Learning Experience Design

Learning Experience Architecture

The five-phase rhythm — Why · See · Try · Share · Reflect

Published resource

The end-to-end arc a learner moves through, designed as one coherent journey rather than a sequence of modules. It is the organizing spine of the experience work, and the frame every other contribution on this branch extends.

Grounding. Experiential learning (Kolb); the Why→See→Try→Share→Reflect rhythm

Read the Learning Experience Architecture resource

Sources

• Reference 1: Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall (2nd ed., Pearson, 2015).
• Reference 2: Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Experiential Learning Infrastructure — Experiential · 1 shared source
• Designing for Reflection & Transfer — 1 shared source
• Designing for Motivation & Relevance — editorially linked
• Managing Cognitive Load — editorially linked
• Learning Community Design & Facilitation — editorially linked

Connected contributions

• Designing for Motivation & Relevance
• Experiential Learning Infrastructure
• Designing for Reflection & Transfer

Where this work leads

• Learning Design Specialization, on the Learning Design Specialization page

Designing for Motivation & Relevance

Why adult learners engage — or quietly disengage

Practised · resource in development

Anchoring learning to a learner's real circumstances and existing expertise before content is introduced, so relevance and autonomy carry the motivational work. It addresses the most common reason programs fall short: attention and completion that quietly decline.

Grounding. Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci)

Sources

• Reference 3: Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Engaging Voluntary & Cautious Adult Learners, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Managing Cognitive Load

Learning that working memory can hold

Practised · resource in development

Chunking, sequencing, worked examples, and multimedia principles that keep dense material within the limits of attention and memory. It matters most where content is genuinely complex, as in research and health settings.

Grounding. Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller); Multimedia Learning (Mayer)

Sources

• Reference 4: Sweller, J. (1988). “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. See also Sweller, Ayres & Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory (Springer, 2011).
• Reference 5: Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Onboarding Across Wide Experience Ranges, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Experiential Learning Infrastructure

Learning by doing, built to last

Published resource

The conditions and structures that let adult learners practise, make consequential mistakes, and build capability through experience rather than exposure. It treats error as a designed source of feedback, not a failure of instruction.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Learning Experience Design, and it is also part of the Learning Systems Design set.

Grounding. Experiential learning (Kolb); retrieval practice & desirable difficulties (Bjork)

Read the Experiential Learning Infrastructure resource

Sources

• Reference 1: Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall (2nd ed., Pearson, 2015).
• Reference 6: Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). “Making Things Hard on Yourself, but in a Good Way: Creating Desirable Difficulties to Enhance Learning.” In Psychology and the Real World. Worth Publishers.
• Reference 7: Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). “Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention.” Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learning Experience Architecture — Experiential · 1 shared source
• Designing for Reflection & Transfer — Transfer
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Experiential
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Experiential
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Experiential

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture
• Designing for Reflection & Transfer

Where this work leads

• Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building, on the Accessibility page
• Learning Systems Design, on the Learning Systems Design page

Learning Community Design & Facilitation

Peer learning and communities of practice

Published resource

Designing the social layer of learning — structured peer exchange, collaborative sense-making, and communities of practice that let expertise circulate rather than sit in silos. It is also the capability that sustains evidence use in knowledge mobilization.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Learning Experience Design, and it is also part of the Learning Systems Design set.

Grounding. Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky); communities of practice (Wenger)

Read the Learning Community Design & Facilitation resource

Sources

• Reference 8: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.
• Reference 9: Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.
• Reference 10: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — 1 shared source
• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching — 1 shared source
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — 1 shared source

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Co-Production & Participatory Design, on the Knowledge Mobilization page
• Research-to-Practice Learning Systems, on the Knowledge Mobilization page
• Inclusive Facilitation & Capacity Building, on the Accessibility page
• Learning Systems Design, on the Learning Systems Design page

Designing for Reflection & Transfer

Making learning adapt to new situations

Practised · resource in development

Reflection and metacognition designed in, so learners can make what they have learned their own and re-deploy it in situations the designer could not anticipate. It is the experience-level form of closing the distance between knowing and doing.

Grounding. Metacognition (Flavell); reflective practice (Schön); Bransford et al.

