Advertisement

Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 17–32 | Cite as

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

  • Yeongmahn You
Research

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.

Keywords

System Design Nonlinear System Educational Technology Dynamic Nonlinear System Theoretical Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1978).The art of problem solving. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R. L. (1981).Creating the corporate culture. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Banathy, B. H. (1991).Systems design of education: A journey to create the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Barlas, Y., & Carpenter, S. (1990). Philosophical root of model validation: Two paradigms.Systems Dynamics Review, 6(2), 148–166.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Boyd, R. (1972). Determinism, laws, and predictability in principle.Philosophy of Science, 39, 431–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brady, L. (1983).Curriculum development in Australia. Sydney: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Brown, D. (1988). Twelve middle-school teachers' planning.The Elementary School Journal, 89, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, J. M. (1990).The Nurnberg funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Checkland, P. B. (1981).Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990).Soft systems methodology in action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Cunningham, D. J. (1971). Task analysis and part versus whole learning methods.AV Communication Review, 19(4), 365–398.Google Scholar
  21. Cziko, G. A. (1989). Unpredictability and indeterminism in human behavior: Arguments and implications for educational research.Educational Researcher, 18(3), 17–25.Google Scholar
  22. Davies. M. (1976). Systems theory and social work. In J. Beshon & G. Peters (Eds.),Systems behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a post-modern curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 243–253.Google Scholar
  26. Dowding, T. (1991). Managing chaos (or how to survive the instructional development process).Educational Technology, 31(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Driscoll, M. P. (1985). An alternative paradigm for research in instructional systems.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(4), 2–5.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Ennis, C. D. (1992). Reconceptualizing learning as a dynamic system.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 115–130.Google Scholar
  32. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991).Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Fredericksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional problem-solving.Review of Educational Research, 54, 363–496.Google Scholar
  34. Gleick, J. (1987).Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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)Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Hayles, N. K. (1990).Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Johnson, K. A., & Foa, L. J. (1989).Instructional design: New alternatives for effective education and training. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Jonassen, D. H. (1990). Thinking technology: Chaos in instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(2), 32–34.Google Scholar
  47. Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning.Educational Technology, 31(9), 28–33.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Kember, D., & Murphy, D. (1990). Alternative new directions for instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(8), 42–47.Google Scholar
  50. Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design.Instructional Science, 10, 363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction.British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–48.Google Scholar
  52. Kerr, S. T (1991). Lever and fulcrum: Educational technology in teachers' thought and practice.Teachers College Record, 93(1), 114–136.Google Scholar
  53. 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)Google Scholar
  54. King, J. W. (1991).Chaos, communication, and educational technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  55. Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1985). The dynamics of successful feedback.Performance and Instruction, 24(8), 4–6.Google Scholar
  56. Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1987). The four faces of feedback.Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 33–36.Google Scholar
  57. Leshin, C. B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992).Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Lilienfeld, R. (1978).The rise of systems theory: An ideological analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  59. 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.Google Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. Linn, R. L. (1984). Educational testing and assessment.American Psychologist, 41, 1153–1160.Google Scholar
  62. Macy, J. (1991).Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory: The Dharma of natural systems. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  63. Mandelbrot, B. (1983).The fractal geometry of nature. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  64. Mandelbrot, B. (1990). Fractals: A geometry of nature.New Scientist, 127(1734), 38–43.Google Scholar
  65. Martin, B. L. (1990). Teacher planning processes: Does ISD make a difference?Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 53–73.Google Scholar
  66. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it.The Elementary School Journal, 81, 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Lin (Ed.),Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989).The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  70. Oliver, D. W. (1989).Education, modernity, and fractured meaning: Toward a process theory of teaching and learning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  71. Patton, M.Q. (1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. Piajet, J. (1977).The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  74. Popper, K. R. (1979).Objective knowledge. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Prawat, R. S. (1992). Teachers' belief about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective.American Journal of Education, 100(3), 385–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984).Order out of chaos: Man's dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  77. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Richey, R. C. (1993). Instructional design theory and a changing field.Educational Technology, 33(2), 16–21.Google Scholar
  81. 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
  82. Rockler, M. J. (1990–1991). Thinking about chaos: Non-quantitative approaches to teacher education.Theory into Practice, 12(4), 56–62.Google Scholar
  83. Romiszovski, A. J. (1981).Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page. New York: Nichols.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar
  85. 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
  86. Sawada, D., & Caley, M. T. (1985). Dissipative structures: New metaphors for becoming in education.Educational Researcher, 14(3), 13–19.Google Scholar
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. Schon, D. A. (1991).The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  90. Shavelson, R. (1983). Review of research on teachers' pedagogical judgments, plans, and decisions.The Elementary School Journal, 83, 392–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shepard, L. A. (1990, April).Psychometrician's beliefs about learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  92. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems.Artificial Intelligence, 4, 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simon, H. A. (1981).The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Stone, M. A. (1989). Chaos, prediction and Laplacean determinism.American Philosophical Quarterly, 26(2), 123–131.Google Scholar
  98. 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.Google Scholar
  99. 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
  100. 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.Google Scholar
  101. Sutherland, J. W. (1973).A general systems philosophy for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  102. 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
  103. Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
  104. Tyler, R. W. (1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968).General systems theory. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  106. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment.Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713.Google Scholar
  107. Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Winn, W. (1975). An open-system model of learning.Audio Visual Communication Review, 23(1), 5–33.Google Scholar
  109. Winn, W. (1990). Some implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Instructional Science, 19, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Yinger, R. J. (1979). Routines in teacher planning.Theory into Practice, 18, 163–169.Google Scholar
  111. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning.The Elementary School Journal, 80, 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yeongmahn You
    • 1
  1. 1.the Department of Educational Research at Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations