The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0368-492X.htm

Cybernetic
Cybernetic principles principles for
for learning design learning design
Bernard Scott, Simon Shurville, Piers Maclean and Chunyu Cong
Defence Academy, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, UK 1497
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to present an approach from first principles to the design of learning
experiences in interactive learning environments, that is “learning designs” in the broadest sense.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach is based on conversation theory (CT), a theory of
learning and teaching with principled foundations in cybernetics. The approach to learning design
that is proposed is not dissimilar from other approaches such as that proposed by Rowntree. However,
its basis in CT provides a coherent theoretical underpinning.
Findings – Currently, in the world of e-learning, the terms “instructional design” and “learning
design” are used to refer to the application of theories of learning and instruction to the creation of
e-learning material and online learning experiences. The paper examines the roots of the two terms
and discusses similarities and differences in usage. It then discusses how the processes of learning
design fit into the larger processes of course, design, development and delivery. It goes on to examine
the concept of a “learning design pattern”.
Originality/value – The paper contends that, whilst learning design patterns are useful as
starting-points for individual learning designs, learning designers should adopt the cybernetic
principles of reflective practice – as expressed in CT – to create learning designs where received
wisdom is enriched by contextual feedback from colleagues and learners.
Keywords Cybernetics, Learning, Design
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
In this paper, we explore the relationship between the disciplines of cybernetics and
design with specific and practical application to the interdisciplinary praxis of learning
design for technology enhanced learning (TEL), which encompasses a range of topics
from other disciplines including learning theory to software engineering (Koper and
Olivier, 2004; Koper and Tattersall, 2005; MacLean and Scott, 2006). By learning design
for TEL, we refer to the application of theories of learning and instruction to the
creation of material resources and online learning experiences for training and
education that will be mediated by information and communications technologies (this
is explored in detail below). We focus on conversation theory (CT) (Pask and Scott,
1972). We describe how the cybernetic approach of CT provides both a principled
foundation and a structured methodology for the discipline of learning design for TEL.
Given our specific concerns with learning design, we do not address at length the
relationship between cybernetics and design in general. For such a discussion, we refer
the reader to Glanville in this special issue. We do, however, briefly discuss how CT, as
a second order reflexive theory, can be used to characterise designers in any domain of Kybernetes
Vol. 36 No. 9/10, 2007
practice as reflective participant observers. We do this by making explicit the parallels pp. 1497-1514
between second-order cybernetics (von Foerster, 1984) and second-generation design q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0368-492X
methods (Cross, 1984). CT be seen as a second-generation design method, which DOI 10.1108/03684920710827445
K provides principled guidelines to help socially situated and reflective designers to tame
36,9/10 problems in multi-disciplinary and ethically challenging domains.
The paper is structured as follows. First, we trace the evolution of learning design
from its origins in the instructional design programme of the Second World War to the
internet era. Second, we explore cybernetic principles for learning design by explaining
the purpose and practice of CT. Third, we demonstrate how CT can be applied in the
1498 practical context of course, design, development and delivery. We then discuss
learning design patterns, which are an emerging specialised application of design
theory with substantial influences from the cybernetic tradition (Alexander, 1972,
1978; Alexander et al., 1978). We contend that, whilst learning design patterns are
useful as starting points for individual learning designs, learning designers should
adopt the cybernetic principles of reflective practice – as expressed in CT as a second
order reflexive theory – to create learning designs where received wisdom is enriched
by contextual feedback from colleagues and learners.

2. Instructional design, learning design and conversation theory

Currently, in the domain of TEL, the terms instructional design and learning design are
used relatively interchangeably to refer to the application of theories of learning and
instruction to the creation of material resources and online learning experiences. This
section examines the roots of the two terms and discusses similarities and differences
in usage. We conclude that learning design is the more generic term and that it
encompasses both first and second order theories of human learning and first and
second-generation design methods. We advocate the use of the term in TEL and
beyond to encompass all aspects of the design of learning experiences.

