for weather forecasters on using a new numerical weather prediction model (the WRF model) as a tool in the forecast process, demonstrates the use of the engagement curve to analyze the instructional design for much more technical subject matter (The COMET^® Program, 2005). In this design project, it might have been tempting to forego a concern about learner experience and engagement and focus on the accuracy and scope of the technical content. While an engagement curve was not an early step in the design process, a design story was used in the project plan to clarify the experience goals of the module and understand its narrative nature. The story was also used to communicate these goals to the client and subject matter experts who would develop the script drafts. The engagement curve depicted in Figure 11 is a summary of the story told in the project plan. A portion of this story can found in Parrish (2006b).

• 
  The opening introduction of a forecast problem is left unresolved to create a problematic situation and stimulate engagement. It is couched as a typical problem a forecaster might find in the field, and is told in first person.
  
• 
  Further along in the beginning act of the module, the problem is more deeply explored and the WRF is shown to be a beneficial tool in the resolving the problem.
  
• 
  The first plot point is the resolution of this first problem, setting the stage to explore further benefits of the WRF model for forecasters.
  
• 
  The middle includes the introduction of several more forecast problems and demonstration of how the WRF model can provide useful guidance. This section becomes more problematic in terms of sustaining action and engagement, but it introduces necessary content and follows a repeated problem-centered pattern to ensure a degree of engagement.
  
• 
  The final act is initiated by the second plot point, a section discussing the model’s limitations, and caveats for using the model. The build up of model benefits is reversed and the task for learners becomes more complex.
  
• 
  The ending consummation includes presentation and demonstration of systematic guidelines for overcoming the model limitations and recommendations for incorporating WRF model guidance in a suite of forecast tools for the best outcome.
  

Let’s assume you have several goals for the course based on your personal beliefs about the role of theory in design:

• 
  Design is situated, and theory has to be applied with respect to the situation, not rigidly followed.
  
• 
  Instructional models demonstrate differing values and assumptions that should be explicitly acknowledged and considered before applying them.
  
• 
  Whenever possible, theories should be learned through application, not merely as abstract constructs.
  

You look for a conflict inherent in the subject matter—the wide variety of competing theories that seem to contradict one another seems to naturally fit the bill. You decide to compound this conflict and hope to generate further anticipation for a consummation by demonstrating that conflicting theories can be applied to adequately address the same instructional goal, but with differing results (even while addressing the same stated learning objectives). So two natural “plot points” emerge. The first is the introduction of the second contrasting, but completely functional, instructional model (a form of peripeteia). This demonstrates that choosing an instructional model is not just a matter of picking it off the shelf based on well-defined criteria. The second plot point, depending on your point of view, might be either the choice of the model that the learners will use for their own project or the activity in which students critique each other’s initial designs. The first establishes the parameters for all the remaining learning activities in the course, but the second establishes the next level of conflict to be resolved. In my diagram, I made the choice of models the mid-point, and the critiquing activity the second plot point. Catharsis is achieved when students present their designs, but perhaps more importantly in the process of watching each of the other students present their own designs. In this case, Act One is the activity of contrasting two divergent instructional models, Act Two is learning about additional models and choosing one to work with, and Act Three has student’s creating a design plan, critiquing each other’s plans, and reacting to the critique of their own plan. However one conceives it, the learning experience is more likely to become aesthetic as a result of including this diagramming activity in the design process.

Figure 11: An engagement curve used for planning a course on instructional models for instructional designers.

