As a learning scientist I study learning as a fundamentally social, contextual, interactional, and agentive process.
While a great deal is known about how people solve problems, how they learn as they do so, and the characteristics that impact this process, comparatively little is known about how people learn as they frame problems. My research focuses on this aspect, seeking to understand problem framing processes and how these relate to learning, often in the context of engineering. Specifically, I study how people use their agency to make consequential decisions in problem framing; I term this “framing agency.”
Although design problem framing and framing agency are my core focus, my interdisciplinary stance paired with a belief that design is ubiquitous have positioned me to direct or support a variety of collaborative projects. These projects address:
Why study problem framing as a learning context?
Problem framing often occurs as the first steps in a design process, where the designer seeks information deliberately, generates ideas, and bounds the problem to be solved (Dorst & Cross, 2001; Svihla, 2020). It is a process that reifies one’s identity as a designer. These qualities make problem framing interesting as a learning context. Why then is problem framing relatively rare in educational settings? Authentic problem framing is typically iterative and unpredictable because design problems are ill-structured, meaning they have many possible solutions and solution paths (Jonassen, 2000), a characteristic that makes it challenging for instructors to manage, in part because it means shifting the locus of control to the learners. As such, problem framing is an agentive process.
My early work on problem framing provided empirical backing (Svihla, 2010; Svihla et al., 2009) for theory that posited a relationship between problem framing and creative solutions (Getzels, 1975). More recently, my focus has shifted to more directly contend with agency in problem framing. Broadly, I address the following research questions:
Why does framing agency matter in learning?
In my NSF CAREER award, I proposed to characterize framing agency, defined as opportunities to make decisions that are consequential to problem framing and attendant learning. My approach is distinctive in that I break from the classic structure-agency dialectic that often paints a pessimistic view in which structures are either enduring or resiliently reproduced (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Giddens, 1984; Sewell, 1992), instead taking a distributed and posthumanist stance that focuses on relationality. Thus, humans, materials, ideas, and structures have agency, and it is the interactions between them that reveal who—or what—contributes to how a problem is framed.
In articulating why a situated approach matters, I have drawn comparisons with self-efficacy (Svihla, Gomez, et al., 2019; Svihla & Peele-Eady, 2020; Svihla, Peele-Eady, et al., 2019): One’s self-efficacy (or confidence) in mathematics would not be assumed to be the same in other tasks like knitting, baseball, or abstract painting. Likewise, not all decisions are equivalent. Deciding what to wear or what to have for breakfast is not as consequential as choosing a college major, for instance. And this spectrum also exists when we consider the agency students have in their coursework. Even in project-based classrooms, students’ choices may be constrained to picking a topic from a menu of options, choose which sources to use, and selecting whether to present a poster or presentation. The kinds of decisions a designer makes in framing a problem are consequential, shaping the breadth of the problem, the stakeholders impacted by it, and its ultimate solution. And supporting students to learn the practices of problem framing and to use their agency to frame problems is complex indeed.
By comparing how undergraduate, senior biomedical engineering teams navigating problem framing, I characterized framing agency as it unfolds, interactionally and discursively (Svihla, Peele-Eady, et al., 2021). In this work, I adapted a discourse toolkit previously developed to analyze adults’ recollections about dropping out of and re-engaging in schooling (Konopasky & Sheridan, 2016). The contextual differences necessitated numerous changes in adapting this into the framing agency toolkit, including clarifying distinctions between first person pronouns “I” and “we”; identifying modal verbs of possibility that exemplify framing agency and its tentative nature; and identifying modal verbs of obligation (“need to,” “have to,” “must” and similar) that demonstrate misalignment with framing agency. The consistency of such language as a diagnostic for framing agency made it feasible for me to develop a tool that allows for processing of much larger data sets that is common in discourse analysis [The Framing Agency Coding Tool, http://www.vanessasvihla.org/tools.html], and with a colleague, we explored ways to further automate aspects of this kind of work, to help discourse analysts to select or compare selected transcript to a data corpus (Raihanian Mashhadi & Svihla, 2020). Another study, in press, on framing agency reports on our analysis of three iterations of a core course in chemical engineering in which we threaded a design challenge (Svihla, Gomez, et al., 2023). We varied how we structured student interactions, highlighting the importance of small changes on the development of framing agency.