2.1 Origins of instructional design

The origins of the term instructional design can be traced back to the USA during the
Second World War. In order to achieve swift military success, the USA required a rapid
and effective means of preparing its armed forces personnel for their combat roles.
Among the people recruited by the US Department of Defence to assist in the task were
well established research psychologists with an interest in learning theory. Building on
the work of early twentieth century, educational thinkers such as John Dewey and
Robert Thorndike (Reigeluth, 1983, p. 27) the psychologists investigated how systems
engineering principles could be combined with learning theory to develop effective
training and instruction on a large-scale. Their research resulted in a systems approach
(Dijkstra et al., 1997) to the design of instructional materials which focussed on
defining the training requirement at an early stage of a development lifecycle borrowed
from the systems engineering model of analyse, document, design, and develop.
Intended learning goals, expressed in terms of expected performance of a specified
task, were analysed and broken down into component tasks. These tasks became
learning goals for which learning experiences were designed and developed. Delivery
methods were decided upon during the development cycle and media and
communications technologies were frequently selected to deliver the results of these
design processes. This approach equates to a procedural first-generation design
method, as discussed above. However, training military personnel for combat is clearly
a wicked problem as it contains moral, political and professional dimensions
(the relationship between cognitive psychology and morality in this context is Cybernetic
discussed in depth by DeLanda (1992)). principles for
Owing to its success in wartime training, the instructional systems approach was
widely adopted in North America and Europe during the 1950s and 1960s. It is learning design
interesting to note the investment in applied cybernetics and design theory during the
same period and their influence upon and influence by the new sciences of information
technology (Heims, 1991; Edwards, 1996). Information technology took on a new 1499
importance in education in this period and much emphasis was placed on the potential
use of teaching machines in the classroom. Programmed learning, a highly structured
and sequenced teaching method based on behaviourist theory, was introduced into
schools. It was largely due to the work of the psychologists B. F. Skinner,
Jerome Bruner, and David Ausubel, that programmed learning and the systems
approach evolved into the discipline of instructional design (Reigeluth, 1983). At first,
the new discipline continued to be oriented towards the behaviourist theories of
Thorndike (1911) and, later, Skinner (1954). However, research into how humans learn
continued and inspired the development of new theories. The most significant of these
for instructional design were the cognitive theories of Ausubel, Bruner and others
which led to a steady drift away from behaviourism. Among those drawn to a
cognitivist orientation were many individuals who had played leading roles in the
development of instructional design theory including Robert Gagné Robert Glaser and
Gordon Pask (Dijkstra et al., 1997). We suggest that this movement was heading
towards a second-order and second-generation approach[1].