Sources

• Reference 11: Flavell, J. H. (1979). “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–Developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
• Reference 12: Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
• Reference 2: Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learning Experience Architecture — 1 shared source
• Experiential Learning Infrastructure — Transfer
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Reflection

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture
• Experiential Learning Infrastructure

Where this work leads

• Closing the Knowing–Doing Gap, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Learner Research: Human-Centred Design

Understanding learners before designing for them

Practised · resource in development · evidence in hand

UX research applied to learning — interviews, empathy mapping, personas, journey mapping, and synthesis — so programs are grounded in who learners actually are rather than who they are assumed to be. At organizational scale, the same inquiry becomes needs analysis.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Learning Experience Design, and it is also part of the Learning Systems Design set.

Grounding. Human-centred design; UX research methods

Sources

• Reference 13: Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded ed.). Basic Books.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Testing & Iterating the Experience — 1 shared source
• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked
• Designing For and Within Practice-Based Research — Learner research

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Needs Analysis for Organizational Transformation, on the Learning Systems Design page
• Designing for Learner Variability at Scale, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• Learning Systems Design, on the Learning Systems Design page

Assessment & Feedback as Experience

Feedback that drives learning, not anxiety

Practised · resource in development

Designing assessment and feedback as part of the learning itself — authentic tasks, timely formative feedback, and productive challenge — rather than as a terminal measurement. It works alongside barrier removal, but is a distinct concern.

Grounding. Authentic assessment (Wiggins & McTighe); feedback research

Sources

• Reference 14: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Reference 15: Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Assessment · 1 shared source
• Backward Design in Practice — Assessment · 1 shared source
• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• Accessibility Review, on the Accessibility page

Backward Design in Practice

Aligning outcomes, assessment, and activity

Practised · resource in development

Holding a single learning experience coherent by starting from the intended outcome, then the evidence of it, then the activity — so nothing in the experience is arbitrary. It answers a recurring need in program and accreditation contexts.

Grounding. Backward design (Wiggins & McTighe)

Sources

• Reference 14: Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Assessment & Feedback as Experience — Assessment · 1 shared source
• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Assessment
• Placement Quality as a Design Variable — Alignment

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Inclusive Course & Curriculum Design, on the Accessibility page
• Storyboarding for Learning Design, on the Learning Systems Design page

Testing & Iterating the Experience

Usability methods for learning

Practised · resource in development · evidence in hand

Treating a learning experience as something to be tested with real learners and improved — usability testing, beta cycles, and quality assurance — before and after it is delivered. It is the formative counterpart to downstream impact evaluation.

Grounding. Usability testing; System Usability Scale

Sources

• Reference 16: Brooke, J. (1996). “SUS: A ‘Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale.” In P. W. Jordan et al. (Eds.), Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis.
• Reference 13: Norman, D. A. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things (Revised and Expanded ed.). Basic Books.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Learner Research: Human-Centred Design — 1 shared source
• Learning Experience Architecture — editorially linked

Connected contributions

• Learning Experience Architecture

Where this work leads

• Evaluating Whether Design Reduced Barriers, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• KMb Evaluation Design, on the Knowledge Mobilization page

Studio and Workshop Pedagogy

Teaching in a space where the work is made

Practised · resource not yet written

Learning organized around production in a shared, equipped space: demonstration, supervised practice, progressive release of independence, and authorization to work unaccompanied once competence is shown. It is among the oldest teaching structures in the professions, and the reflective practicum was theorised from it, yet little of its method has been carried into mainstream design practice.

Grounding. Reflective practicum (Schön); signature pedagogies (Shulman); cognitive apprenticeship (Collins, Brown & Newman); craft (Sennett)

Sources

• Reference 17: Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. Jossey-Bass.
• Reference 18: Shulman, L. S. (2005). “Signature Pedagogies in the Professions.” Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.
• Reference 19: Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics.” In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Reference 20: Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. Yale University Press.
• Reference 10: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Making, Experiential
• Designing For and Within Practice-Based Research — Making, Craft
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Experiential, Making
• Experiential Learning Infrastructure — Experiential
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables — Making

Connected contributions

• Experiential Learning Infrastructure
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Making as Knowing, on the Epistemology page
• Competency Verification Before Authorization, on the Learning Systems Design page

The Critique as an Assessment Form

Public, spoken feedback, designed well

Practised · resource not yet written

The critique gives feedback in front of peers, in the presence of the work, and develops the ability to discuss one's own practice — something no written rubric produces. Designing it well means stating the criteria beforehand, structuring who speaks and in what order, protecting time so later work is heard as fully as earlier work, and providing a written record so the session is usable afterwards.