Framing with materials
I take a posthumanist stance that extends the commonplace notion that designers converse with materials (Schön, 1992). I developed a framework to characterize three forms of conversations: being, in which materials are backgrounded; doing, in which materials are recruited to specifically function in a design; and becoming, in which material repurposing unfolds interactionally through exploration (Svihla, Tucker, et al., 2020). Using this framework, we showed how large, messy engineering design projects can be managed by students, supporting their agency (Gravel & Svihla, 2021). Recently, we merged discourse and interaction analysis with a posthumanist stance, writing the materials into the transcript and action to make better use of the framework (Wilson-Fetrow, Hsi, et al., 2023), a productive approach that has helped us articulate how materials push back when students design from an ambiguous or open frame.
Supporting framing agency
To support framing agency, I developed the Wrong Theory Protocol (WTP), an ideation technique that tasks designers with concisely defining the problem, generating harmful and humiliating ideas, then generating beneficial ideas. Initially, I collected evidence that pointed to the value of this approach, as students appeared to generate design ideas that were jointly creative and empathetic (Svihla & Kachelmeier, 2020a, 2020b). This fascinated me because some research suggests that interventions that promote empathy can come at a cost to creativity, inadvertently inducing fixation (Gray et al., 2015). I decided to conduct an experiment to more formally test WTP. As a comparison to WTP, students generated silly and impossible ideas. We found that when students generated humiliating ideas, their beneficial ideas were more creative and empathetic, suggesting that there may be latent value in humiliation (Svihla & Kachelmeier, 2022). I also shared this work broadly by recording a podcast series that was featured on National Public Radio:
The Framing Agency Survey
Complementary to the discourse work, I developed a survey to measure framing agency. I deliberately followed a research-based process (Dillman et al., 2016), including literature review, expert assessment of content validity (Svihla & Gallup, 2021), pilot testing and implementation, followed by exploratory factor analysis (Svihla, Gallup, et al., 2020), and a national study using confirmatory factor analysis (Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, & Olewnik, 2023). This resulted in a concise survey that provides data valid for studying relationships between framing agency and other constructs, like engineering identity, self-efficacy, and persistence intentions, as well as data for evaluating the educational impact of design experiences. Our ongoing work with the survey data uses structural equation modelling to explain variance in students’ persistence intentions. We found that while engineering identity and self-efficacy directly predict persistence intentions, students who report higher framing agency tend to report greater self-efficacy and sense of belonging (Wilson-Fetrow et al., In progress). These results underscore the importance of early and repeated design learning experiences.
Extending to consequential agency
Inspired by suggestions of expansions and seeking a framework to differentiate cookbook laboratory experiments from those that provide higher agency, we began adapting the survey and focus to consequential agency—opportunities for students to make consequential decisions in settings beyond problem framing. We contrasted iterations of a senior chemical engineering laboratory course to understand some of the ingredients that supported students to engage in more authentic laboratory experiments and to treat failure as endemic (Wilson-Fetrow, Chi, et al., 2022; Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, Burnside, et al., 2023; Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, et al., 2022). Based on this work, we received an NSF grant to systematically examine ways to enhance student agency in such courses while keeping the experiments feasible for faculty to enact. Similarly, to characterize diverse students’ experiences in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), we developed a survey that included some of the framing agency items, along with items developed to measure cultural compatibility as a facet of identity, in another recent study in which we modeled Indigenous identity in STEM persistence (Chow-Garcia et al., 2022). By bringing these constructs together, we found that while research identity and self-efficacy positively predicted intent to persist in research experiences, in turn, consequential agency and cultural compatibility explained variance in research identity and self-efficacy.
While a great deal is known about how people solve problems, how they learn as they do so, and the characteristics that impact this process, comparatively little is known about how people learn as they frame problems. My research focuses on this aspect, seeking to understand problem framing processes and how these relate to learning, often in the context of engineering. Specifically, I study how people use their agency to make consequential decisions in problem framing; I term this “framing agency.”
Although design problem framing and framing agency are my core focus, my interdisciplinary stance paired with a belief that design is ubiquitous have positioned me to direct or support a variety of collaborative projects. These projects address:
- assessing aspects of learning or development that are otherwise difficult to measure;
- designing/framing organizational change in higher education; and
- intersectional power dynamics as theory for identifying potent sites of action and redesign.
Why study problem framing as a learning context?