2.2 Origins of learning design

Learning design’s origins as a term associated with TEL are obscure and its use is
somewhat confusing. It first appears in the literature of psychology and education in
North America during the 1960s and 1970s (Moment and Zaleznik, 1963; Schmuck and
Schmuck, 1974) where, learning design is occasionally used as a singular noun to
describe a method of instruction for a particular learning session. Later, it is expressed
as “a format that structures the process of learning by providing a framework of
orderly steps for acquiring knowledge, attitudes, or skills” (Mouton and Blake, 1984)
and it is in the context of designing conventional learning that it continued to be used
until the late 1990s. Again, this approach carries some hallmarks of procedural
first-generation design method, as discussed above.
In the mid-1990s, learning design started to become associated with the design of
learning that would harness the promise of the internet and “the several attributes of
the Superhighway and PCs that can be utilised to facilitate learning” (Riding and
Rayner, 1995). The internet offered a relatively low cost and democratic medium that
enabled some of the more constructivist minded researchers, typified by Duffy and
Jonassen (1992) to join the mainstream of TEL. Only after Jay Cross coined the
expression e-learning in 1998 does learning design appear to be closely associated with
the creation of online learning resources, online learning experiences and now TEL.
From this time, it starts to be used, often interchangeably, with instructional design in
commercial and educational contexts relating to e-learning and loses its association
with traditional pedagogy. Britain (2004, p. 2) redresses the imbalance to point out that
“designing for learning” is not a new concept and learning design is, in fact, part of
everyday teaching practice.
K A major driver for the increased use of the term learning design in a TEL context
36,9/10 was the development of the Instructional Management System Learning Design
(IMS LD) specification released in 2003. IMS LD aims to expand upon and remedy
perceived shortfalls in earlier e-learning specifications, such as ADL SCORM[2] with its
roots in instructional design practice[3]. The IMS LD specification sets out to represent
the “learning design” of traditional teaching sessions – “units of learning” – “in a
1500 semantic, formal and machine interpretable way” (Koper and Olivier, 2004). Koper
(2006, p. 13) unambiguously states that the key principle in learning design is “that it
represents the learning activities and the support activities that are performed by
different persons (learners, teachers) in the context of a unit of learning”. This concept
effectively extends the scope of the teacher – the designer of learning – to take
advantage of technology-based environments as another area where learning can occur.
Instructional design is a clearly defined and established discipline aimed at “aiding
the process of learning rather than the process of teaching” and the creation of
“intentional learning” rather than “incidental” learning (Gagné et al., 2005, p. 2).
Instructional design theory is design oriented and is a theory that “offers explicit
guidance in how to help people learn and develop” (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 5), which is, as
we have suggested above, very close to first-order cybernetics and first-generation
design. This explicit guidance has been successfully applied in many situations as
evidenced in Reigeluth (1983, 1999) but has mainly been concerned with designing
training materials for individual learners. How usable is it in scenarios such as
academic learning? Laurillard (2002) identifies several inadequacies in the model
originally published by Gagné in 1965. She argues that it has probably been well
received because of its logical structure but is flawed because it lacks an empirically
grounded theory and, while it might be explicit in how to design learning, Laurillard
suggests that it builds on supposition. The implications here are that Gagné’s and
other instructional design models are suitable for straightforward and limited learning
scenarios and that while they might answer questions about how to learn they fail to
look deeper. The fifth edition (2005, p. 20) of Gagné’s work appears to refute this view
and suggests that instructional systems design is sufficiently capable of being used to
create very advanced learning environments. To us, this type of controversy indicates
that both sides either explicitly or tacitly appreciate the need for second-order
cybernetics and second-generation design methods in the domain. Such advocates of
constructivist approaches to TEL already existed on both sides of the Atlantic
(Pask and Scott, 1973; Duffy and Jonassen, 1992) but, it could be argued, prevailing
belief systems, particularly in the USA, had rather marginalised them in a similar way
that, for example, neural networks and associated philosophies (McCulloch, 1988) had
been eclipsed by expert systems and associated philosophies (Simon, 1969; Edwards,
1996). Just as there was a renaissance in neural networks (Rumelhart and McClelland,
1993) and systems thinking (Kauffman, 1993) in the 1990s, a balance started to be
restored in TEL when Laurillard (1993, 2002) brought light to a considerably different
approach to learning design in its broader sense that also encompasses the use of
technology. The approach was aimed at higher education students and sought to
understand the ways in which students experience learning. In contrast to the
“transmission of knowledge” model found in much instructional design, she uses a
theory of “conversational frameworks” to give an account of how active interaction
between teacher and student in the form of dialogue about tasks set can lead to
effective learning. This approach is based directly on Pask’s CT (Pask and Scott, 1972). Cybernetic
We will explore CT and its applications in the next sections. principles for
learning design
2.3 Learning design as the superset of instructional design?
When viewed from the above perspective, it can be clearly seen that instructional
design can be a highly didactic and prescriptive subset of the potential domain of
learning design. For these reasons, we propose the use of learning design as the more
1501
generic term and that, in the diverse world of TEL, instructional designers should more
aptly refer to themselves as learning designers. At risk of over simplification, we feel
that instructional design equates closely with first-order cybernetics and
first-generation design methods, while learning design also encompasses the more
metaphysical second-order cybernetic approach and second-generation design
methods. We propose that learning design should be adopted as the preferred
generic term. Such adoption extends its current standard usage (Koper and Tattersall,
2005) and also indicates the level of situated skill which we believe is a pre-requisite for
professional learning design. We therefore advocate that professional learning
designers adopt the kind of second-order cybernetic approaches and second-generation
design methods exemplified by CT.