Grounding. Art and design pedagogy (Orr & Shreeve); feedback (Hattie & Timperley); construct-irrelevant barriers (Messick)

Sources

• Reference 21: Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2018). Art and Design Pedagogy in Higher Education: Knowledge, Values and Ambiguity in the Creative Curriculum. Routledge.
• Reference 15: Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
• Reference 22: Messick, S. (1995). “Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons’ Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.” American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Assessment & Feedback as Experience — Assessment · 1 shared source
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Making, Experiential
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Making, Experiential
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Experiential, Making
• Learning Experience Architecture — Experiential

Connected contributions

• Assessment & Feedback as Experience
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Eliminating Construct-Irrelevant Barriers in Assessment, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• Writing Outcomes That Can Be Assessed, on the Learning Design page

Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables

What the work costs to make, and who can operate the machine

Practised · resource not yet written

In making-based programmes the material budget, the studio timetable and the physical demands of equipment shape who can fully take part. Costed material kits, consumable pools, timetabled access that accommodates commuting and caregiving, and equipment selected for reach, force and seated operation are the design responses, and they belong in the programme plan rather than in individual accommodation.

Grounding. Universal design (Center for Universal Design); scarcity and cognitive bandwidth (Mullainathan & Shafir); accessible environments

Sources

• Reference 23: Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). The Principles of Universal Design, Version 2.0. Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University.
• Reference 24: Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Times Books.
• Reference 25: CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Who Is Able to Take the Placement — Equity, Access
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Making
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Making
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Making
• Designing For and Within Practice-Based Research — Making

Connected contributions

• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Accessible Physical and Hybrid Learning Environments, on the Accessibility page
• Scaling Personalization Without Scaling Cost, on the Universal Design for Learning page
• Equity-Centered Learning Design, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Designing For and Within Practice-Based Research

When the work made is part of the finding

Practised · resource not yet written

Research-creation and practice-led inquiry produce knowledge through making, which changes how a project is scoped, supervised, documented and examined. Designing learning in these settings means building documentation into production rather than reconstructing it afterwards, and making the criteria for a practice-based contribution explicit to everyone assessing it.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Learning Experience Design, and it is also part of the Epistemology set.

Grounding. Practice as research (Barrett & Bolt); knowing-how (Ryle); tacit knowledge (Polanyi; Collins)

Sources

• Reference 26: Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. (Eds.). (2010). Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. I.B. Tauris.
• Reference 27: Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Hutchinson — the source of the knowing-how and knowing-that distinction.
• Reference 28: Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
• Reference 29: Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Making, Craft
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Making · 1 shared source
• Learner Research: Human-Centred Design — Learner research
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Making
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables — Making

Connected contributions

• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Making as Knowing, on the Epistemology page
• Designing Inside a Research Culture, on the Learning Design page
• Ethics and Consent in Learner Research, on the Learning Design page

Partnered Studio and Client Projects

An external partner, a live brief, and learners in the middle

Practised · resource not yet written

Projects run with an industry, community or institutional partner give learners real constraints and real audiences. Holding the educational purpose steady alongside the partner's needs calls for an agreement settled in advance: scope and timeline, ownership of what is produced, consent and credit for participants, and a defined position if the brief changes mid-project.

Grounding. Work-integrated learning (Billett); situated learning; research ethics (TCPS 2)

Sources

• Reference 30: Billett, S. (2009). “Realising the Educational Worth of Integrating Work Experiences in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843.
• Reference 10: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.
• Reference 31: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (2022). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans — TCPS 2 (2022).

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching — Workplace, Experiential · 2 shared sources
• Experiential Learning Infrastructure — Experiential
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Making, Experiential · 1 shared source
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Making, Experiential
• Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning — Experiential, Making

Connected contributions

• Experiential Learning Infrastructure
• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Ethics and Consent in Learner Research, on the Learning Design page
• Designing Inside a Research Culture, on the Learning Design page

The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching

Supervisors as the largest and least supported teaching group

Practised · resource not yet written

In placements, co-ops and practicums the day-to-day teaching is done by workplace supervisors whose primary role is something else. Supporting them well is a design problem in its own right: a short and specific supervisor brief, a small number of structured moments in the placement, worked examples of useful feedback, and a named contact when a situation exceeds the brief.

A resource in two areas. Its home is Learning Experience Design, and it is also part of the Learning Systems Design set.