Problem framing often occurs as the first steps in a design process, where the designer seeks information deliberately, generates ideas, and bounds the problem to be solved (Dorst & Cross, 2001; Svihla, 2020). It is a process that reifies one’s identity as a designer. These qualities make problem framing interesting as a learning context. Why then is problem framing relatively rare in educational settings? Authentic problem framing is typically iterative and unpredictable because design problems are ill-structured, meaning they have many possible solutions and solution paths (Jonassen, 2000), a characteristic that makes it challenging for instructors to manage, in part because it means shifting the locus of control to the learners. As such, problem framing is an agentive process.
My early work on problem framing provided empirical backing (Svihla, 2010; Svihla et al., 2009) for theory that posited a relationship between problem framing and creative solutions (Getzels, 1975). More recently, my focus has shifted to more directly contend with agency in problem framing. Broadly, I address the following research questions:
- How might instructors facilitate high agency learning?
- How do learners use and distribute their agency as they navigate learning and problem framing processes?
Why does framing agency matter in learning?
In my NSF CAREER award, I proposed to characterize framing agency, defined as opportunities to make decisions that are consequential to problem framing and attendant learning. My approach is distinctive in that I break from the classic structure-agency dialectic that often paints a pessimistic view in which structures are either enduring or resiliently reproduced (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Giddens, 1984; Sewell, 1992), instead taking a distributed and posthumanist stance that focuses on relationality. Thus, humans, materials, ideas, and structures have agency, and it is the interactions between them that reveal who—or what—contributes to how a problem is framed.
In articulating why a situated approach matters, I have drawn comparisons with self-efficacy (Svihla, Gomez, et al., 2019; Svihla & Peele-Eady, 2020; Svihla, Peele-Eady, et al., 2019): One’s self-efficacy (or confidence) in mathematics would not be assumed to be the same in other tasks like knitting, baseball, or abstract painting. Likewise, not all decisions are equivalent. Deciding what to wear or what to have for breakfast is not as consequential as choosing a college major, for instance. And this spectrum also exists when we consider the agency students have in their coursework. Even in project-based classrooms, students’ choices may be constrained to picking a topic from a menu of options, choose which sources to use, and selecting whether to present a poster or presentation. The kinds of decisions a designer makes in framing a problem are consequential, shaping the breadth of the problem, the stakeholders impacted by it, and its ultimate solution. And supporting students to learn the practices of problem framing and to use their agency to frame problems is complex indeed.
By comparing how undergraduate, senior biomedical engineering teams navigating problem framing, I characterized framing agency as it unfolds, interactionally and discursively (Svihla, Peele-Eady, et al., 2021). In this work, I adapted a discourse toolkit previously developed to analyze adults’ recollections about dropping out of and re-engaging in schooling (Konopasky & Sheridan, 2016). The contextual differences necessitated numerous changes in adapting this into the framing agency toolkit, including clarifying distinctions between first person pronouns “I” and “we”; identifying modal verbs of possibility that exemplify framing agency and its tentative nature; and identifying modal verbs of obligation (“need to,” “have to,” “must” and similar) that demonstrate misalignment with framing agency. The consistency of such language as a diagnostic for framing agency made it feasible for me to develop a tool that allows for processing of much larger data sets that is common in discourse analysis [The Framing Agency Coding Tool, http://www.vanessasvihla.org/tools.html], and with a colleague, we explored ways to further automate aspects of this kind of work, to help discourse analysts to select or compare selected transcript to a data corpus (Raihanian Mashhadi & Svihla, 2020). Another study, in press, on framing agency reports on our analysis of three iterations of a core course in chemical engineering in which we threaded a design challenge (Svihla, Gomez, et al., 2023). We varied how we structured student interactions, highlighting the importance of small changes on the development of framing agency.
Framing with materials
I take a posthumanist stance that extends the commonplace notion that designers converse with materials (Schön, 1992). I developed a framework to characterize three forms of conversations: being, in which materials are backgrounded; doing, in which materials are recruited to specifically function in a design; and becoming, in which material repurposing unfolds interactionally through exploration (Svihla, Tucker, et al., 2020). Using this framework, we showed how large, messy engineering design projects can be managed by students, supporting their agency (Gravel & Svihla, 2021). Recently, we merged discourse and interaction analysis with a posthumanist stance, writing the materials into the transcript and action to make better use of the framework (Wilson-Fetrow, Hsi, et al., 2023), a productive approach that has helped us articulate how materials push back when students design from an ambiguous or open frame.