As a visual notation system, narrative diagrams might be classified as informal (limited rules are imposed about how to use them), and falling at the conceptual level of elaboration (Botturi, Derntl, Boot, & Figl, 2006). They are primarily meant to help the instructional designer visualize and evaluate the design in a very general way during the early design phase. In other words, they are unlikely to be useful for relaying design specifications to a developer (although they might communicate useful information to a graphic artist, for example, about emotional or thematic intent). Plotting the experience early and at a high level will help to ensure that the learning experience will be an engaging one, before too many details are imposed that might constrain the goal of having a coherent, overarching learning narrative. In this way, when additional layers of detail are added it can be done in a way that supports the aesthetic experience, rather than attempting to impose aesthetic considerations onto a predetermined, non-aesthetic base. So narrative diagrams, like narratives themselves at times, are primarily reflective—they are a mode of personal creative thinking that aids in the generative processes of design. But they are also secondarily communicative—they can help other design team members, such as subject matter experts or artists, understand the experiential goal of the instruction to aid in the process of making their own contributions. This places them high on the creative scale, but spread along the communicative scale, mostly clustering toward reflective thinking (see Figure 12).

Figure 12: Classifying Narrative Diagrams as a Notation System (Botturi et al., 2006)

In using any notation system, even narrative diagrams, one should be concerned about generating a false sense of completeness to the design. Because diagrams may appear visually captivating in and of themselves, a designer might be lured into thinking the final user is sure to experience the same captivation. This of course may never happen due to factors not considered in creating the diagram or due to learner characteristics beyond the control of the designer. However, this is no argument to avoid the use of a tool that can help designers grasp critical aspects of learner experience that might otherwise be ignored. Combined with other notation systems, as well as traditional tools such as design documents, storyboards, and content matrices, narrative diagrams of learning experience can provide a designer a powerful method of planning for the aesthetic experience of learning.

An additional caveat exists regarding the use of notation systems. One can’t forget that the final learning experience is the result of how the immediate qualities of instruction are executed, including responding to changing conditions and student responses that are difficult to plan for. Engagement or challenge curves are only a starting point in planning for the aesthetic experience of learning. They are akin to the quick sketch that is meant to guide the creation of a painted canvas or sculpted stone. Execution can make the difference between success and failure. Instructional design also requires craftsmanship in writing effective text, producing attractive and intuitive screen designs, creating instructive illustrations, and, perhaps most importantly, anticipating and reacting to student responses to the instruction in ways that reinforce learning—even when this means diverging from well intentioned plans.
References
Aristotle. (trans. 1984). Poetics. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle (Vol. Two, pp. 2316-2340). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Berleant, A. (1991). Art and engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Botturi, L. (2006). E²ML: A visual language for the design of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(3), 265-293.

Botturi, L., Derntl, M., Boot, E., & Figl, K. (2006). A classification framework for educational modeling languages in instructional design. Paper presented at the IEEE ICALT, Kerkrade, The Netherlands.

Brown, D. (2003). The da vinci code. New York: Random House.

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.

The COMET^® Program (2002). Hurricane Strike! Available online at http://meted.ucar.edu/hurrican/strike/index.htm.

The COMET^® Program (2005). Using the WRF Mesoscale Model. Available online at http://www.meted.ucar.edu/nwp/afwa_wrf/index.htm.

Dewey, J. (1934/1989). Art as experience (Vol. 10). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Ishiguro, K. (2005). Never let me go. New York: Vintage Books.

Jackson, P. W. (1998). John Dewey and the lessons of art. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jonassen, D. H. (2004). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

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.

Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

O'Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78-92.

Osguthorpe, R. T. (2006). Learning that grows. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Cummunication Technologies in Education (MICTE), Seville, Spain.

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. (2006a). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology. Dallas, TX.

Parrish, P. E. (2006b). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72-82.

Parrish, P. E. (2006c). Learning as aesthetic experience: John dewey's integration of art, inquiry, and education. Unpublished manuscript, Available online at http://www.comet.ucar.edu/~pparrish.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ray, R. J. (1994). The weekend novelist. New York: Dell Publishing.

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.

Schama, S. (2006). The power of art. Great Britain: BBC Books.

Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 161-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designer's observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 69-100.

Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(2), 69-89.

Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10-16.

Notes:

• 
  Worksheets for days 1-6 reinforce safety and science activities and content
  
• 
  Weather Updates are provide for days 1-6 via the Television Weather Report available in the living room, and via office laptop Internet connection to storm tracking, satellite, radar, and text weather reports