Intro to Design Models
We describe the hypercomposition design model in our Primer because we regard this model as offering a general and adaptable perspective. There is more background to this perspective. The hypercomposition design model (Lehrer, 1993; Lehrer, Erickson & Connell, 1994) was developed from the model of writing proposed by Flower and Hayes (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Hayes & Flower, 1980). Part of the translation concerned an update to recognize the expanded tool set available to those wanting to express themselves and part a reinterpretation placing a greater emphasis on the learning opportunities provided the learner. Flower and Hayes effort was essentially an attempt to describe the behavior of expert practitioners. How do accomplished writers go about their work? We have worked from this perspective for many years.
We have watched as new media production capabilities have become more powerful, less expensive, and easier to use empowering some already experienced in a media format to discover and become advocates for the learning opportunities in the generative process of creating a media product. We have also begun to identify other examples of the proposal that the generative requirements of a particular task promote learning in domains, think content areas, not commonly associated with the task. So, for example, video capture and video editing capabilities make student video production, which some might describe as filmmaking, practical. Using media to tell stories, which can be regarded as a product incorporating specific literary characteristics, has been promoted as an activity with affordances in a wide variety of content areas. The idea of an affordance may be new to you. You might think of an affordance as an attribute that makes an action easier to performance. So in this case the argument might be that digital tools and media production environments offer opportunities that encourage productive cognitive processing.
Here is our concern. In the enthusiasm of discovering these possibilities, we sometimes wonder if new media advocates propose unique advantages that may be inappropriately discouraging to educators who interpret this enthusiasm to mean the teacher must find a way to incorporate filmmaking or stories created according to a specific structure in their curriculum. Maybe a web page consisting of text and appropriate images is sufficient to describe the result of a science experiment and much quicker to assemble. Maybe a research report is in fact more appropriate to developing an understanding of the process of scientific research and communication than attempting to turn the process of science into a story. Here is our perspective. Many “knowledge generation” processes follow a similar pattern. This pattern involves a sequence - get idea, plan, collect information, interpret and summarize, evaluate, and share. We propose this sequence with the caveat that often the process “breaks down” and requires refinement. The idea of refinement implies that one must double back to some earlier point, make an adjustment, and try it again. Obviously, this sequence resembles what we have already described as the writing process. We think it covers the work of practitioners in many fields and hence we suggest that mimicing some of the variations of this process allow learners the opportunity to engage in the authentic behavior of practitioners.