Supporting framing agency
To support framing agency, I developed the Wrong Theory Protocol (WTP), an ideation technique that tasks designers with concisely defining the problem, generating harmful and humiliating ideas, then generating beneficial ideas. Initially, I collected evidence that pointed to the value of this approach, as students appeared to generate design ideas that were jointly creative and empathetic (Svihla & Kachelmeier, 2020a, 2020b). This fascinated me because some research suggests that interventions that promote empathy can come at a cost to creativity, inadvertently inducing fixation (Gray et al., 2015). I decided to conduct an experiment to more formally test WTP. As a comparison to WTP, students generated silly and impossible ideas. We found that when students generated humiliating ideas, their beneficial ideas were more creative and empathetic, suggesting that there may be latent value in humiliation (Svihla & Kachelmeier, 2022). I also shared this work broadly by recording a podcast series that was featured on National Public Radio:
- Episode 1: https://www.kunm.org/public-affairs/2020-04-06/wrong-theory-protocol-ep-1-the-science-of-great-ideas
- Episode 2: https://www.kunm.org/public-affairs/2020-04-13/wrong-theory-protocol-ep-2-pursuing-catastrophic-failure
- Episode 3: https://www.kunm.org/science/2020-04-20/wrong-theory-protocol-ep-3-ambitious-and-wicked-problems
- Episode 4: https://www.kunm.org/science/2020-04-27/wrong-theory-protocol-ep-4-getting-started-problem-solving
The Framing Agency Survey
Complementary to the discourse work, I developed a survey to measure framing agency. I deliberately followed a research-based process (Dillman et al., 2016), including literature review, expert assessment of content validity (Svihla & Gallup, 2021), pilot testing and implementation, followed by exploratory factor analysis (Svihla, Gallup, et al., 2020), and a national study using confirmatory factor analysis (Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, & Olewnik, 2023). This resulted in a concise survey that provides data valid for studying relationships between framing agency and other constructs, like engineering identity, self-efficacy, and persistence intentions, as well as data for evaluating the educational impact of design experiences. Our ongoing work with the survey data uses structural equation modelling to explain variance in students’ persistence intentions. We found that while engineering identity and self-efficacy directly predict persistence intentions, students who report higher framing agency tend to report greater self-efficacy and sense of belonging (Wilson-Fetrow et al., In progress). These results underscore the importance of early and repeated design learning experiences.
Extending to consequential agency
Inspired by suggestions of expansions and seeking a framework to differentiate cookbook laboratory experiments from those that provide higher agency, we began adapting the survey and focus to consequential agency—opportunities for students to make consequential decisions in settings beyond problem framing. We contrasted iterations of a senior chemical engineering laboratory course to understand some of the ingredients that supported students to engage in more authentic laboratory experiments and to treat failure as endemic (Wilson-Fetrow, Chi, et al., 2022; Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, Burnside, et al., 2023; Wilson-Fetrow, Svihla, et al., 2022). Based on this work, we received an NSF grant to systematically examine ways to enhance student agency in such courses while keeping the experiments feasible for faculty to enact. Similarly, to characterize diverse students’ experiences in course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), we developed a survey that included some of the framing agency items, along with items developed to measure cultural compatibility as a facet of identity, in another recent study in which we modeled Indigenous identity in STEM persistence (Chow-Garcia et al., 2022). By bringing these constructs together, we found that while research identity and self-efficacy positively predicted intent to persist in research experiences, in turn, consequential agency and cultural compatibility explained variance in research identity and self-efficacy.
Extending to change agency, contending with intersectional power dynamics
In another extension, supported by an NSF grant to investigate organizational change projects from the inside, we analyzed the agency of faculty involved in such projects (Svihla, Davis, et al., 2022). We identified that faculty change agents meet their peers where they are, even when they must contend with misalignment with the project aims. Doing so helps recruit more faculty as change agents (Davis et al., under review). This also builds upon our account of organizational change management as an iterative and improvable (Kang et al., 2022) and also power-laden process (Davis et al., 2021).
In light of these successes, we began an NSF grant, GATHER, that aimed to form and study change agency in a community of transformation (CoT), inviting faculty engaged justice-focused organizational change efforts. This project is grounded in our insight that such change work depends on theories of organizational change, situated learning, and intersectional power (Svihla, Davis, et al., 2023). We conjectured that speculative design/narratives, which intentionally critique the present, can build commitment to making change; that remixing, which involves making changes to existing narratives, can support members to envision and analyze near-term changes and outcomes; and that futurism, which involves crafting new, visionary narratives, can support members to hold tight to DEIJ commitments even as they face barriers. We engaged CoT members in creative writing—a collective renga poem, a dark futures story, and choose your own adventure stories of change projects gone-right and wrong, as well as arts-based practices—a quilt, protest art, zines, and graphic novels. Despite the success of this project, it was unlawfully terminated in March, 2025. See more of my own protest art and rage-quilting here and here.