3. Cybernetic principles for learning design

CT, as developed by Pask and Scott (1973), originated from a cybernetics framework
and attempts to explain learning in living organisms, organisations and machines. The
power of CT is that it encompasses and unifies many different theories of learning and
teaching[4]. It can be applied in any education or training context for the design of both
individual and group learning scenarios. CT takes as its starting point the concept of a
self-organising system (SOS) (Ashby, 1947; von Foerster, 1960) that adapts, habituates
and learns[5]. It goes on to describe human-machine and human-human interactive as
the synergistic composition of SOSs into a larger whole (Pask, 1996).
Underlying assumptions of CT include the following. The brain/body system is a
dynamic self-organising, “variety eating” adaptive and habituating system, subject to
boredom and fatigue. As Pask (1968, p. 137) puts it, “Man is a system that needs to
learn” thus the problem of motivation is not “that we learn” it is rather what is learned
and why. The basic mechanisms that support learning and adaptation are the various
forms of conditioning that take place in associative networks (parallel distributed
systems), with attentional systems subject to sensory-motor feedback (including
proprioception and kinaesthesia) and algedonic (pain, pleasure) feedback. Thus,
cognition is inseparable from affect: to think is to feel[6]. For humans, learning is also
about the construction of symbolic representations, subject to constraints of logical
coherence, acquired through the medium of dialogic, conversational interaction and the
inner dialogic processes of strategic and tactical attention directing. In conversation,
narrative forms are constructed and exchanged. What is memorable is that which can
be “taught back” (Pask and Scott, 1972). Remembering is understood as a dynamic
process of reconstruction that is always contextualised and social.
CT has become fairly widely known in the UK through the writings of Laurillard
(1993, 2002) and Harri-Augstein and Thomas (1991). However, their accounts are fairly
superficial, failing to capture the full depth and richness of CT and its applications
K (see Burt, 2004, for a critique along these lines; see Scott, 1993, 2001, for accessible
36,9/10 overviews of CT).
It is useful to introduce CT by considering the interaction between a teacher and a
learner where a specific subject domain is being addressed. The theory can be
generalised to adumbrate more general, many person interactions and conversations
where the topic addressed may be many levelled and may evolve in open-ended ways.
1502 Indeed, in CT, the conversation itself may be a topic of conversation.
Some key ideas from CT are shown in Figure 1, the “skeleton of a conversation”.
Notice the distinction between verbal, “provocative” interaction (questions and
answers) from behavioural interaction via a shared modelling facility or “micro-world”.
The horizontal connections represent the verbal exchanges. Pask argues that all
such exchanges have, as a minimum, two logical levels. In the figure, these are shown
as the two levels: “how” and “why”. The “how” level is concerned with how to “do” a
topic: how to recognise it, construct it, maintain it and so on; the “why” level is
concerned with explaining or justifying what a topic means in terms of other topics.
The vertical connections represent causal connections with feedback, an hierarchy
of processes that control or produce other processes. At the lowest level, in the control
hierarchy, there is a canonical world, a “universe of discourse” or “modelling facility”
where the teacher may instantiate or exemplify the topic by giving non-verbal
demonstrations. Typically, such demonstrations are accompanied by verbal
commentary about “how” and “why”. In turn, the learner may use the modelling
facility to solve problems and carry out tasks set. He or she may also provide verbal
commentary about “how” and “why”.
Note that the form of what constitutes a canonical “world” for construction and
demonstration is itself subject to negotiation and agreement. Here, a brief example will
have to suffice.

Teacher Learner
Receives of offers Receives of offers
explanation in terms Why questions explanation in terms
Why?
of relations between and responses of relations between
topics topics

Receives
Offers demonstrations
How questions demonstrations,
or elicits models and How?
and responses builds models or
problem solutions
solves problems

Modelling facility for performance of

Figure 1. tasks such as model building and problem
The “skeleton of a solving
conversation”
Source: Scott (2001)
Consider topics in chemistry. A teacher may: Cybernetic
.
model or demonstrate certain processes or events; principles for
.
offer explanations of why certain processes take place; learning design
.
request that a learner teaches back his or her conceptions of why certain things
happen;
.
offer verbal accounts of how to bring about certain events; 1503
.
ask a learner to provide such an account; and
.
ask a learner to carry out experiments or other practical procedures pertaining to
particular events or processes.

A learner may:
.
request explanations of why;
. request accounts of how;
.
request demonstrations;
.
offer explanations of why for commentary;
.
offer explanations of how for commentary; and
.
carry out experiments and practical activities.

Pask refers to learning about “why” as comprehension learning and learning about
“how” as operation learning. and conceives them both as being complementary aspects
of effective learning. These distinctions allow Pask to give a formal definition of what
it means to understand a topic. Understanding a topic means that the learner can
“teachback” the topic by providing both non-verbal demonstrations and verbal
explanations of “how” and “why”.
Pask notes that conversations may have many levels coordination above the why
level: levels at which conceptual justifications are themselves justified and where there
is “commentary about commentary”. Harri-Augstein and Thomas make this notion
central in their work on self-organised learning, where the emphasis is on helping
students “learn to learn”.
In brief, they propose that a full “learning conversation” has three main
components:
(1) conversation about the how and why of a topic, as in the basic Pask model;
(2) conversation about the how of learning (for example, discussing study skills
and reflecting on experiences as a learner); and
(3) conversation about purposes, the why of learning, where the emphasis is on
encouraging personal autonomy and accepting responsibility for one’s own
learning.

3.1 A framework for course design

The framework for course design that we propose is not dissimilar to other approaches
such as that proposed by Rowntree (1990). However, its basis in CT provides a
coherent theoretical underpinning, three central features of which are:
K (1) the assessment of understanding based on “teachback” procedures (first
expounded in Pask and Scott, 1972), both for formative and summative
36,9/10 assessment purposes;
(2) the use of a sophisticated knowledge and task structure elicitation and
representation methodology (Pask et al., 1975; Scott, 1999); and
(3) a well articulated theory of scaffolding and adaptive teaching (Lewis and Pask,
1504 1965; Patel et al., 2001.)

The framework has four major components:

(1) a description of course aims and desired learning outcomes;
(2) a specification of course content, describing knowledge and skills and desired
learning experiences;
(3) specification of the learning designs and tutorial strategies to be employed,
including sequencing of learning experiences, choice of media and the role of
dialogic interactive activities designed to encourage and reinforce effective
learning; and
(4) the assessment strategy to be used (for both formative and summative
assessment).

The essential principles of good quality course design can be summarized as follows:
.
There should be a clear mapping between the statements of learning outcomes
and the specification of course content.
.
An analysis of course content should be carried out in order to specify
appropriate learning designs and tutorial strategies.
.
There should be a clear mapping between course content and assessment
activities which preserves the mapping between learning outcomes and course
content.

These ideas are shown in Figure 2[7].

4. Course design, development and delivery
Our account of the practice of learning design would not be complete without our
positioning it within the larger context of the business processes that constitute course
design, development and delivery. These processes are shown in Figure 3. In contrast
to some other design domains, the aesthetic quality, beauty or elegance of a learning
design is predominantly an aspect of its form as a pedagogically effective support for
learning. Other qualities, such as representational attractiveness are secondary. If the
principles of good course design are not adhered to, a particular learning design,
presented as a pleasing to look at and entertaining to interact with piece of multimedia,
may be pedagogically inferior compared to a learning designs presented as text and
simple graphics.

5. Second-order cybernetics and second-generation design methods

Within the discourse of second-order cybernetics[8], von Foerster (1991) coined the
term “metaphysical” to describe domains whose navigation requires participant
observers to perform value judgements in selecting a problem-setting framework
 Cybernetic
principles for
learning design

1505

learning course tutorial assessment

outcomes content strategies procedures Figure 2.
A framework for course
Note: All items of any of the four components should map on to corresponding design
items of other components

Perceived need for a

new or revised course

1. Needs Analysis
Population, Context, Business Case

10. Evaluation 2. Specify Aims and

Summative Assessments, Student Learning Outcomes
Feedback, Staff Feedback, Reporting Performance, Cognitive,
and Dissemination Attitudinal

9. Implementation 3. Specify Course

Start-up Support, Course Structure
Management, Maintenance Sequencing, Signposting

8. Development 4. Specify Content

Support Systems, Implementation Knowledge and Task Analysis
Plan, Learning Resouroes

7. Specify Assessment Procedures 5. Specify Learning Designs

Tasks, Delivery, Analysis, Feedback Activities, Formative Assessment, Use of Media

6. Specify Student and Tutor Support Systems

Induction, Study Guide, Tutor Guide, Student/Tutor Communication,
Course Team Communication, Tutor Mentoring and Monitoring

C o urs e D e si g n Figure 3.
Course design,
Any of the above activities may take place in parallel. At any stage of the design process, the outcome development and delivery
may be revised in the light of experience as indicated by the anti-clockwise arrows.
K and a set of guiding principles. Such metaphysical domains are contrasted with
36,9/10 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 (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
1506 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 (see Cooley, 1980, for an account of such
professional issues in the context of design). 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 (see also Papanek, 1984; Grudin,
1990, for parallel discussion of design and ethics). 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. We 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” (Teaching and Learning Research Programme, 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 ignored. So addressing problems in learning design
for TEL in an ethical fashion (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.