Grounding. Work-integrated learning (Billett; CEWIL Canada); building design capability in non-designers

Sources

• Reference 30: Billett, S. (2009). “Realising the Educational Worth of Integrating Work Experiences in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843.
• Reference 32: Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). Work-Integrated Learning definitions and quality principles.
• Reference 10: Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Workplace, Experiential · 2 shared sources
• Placement Quality as a Design Variable — Workplace · 2 shared sources
• Who Is Able to Take the Placement — Workplace
• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Experiential · 1 shared source
• Learning Community Design & Facilitation — 1 shared source

Connected contributions

• Placement Quality as a Design Variable
• Who Is Able to Take the Placement

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Building Design Capability in Non-Designers, on the Learning Design page
• Organizational Learning Design, on the Learning Systems Design page

Placement Quality as a Design Variable

What distinguishes a strong placement from a filled one

Practised · resource not yet written

Placement quality can be specified rather than hoped for: identified learning outcomes, graduated responsibility, scheduled feedback, exposure to more than one task, and a documented review at the midpoint while the term can still be adjusted. Making these explicit at the point of agreement gives every party the same expectations and gives the institution something to review against.

Grounding. Work-integrated learning quality principles (CEWIL Canada); Billett; constructive alignment (Biggs)

Sources

• Reference 32: Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada (CEWIL Canada). Work-Integrated Learning definitions and quality principles.
• Reference 30: Billett, S. (2009). “Realising the Educational Worth of Integrating Work Experiences in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 827–843.
• Reference 33: Biggs, J. (1996). “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment.” Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching — Workplace · 2 shared sources
• Who Is Able to Take the Placement — Workplace
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Workplace · 1 shared source
• Backward Design in Practice — Alignment

Connected contributions

• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching
• Who Is Able to Take the Placement

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Quality Assurance as a Documented Practice, on the Learning Design page
• Writing Outcomes That Can Be Assessed, on the Learning Design page

Who Is Able to Take the Placement

Unpaid and unfunded experience as an access question

Practised · resource not yet written

Where placement is required for a credential and unpaid or unfunded, participation depends on financial circumstance, caregiving, transport and immigration status as much as on capability. Paid and funded placements, part-time and local options, remote arrangements and clear accommodation routes widen who can complete the requirement, and tracking who withdraws makes the pattern visible.

Grounding. Unpaid internships and access (Perlin); placement access (Meeks & Jain); equity-centred design

Sources

• Reference 34: Perlin, R. (2011). Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy. Verso.
• Reference 35: Meeks, L. M., & Jain, N. R. (2018). Accessibility, Inclusion, and Action in Medical Education: Lived Experiences of Learners and Physicians with Disabilities. Association of American Medical Colleges.
• Reference 36: Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). “Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.” American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables — Access, Equity
• The Workplace Partner Who Does Most of the Teaching — Workplace
• Placement Quality as a Design Variable — Workplace
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Workplace

Connected contributions

• Placement Quality as a Design Variable
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Access in Clinical and Placement Education, on the Accessibility page
• Equity-Centered Learning Design, on the Universal Design for Learning page

Designing for Embodied and Somatic Learning

The body as a site of the learning, not only its vehicle

Practised · resource not yet written

Some learning is held in movement, handling and sensation before it becomes available as description, and the design decisions follow from that: the room, the materials, the pacing, and how much is asked to be put into words at all. Work on grounded cognition, on the tacit dimension of knowing, and on what making does for thought gives this a basis, and connects the studio contributions on this branch to the trauma-informed practices held in the trunk.

Grounding. Grounded cognition (Barsalou); phenomenology of perception (Merleau-Ponty); tacit knowing (Polanyi); the arts and the creation of mind (Eisner)

Sources

• Reference 37: Barsalou, L. W. (2008). “Grounded Cognition.” Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
• Reference 38: Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945.)
• Reference 28: Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
• Reference 39: Eisner, E. W. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. Yale University Press.

Most related, by shared theory and theme

• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy — Making, Experiential
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables — Making
• The Critique as an Assessment Form — Making, Experiential
• Partnered Studio and Client Projects — Making, Experiential
• Designing For and Within Practice-Based Research — Making · 1 shared source

Connected contributions

• Studio and Workshop Pedagogy
• Materials, Tools and Equipment as Access Variables

Where this work leads

• Learning Experience Design, on the Learning Experience Design page
• Participation Without Required Disclosure, on the Learning Design page
• Making as Knowing, on the Epistemology page