In another extension, supported by an NSF grant to investigate organizational change projects from the inside, we analyzed the agency of faculty involved in such projects (Svihla, Davis, et al., 2022). We identified that faculty change agents meet their peers where they are, even when they must contend with misalignment with the project aims. Doing so helps recruit more faculty as change agents (Davis et al., under review). This also builds upon our account of organizational change management as an iterative and improvable (Kang et al., 2022) and also power-laden process (Davis et al., 2021).
In light of these successes, we began an NSF grant, GATHER, that aimed to form and study change agency in a community of transformation (CoT), inviting faculty engaged justice-focused organizational change efforts. This project is grounded in our insight that such change work depends on theories of organizational change, situated learning, and intersectional power (Svihla, Davis, et al., 2023). We conjectured that speculative design/narratives, which intentionally critique the present, can build commitment to making change; that remixing, which involves making changes to existing narratives, can support members to envision and analyze near-term changes and outcomes; and that futurism, which involves crafting new, visionary narratives, can support members to hold tight to DEIJ commitments even as they face barriers. We engaged CoT members in creative writing—a collective renga poem, a dark futures story, and choose your own adventure stories of change projects gone-right and wrong, as well as arts-based practices—a quilt, protest art, zines, and graphic novels. Despite the success of this project, it was unlawfully terminated in March, 2025. See more of my own protest art and rage-quilting here and here.
Supporting design learning by activating funds of knowledge and connecting to querencia
As the architect of our successful NSF Revolutionizing Engineering Departments grant with UNM’s Chemical and Biological Engineering (CBE) department, I directed numerous studies into our approach, which positioned students’ informal, cultural, and everyday experiences—their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992)—as relevant to their learning in design challenges. For instance, we found that community-inspired design challenges helped students from rural New Mexico communities to be positioned as having relevant expertise (Gomez & Svihla, 2018). Building on students’ funds of knowledge contributed to their persistence intentions (Chen et al., 2022). We showed that first-year students actually developed more sophisticated problem framing skills when their funds of knowledge were activated, compared to seniors who’d experienced a technically-focused, traditional curriculum (Svihla, Chen, et al., 2022). From this body of work, we synthesized the educative design problem framework (Svihla, Wilson-Fetrow, et al., 2021).
Recently, we have brought more attention to the role of place using the northern New Mexican construct of querencia, a Spanish word that lacks an adequate translation in English. Querencia communicates complex notions of safety, kinship, belonging to place, being from a place, and relationships and responsibilities to place, even if history suggests a convoluted and challenging story (Fonseca-Chávez, et al., 2020). By situating engineering issues as relevant to local communities and supporting students to frame design problems, we can help students recognize ways they can contribute as engineers (Lopez-Parra, et al., 2025).
As the architect of our successful NSF Revolutionizing Engineering Departments grant with UNM’s Chemical and Biological Engineering (CBE) department, I directed numerous studies into our approach, which positioned students’ informal, cultural, and everyday experiences—their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992)—as relevant to their learning in design challenges. For instance, we found that community-inspired design challenges helped students from rural New Mexico communities to be positioned as having relevant expertise (Gomez & Svihla, 2018). Building on students’ funds of knowledge contributed to their persistence intentions (Chen et al., 2022). We showed that first-year students actually developed more sophisticated problem framing skills when their funds of knowledge were activated, compared to seniors who’d experienced a technically-focused, traditional curriculum (Svihla, Chen, et al., 2022). From this body of work, we synthesized the educative design problem framework (Svihla, Wilson-Fetrow, et al., 2021).
Recently, we have brought more attention to the role of place using the northern New Mexican construct of querencia, a Spanish word that lacks an adequate translation in English. Querencia communicates complex notions of safety, kinship, belonging to place, being from a place, and relationships and responsibilities to place, even if history suggests a convoluted and challenging story (Fonseca-Chávez, et al., 2020). By situating engineering issues as relevant to local communities and supporting students to frame design problems, we can help students recognize ways they can contribute as engineers (Lopez-Parra, et al., 2025).