Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, the “goodness of fit” between ISD and chaos theory is explored by applying the key concepts of chaos theory to the process of developing an alternative ISD model. After a brief introduction to chaos theory and an exploration of the limitations of and/or the problems with conventional ISD models, the theoretical implications for developing an alternative ISD model are explored. The assumptions of a conventional ISD model are compared to those of chaos theory and dynamic nonlinear systems in order to derive theoretical implications and recommendations for future research and practice in instructional systems design and development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1978).The art of problem solving. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1981).Creating the corporate culture. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applefield, J. M. (1992). ID knowledge structure, lesson planning and teacher performance. In M. R. Simonson & K. Jurasek (Eds.),14th annual proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1992 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 1–12). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1987). Instructional systems design. In R. M. Gagn' (Ed.).Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 85–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1991).Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlas, Y., & Carpenter, S. (1990). Philosophical root of model validation: Two paradigms.Systems Dynamics Review, 6(2), 148–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 88–101). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R. (1972). Determinism, laws, and predictability in principle.Philosophy of Science, 39, 431–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, L. (1983).Curriculum development in Australia. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. C., Darwazeh, A. N., & El-Hindi, A. E. (1992). Instructional design practice and teacher planning routines. In M. R. Simonson & K. Jurasek (Eds.),14th annual proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1992 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 86–94). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989).Turbulent mirror: An illustrated guide to chaos theory and the science of wholeness. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (1988). Twelve middle-school teachers' planning.The Elementary School Journal, 89, 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Kennedy, M. F. (1988).Instructional development: A conceptual approach. Paper presented at the 18th National Conference on Instructional Technology Education in Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

  • Carroll, J. M. (1990).The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, C. B. (1979). Why educational technology is failing (and what should be done to create success).Educational Technology, 19(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981).Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990).Soft systems methodology in action. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chieuw, J. (1991).An alternative approach to educational planning based on a conceptual framework of the educational system as dynamic: A theoretical study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, D. J. (1971). Task analysis and part versus whole learning methods.AV Communication Review, 19(4), 365–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research.Educational Researcher, 18(3), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies. M. (1976). Systems theory and social work. In J. Beshon & G. Peters (Eds.),Systems behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. C. W. (1988).The cosmic blueprint: New discoveries in nature's creative ability to order the universe. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. E. (1988). Curriculum beyond stability: Schon, Prigogine, Piajet. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.),Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 114–133). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a post-modern curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, T. (1991). Managing chaos (or how to survive the instructional development process).Educational Technology, 31(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresden, M. (1992). Chaos: A new scientific paradigm—or science by public relations?: An historically oriented pedagogical essay, Part I.The Physics Teacher, 30(1), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (1985). An alternative paradigm for research in instructional systems.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(4), 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (1991). Paradigms for research in instructional systems. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 310–317). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R. S. (1992). The use of instructional design skills in the mental and written planning processes of teachers. In M. R. Simonson & K. Jurasek (Eds.),14th annual proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1992 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 204–218). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, C. D. (1992). Reconceptualizing learning as a dynamic system.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991).Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredericksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional problem-solving.Review of Educational Research, 54, 363–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. (1987).Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L. (1971, March).Toward a definition of instructional development. Paper presented to the Instructional Development Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Philadelphia.

  • Hacker, J., & Hathaway, W. (1991).Toward extended assessment: The big picture. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 337 494)

  • Hannafin, M. J. (1985). The status and future of research in instructional design and technology.Journal of Instructional Development, 8(3), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (1991). The status and future of research in instructional design and technology revisited. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 302–309). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (1990).Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (1991). Introduction: Complex dynamics in literature and sciences. In N. K. Hayles (Ed.),Chaos and order: Complex dynamics in literature and science (pp. 1–33). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (Eds.). (1991).Paradigm regained: The use of illuminative, semiotic and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, R. S. (1989).A chaotic paradigm: An alternative world view of the foundations for educational inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hug, W. E., & King, J. E. (1984). Educational interpretations of general systems theory. In R. K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds.),Instructional development: The state of the art, II (pp. 18–28). Dubuque, IA: Kendal/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Pearson, R. (1992). Problem identification techniques: So what's the problem. In M. R. Simonson & K. Jurasek (Eds.),14th annual proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1992 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 325–335). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. A., & Foa, L. J. (1989).Instructional design: New alternatives for effective education and training. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Chaos in instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(2), 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(8), 42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design.Instructional Science, 10, 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction.British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T (1991). Lever and fulcrum: Educational technology in teachers' thought and practice.Teachers College Record, 93(1), 114–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieren, T.E., Olson, A.T., & Sawada, D. (1990, April).A note on determinism and predictability in education research and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 194)

  • King, J. W. (1991).Chaos, communication, and educational technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida.

  • Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1985). The dynamics of successful feedback.Performance and Instruction, 24(8), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1987). The four faces of feedback.Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leshin, C. B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992).Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, R. (1978).The rise of systems theory: An ideological analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, J. S. (1989, February).Chaos theory: Implications for educational research. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Savannah, Georgia.

  • Lindsay, L. S. (1991, February).The chaos pattern in Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Boston.

  • Linn, R. L. (1984). Educational testing and assessment.American Psychologist, 41, 1153–1160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macy, J. (1991).Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory: The Dharma of natural systems. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B. (1983).The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandelbrot, B. (1990). Fractals: A geometry of nature.New Scientist, 127(1734), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. L. (1990). Teacher planning processes: Does ISD make a difference?Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it.The Elementary School Journal, 81, 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Lin (Ed.),Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P. (1992). When technology meets the subject-matter disciplines on education. Part one: Explaining the computer as metaphor.Educational Technology, 32(6), 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, D. W. (1989).Education, modernity, and fractured meaning: Toward a process theory of teaching and learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, F. L., & Paulson, P. R. (1991, April).The ins and outs of using portfolios to assess performance. Expanded version of a paper presented at the Joint Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education and the National Association of Test Directors, Chicago.

  • Piajet, J. (1977).The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1979).Objective knowledge. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' belief about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective.American Journal of Education, 100(3), 385–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984).Order out of chaos: Man's dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Mory, E. H. (1991). An examination of the systematic planning techniques of two experienced teachers.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1992).Designing instruction for the adult learner: Systemic training theory and practice. London: Kogan Page. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1993). Instructional design theory and a changing field.Educational Technology, 33(2), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockler, M. J. (1990–1991). Thinking about chaos: Non-quantitative approaches to teacher education.Theory into Practice, 12(4), 56–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszovski, A. J. (1981).Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page. New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1986, January).What your professor never told you about the mundane practice of instructional design. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Las Vegas.

  • Sage, A. P. (1977). A case for a standard for systems engineering methodology:IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyberntics, 7(7), 499–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., & Caley, M. T. (1985). Dissipative structures: New metaphors for becoming in education.Educational Researcher, 14(3), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. Jonassen (Ed.),Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 7–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1987).Educating the reflective practioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. A. (1991).The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. (1983). Review of research on teachers' pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions.The Elementary School Journal, 83, 392–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (1990, April).Psychometrician's beliefs about learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems.Artificial Intelligence, 4, 145–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1981).The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarada, C. A., & Freeman, W. J. (1987). How the brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world.Behavioral and Brain Science, 10, 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988).Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains (Technical Report No. 441). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Vispoel, W. P., Schmitz, J. G., Samarapungavan, A., & Boerger, A. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glynn. (Eds.).Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. A. (1989). Chaos, prediction and Laplacean determinism.American Philosophical Quarterly, 26(2), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streibel, M. J. (1991a).Instructional design and human practice: What can we learn from Habermas' theory of technical and human interests? Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida.

  • Streibel, M. J. (1991b). Instructional plans and situated learning: The challenge of Suchman's theory of situated action for instructional designer and instructional systems. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, future (pp. 117–132). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R. F. (1983).Toward an integrative open-systems model of instructional development in educational and non-educational organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

  • Sutherland, J. W. (1973).A general systems philosophy for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E. (1989). Self-organization in developmental processes: Can systems approaches work. In M. R. Gunnar and E. Thelen (Eds.),Systems and development (pp. 77–115). The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968).General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment.Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1975). An open-system model of learning.Audio Visual Communication Review, 23(1), 5–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R. J. (1979). Routines in teacher planning.Theory into Practice, 18, 163–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning.The Elementary School Journal, 80, 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zessoules, R., & Gardner, H. (1991). Authentic assessment: Beyond the buzzword and into the classroom. In V. Perrone (Ed.),Expanding student assessment (pp. 47–71). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Department of Educational Research at Florida State University, USA

    Yeongmahn You

Authors
  1. Yeongmahn You
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

You, Y. What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. ETR&D 41, 17–32 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297355

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02297355

Keywords

Search

Navigation