Andrew S Gibbons

In 1969, Gibbons earned a B.A. in English with a chemistry minor from Brigham Young University. In 1974, he completed a doctorate in instructional psychology at Brigham Young University.[5] During that time, he worked on the research team of M. David Merrill, assisting in the conception of component display theory.[6] Component display theory provided the basis later for Merrill's instructional transaction theory.[7]

Gibbons accumulated eighteen years of practical design experience as a project director and consultant for two start-up instructional design consultancies: Courseware Incorporated and Wicat Systems (World Institute for Computer-Aided Instruction). The idea of computer-based instruction did not exist in the thinking of the business and educational leaders in 1974, though research was conducted in high-tech laboratories as early as the 1950s,[8] but cost and technology factors prohibited widespread dissemination. The opportunity to create large-scale new technology–based designs for a variety of training clients provided Gibbons with many insights into the issues of creating instructional experiences efficiently that were also effective.

In 1993, Gibbons moved to a teaching and research position at the Department of Instructional Technology of Utah State University, associating himself once more with M. David Merrill's ID2 research team. From 1993 to 2003, the conceptual basis for an architecture-oriented design theory grew, resulting in the publication of a book that began to show architectural themes that would evolve into the architectural design theory.[9]

In 2003, Gibbons became the department chair at Brigham Young University for the Department of Instructional Psychology and Technology in the David O. McKay School of Education.[10] During this time, the architectural design theory took its published form in a series of articles and a book.[11] Professor emeritus status was awarded in 2016. Gibbons continues to remain active in researching and writing on architectural design theory.

Gibbons' architectural design theory unifies what otherwise would appear to be separate threads of his work on design theory. The question had to be addressed early whether "theory" was an appropriate term to use referring to a system of design thinking. Gibbons supported his position that it was, citing the description of a uniquely design-related type of theory by Herbert Simon in Sciences of the Artificial.[12] Gibbons addressed the issue in a paper titled "Explore, explain, design"[13] with co-author C. Victor Bunderson. In this view, explanation, which is the goal of science, is carried out in search of theories about "how things work", leading ideally toward a hypothesized, unifying theory of everything; in contrast, research on design processes and principles is carried out in search of theories of "how things can be made to work". Vincenti,[14] Klir,[15] Edelson[16] and others describe research in engineering (design) that can lead to design theory that is distinct from scientific theory in several ways.

Overall, Gibbons' published work represents the gradual emergence of the architectural theory and then multiple attempts to demonstrate the viability of the theory by fleshing out details. His theory of model-centered instruction,[17] for example, separates two major concerns of instructional designers: content and strategy. The term "content" in this context refers to abstracted subject-matter and not media resources. Model-centered instruction proposes that the most appropriate form of content is a dynamic interactive model and that experiencing and exploring the model should be augmented by support of different types. This counters the common intuition that verbal and visual expressions of content are sufficient. Model-centering forces the designer to separate decisions about subject-matter from decisions about its expression (messaging and representation) and from the means of leading learners into interactions with it ("strategic" interaction). It leaves open the question of the means (expression controls) by which the learner might carry out the interactions.

Gibbons and his colleagues explored design considerations for simulations in the light of model-centering.[18] As the architectural theory emerged, this led to a description of how designers might use it as a tool to guide the production of simulation designs without relying on a process design model.[19]

In the early 1990s, the interests of large-scale training distributors turned toward standard approaches for producing and distributing technology-involved instruction on a massive scale. A standard plan for product modularization was considered by them to be a solution. The question was, which dimensions to standardize. The U.S. Department of Defense funded the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative and a large number of commercial interests subscribed to the IMS Global Learning Consortium. Each major project created a unique product packaging standard, with its own centralized data collection and learner management functions. Both standards are widely used.

Both modularization plans focus on software element interoperability rather than on design element interoperability. Both prescribe how products with disparate internal architectures can be placed into standardized software containers for distribution, in the same way that any standard DVD can be played on a standard DVD player. This was a production and distribution issue. Gibbons' responded to the modularization problem from the designer's point of view, taking into consideration the inner architecture of instructional experiences. He speculated that modularization based on the internal architecture of the artifact's "instructional" functions could lead to the creation of a pool of executive engine routines (applications) centered on the functions, rather than on the packaging of media products. Gibbons expects that future standards will evolve toward this new focus on artifact functionality, as the demand for more innovative and learner-responsive experiences increases, a view expressed in "The Nature and Origin of Instructional Objects".[20] (See also "The interplay of learning objects and design architectures".)[21]

In a different line of work, Gibbons and Langton conducted a two-year project to validate one of the claims of the architectural theory: the claim that for every functional design layer there are numerous theories from the literature of related design fields capable of informing design within that layer specifically. The control layer was selected for study, the layer within which the designer determines the kinds of expressive controls the learner will be given. An extensive literature review revealed a number of such theories that could improve the design of an interactive instructional control system.[22] This has encouraged further studies of additional layers.

As the architectural theory emerged, Gibbons proposed that, in addition to bodies of theory, there exist a pools of design language terms related to different layers and that the expertise of a designer can be expressed in terms of the designer's familiarity with the languages of the different layers. Moreover, from these languages individual designers and group designers draw their preferred stock of design constructs. A study of design languages of dancers and their expression through notation was described by Waters and Gibbons,[23] which demonstrated that design notation makes possible the public sharing of designs and the co-ordination of design concepts among design team participants.[24] Rather than being static, it was shown that pools grow and contract as terms fall into and out of use through innovation and that, though terms may be shared among design team members, the ultimate range of an individual designer is set by the individual's knowledge of terms in the pools or the ability to invent new terms.[25] This led to a proposal that designer training should expose novice designers to the existence of these terminologies and their usefulness in generating innovative designs within teams.

On the question of the comparison of theories, Gibbons and a team of collaborators studied a group of published instructional theories, seeking a basis for comparing them critically and in greater detail. This study revealed that theories had to be read in terms of the theorist's unwritten but implied conceptual categories, since theorists were found to use different terms when clearly referring to the same phenomena.[26]