Second-order cybernetics, learning design and design theory

"She was lovelier from learning ... And from living, loving more" - Gene Clark

I am interested in the relationship between second-order cybernetics, learning design and design theory/methods. In the future I would like to see more programs to support reflective learning design and for these to be based on sound design theory and ethical practice (see below). LAMS is a great beginning and I would like to see further programs with repositories and technologies such as case-based reasoning to help educators make best use of existing resources. The following paragraphs are an adapted extract from a paper by Bernard Scott, Simon Shurville, Piers Maclean and Chunyu Cong, which is due for publication in Kybernates.

In the discourse of second-order cybernetics, von Foerster coined the term ‘metaphysical’ to describe domains whose navigation requires participant observers to perform value judgements in selecting a problem-setting framework and a set of guiding principles (von Foerster, 1991). Such metaphysical domains contrast to more trivial domains where apparently objective agents can navigate via deterministic problem-solving methodologies (von Foerster, 1991). This distinction has a parallel in design research, where Rittel and Webber (Rittel and Webber, 1973) drew a distinction between ‘tame’ and ‘wicked’ domains. In tame domains, problems come pre-framed such that an apparently objective agent can apply deterministic procedures to solve them. In wicked domains, the framing of a problem by participant observers is a fundamental part of addressing it. Further, a genuinely wicked problem contains irreducible moral, political and professional dimensions which participant observers must take into account. This distinction between tame and wicked problems was re-invented by others working in adjacent domains, such as the systems thinkers Ackoff (1974) and Checkland (1981).

Design researchers such as Archer (1979), Broadbent and Ward (1969) and Jones (1977) appreciated the distinction between tame and wicked problems. They also recognized that the majority of design methods that had been developed during a well-funded period of research following the Second World War were aimed at tame domains (Cross, 1984). These researchers rose above these highly procedural first-generation design methods and began to develop second-generation design methods, which were structured yet acknowledged the personal values and histories of socially situated designers (for further history, see Cross, 1984). Hence, we suggest that there are many design-domains, which can, depending on the observer’s context, equally well be described as metaphysical or wicked. This is useful because it provides a cross-disciplinary bridge and enables research and praxis to be ported to and fro between cybernetics and design.

In a forthcoming paper Bernard Scott, Piers Maclean, Chunyu Cong and I argue that learning design for TEL constitutes a metaphysical domain which yields wicked problems that require second-order sensibilities and second generation design methods. We have two reasons to make this claim. First, learning design for TEL is extremely complicated. It requires “interdisciplinary collaboration across the disciplines of learning, cognition, information and communication technologies (ICT) and education, and the broader social sciences” (TLRP, 2006) and hence requires diligent professionalism (MacLean and Scott, 2006). Second, since learning design ultimately involves the education of real people, its moral, political and professional dimensions cannot be eliminated. So addressing problems in learning design for TEL in an ethical fashion (c.f. von Foerster, 1991) requires learning designers to recognise that they are socially situated, participant observers who need to tame problems with well-founded and appropriately structured methodologies.

I explored design theory and artificial intelligence in depth in my thesis (Shurville, 1998) and would like to return to the area in the context of information systems to support learning design.

References

• Ackoff, R. (1974). Re-defining the Future. London: John Wiley and Sons.


• Archer, B. (1979) Whatever Became of Design Methodology, Design Studies, Volume 1. Number 1, pp 17-18.


• Broadbent and Ward (1969) Design Methods in Architecture, London: Lund Humpheries Publishers Ltd.


• Checkland, P. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester Sussex: John Wiley and Sons.


• Cross, N. (ed.) (1984) Developments in Design Methodology, New York, John Wiley and Sons.


• Jones, J.C. (1977) How My Thoughts About Design Methods have Changed During the Years. Design Methods and Theories, Volume 11, number 1, pp 50-62.


• MacLean, P.J., and Scott, B.C.E. (2006) Learning Design: Requirements, Practice and Prospects. In: K. Fernstrom and K. Tsolakidis, eds. Readings in Technology in Education: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Communications Technologies in Education 2006, 6-8 July 2006 Rhodes. Abbotsford, BC: UCFV Press, 152-156.


• Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155-69.


• Shurville, S. (1998) Method Oriented Design Environments in Knowledge-Aided Design. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Brighton.


• Teaching and Learning Research Programme, (2006) Announcement of Forthcoming ESRC/EPSRC Call for Research on Technology Enhanced Learning: Understanding, creating, and exploiting digital technologies for learning. Retrieved January 19, 2007 from: http://www.tlrp.org/tel/.


• von Foerster, H. (1991) Ethics and Second-Order Cybernetics. In Rey, Y. and Prieur, B. (eds) Systemes, ethiques: Perspectives en therapie familiale (Paris: ESF Editeur, 1991) 41-54.