6. Learning design patterns

To bring the discussion of cybernetics, design and learning design up to date we would
like to discuss how the tenets of second order cybernetics and second-generation
design methods can enhance the application of learning design patterns, which are an
increasingly popular innovation in the praxis of learning design for TEL (Mor and
Winters, 2007).
The concept of a “design pattern” originated as a second-generation design method
in the domain of architecture. The architect and design theorist, Christopher Alexander
observed that “timeless” structures tend to contain recurrent patterns of features that Cybernetic
can be thought of as recurring solution to common problem in a particular contexts. principles for
A design pattern:
learning design
. . . describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then
describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution
a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice (Alexander et al., 1977, p. x).
1507
Alexander and his colleagues published a guide to 253 patterns, in each case
illustrating contexts for use and recommending partner patterns. For example,
Alexander defined the pattern “arcade” as pattern number 119. An arcade is a covered
walkway at the edge of one or more buildings, which is partly within and partly
without and which plays a defining role in how people will interact with some
building(s). Alexander offers the advice that arcades should be used, at the very least,
to provide covered paths between buildings. Importantly, Alexander also suggests that
designers consider the arcade pattern in the context of three other patterns, viz.
“cascade of roofs” “circulation realms” and “pedestrian street”. These patterns, in turn,
suggest other useful patterns for use in context. The task of selecting and adapting an
appropriate bricolage of patterns for a particular context remained a meaningful and
interpretive assignment that depended upon the values and experience of the designer.
Applying design patterns should be an example of what Jones termed “designing
designing” (Jones, 1991), i.e. a reflexive and reflective praxis. Thus, in the context of the
current narrative, the process of applying design patterns is suited to navigating
metaphysical domains and also qualifies as a second-generation design method. There
is also an aesthetic dimension to design patterns as successful patterns tend to capture
and engender aesthetic pleasure on the parts of the designer and the end-users (Jordon,
2000). Particular aesthetics might be visible within the finished artefact or they could
be found in the process of design itself or within a particular production process or, as
noted and emphasised above, in the perceived pedagogical effectiveness of the design.
Alexander was mindful of cybernetic principles and thus embedded design patterns
in a reflective and participative tradition with Taoist influences (Alexander et al., 1977;
Alexander, 1979). So, it is important to grasp that Alexander’s patterns are not
designed as recipes. As Alexander (1979, p. 19) notes:
. . . there is a central quality which is the root criterion of life and spirit in man, a town, a
building, or a wilderness. This quality is objective and precise, but it cannot be named. The
search which we make for this quality, in our own lives, is the central search of any person,
and the crux of any individual person’s story. It is the search for those moments and
situations when we are most alive.
So Alexander’s patterns capture wisdom as a spur for contemplation and inspiration in
a way that is reminiscent of texts such as the I-Ching (Wilhelm and Baynes, 1989)
whose application requires a reflective participant observer. Comparable experiences
are recounted by Pye (1978) in his exegesis of how designers approach their work.
Reflective practice has been discussed in detail by Schön (1983). Schön (1987) explores
the relationship between reflective practice, design and education.
Since, the 1990s design patterns have been extremely influential in software
engineering (Gamma et al., 1995), project management (Brown et al., 2000) and knowledge
management (Huges, 2006). We observe that as design patterns have passed through
the software engineering mindset, logical positivism has influenced practice such that
K some treat them as recipes or even a mere “generative grammar”. For example, Hughes
36,9/10 (2006) takes a knowledge management approach to design patterns and regards them as
“knowledge assets” that can be entered, stored and retrieved via a knowledge-based
system. We consider this approach naı̈ve because, for example, Hughes (2006, p. 14)
recommends that “whoever manages or administers usability testing within an enterprise
. . . prepares for design sessions by searching the KMS for relevant patterns and
1508 presenting those patterns during the design sessions” and “enters new patterns into the
KMS after every usability test and to cross-reference existing patterns if appropriate with
the newly acquired data”. Searching a knowledge base is, in principle, comparable to
search a book. However, we suggest that Hughes and others who take a knowledge
management approach to design patterns accredit an implicit authority in the
knowledge-base and in the pattern matching abilities of knowledge-based systems.
Moreover, deriving new patterns from isolated experiences is contrary to an approach that
distilled knowledge from “timeless structures”. This is not to discredit Hughes’ approach.
Rather, the contents of the knowledge base are probably better regarded as use cases, i.e.
descriptions of how a user might approach a particular function performed by a software
system (Bittner and Spence, 2002), instead of design patterns. However, the example does
demonstrate that design knowledge is sometimes reified into design patterns which are
also erroneously used in a first order, first generation mode where they are perceived as
prefabricated methods rather than as inspirations to individual reflective design.
Design patterns have also migrated from software engineering to learning design
for TEL (Anthony, 1996; Eckstein et al., 2002; Garzotto et al., 2004; Goodyear, 2004;
Koper and Tattersall, 2005; Bailey et al., 2006; Mor and Winters, 2007). The literature
reviews associated with this migration tend to mention the origin of design patterns in
design research as well as their success in software engineering, project management
and knowledge management. However, the move towards logical positivism, reified
knowledge and a first-order, first-generation approach to design processes and the role
of the designer as a reflective participant observer goes unmentioned. Projects such as
E-LEN, have produced online repositories of learning design patterns (E-LEN, 2005).
However, although the home page of the E-learning Design Patterns Repository places
learning design patterns in the context of the quote by Alexander which we cited in the
beginning of this section, we are concerned that learning designers will regard such
putative learning design patterns as authoritative and complete rather than as spurs to
action for reflective participant observers. Moreover, in many cases the individual
learning design patterns are based on isolated experiences (pace Hughes, 2006). We
contend that such learning design patterns are closer to use cases and are thus useful
starting points for individual learning designs.
CT, as evidenced by the forms of learner – teacher interaction imminent in Figure 1,
is a rich source of learning design patterns and can also be used retrospectively to
bring order to a wide variety of individual use cases (Pask, 1975, 1976). The authors of
this paper are working to apply CT to the current world of learning design for TEL,
including the development of a conceptually coherent taxonomy of learning designs
(Maclean, 2007).
Beyond those applications of CT, we recommend that learning designers adopt the
cybernetic principles embedded in reflective practice, as exemplified by CT, to create
learning designs where received wisdom is enriched by contextual feedback from
colleagues, mentors and learners. Indeed, we have found within our own practice that
CT can be used to structure such conversations and reflective processes. At the lower Cybernetic
levels of CT, participants can discuss the opportunities and outcomes of selecting and principles for
applying learning particular design patterns in concrete contexts. As participants
climb the hierarchy of CT, the process can become more reflective such that learning design
abstractions and helpful generalizations emerge. In summary, we believe that when
learning designers create new learning design patterns, the outcomes of “the central
search of any person, and the crux of any individual person’s story” (Alexander, 1979, 1509
p. 19) must remain irreducible elements of a living tradition. Similarly, learning
designers need to perceive themselves as participant observers operating ethically in a
metaphysical domain throughout the praxis of applying existing patterns.

7. Some concluding comments

In this paper, we have used a cybernetically formulated theory of learning and teaching
(CT) as a basis for a discussion of what is learning design and what is learning design
practice. In particular, we have compared second-order cybernetics and
second-generation design methods to demonstrate a theoretical and practical
mutualism between these disciplines. We have noted how the concept of a design
pattern has migrated into the world of learning designs and indicated how CT can
bring order to the business of creating and classifying learning designs. Finally, we
have suggested that learning designers (indeed, designers of any kind) can usefully
apply CT to their own practice as reflective, participant observers.

Notes
1. Pask (1972) provides an early, spirited attack on the limitations of instructional design as
then practiced.
2. Advanced Distributed Learning Systems’ Shareable Content Object Reference Model.
“SCORM is a collection of standards and specifications adapted from multiple sources to
provide a comprehensive suite of e-learning capabilities that enable interoperability,
accessibility and reusability of Web-based learning content” available at: www.adlnet.gov/
scorm/index.cfm (accessed 28 January 2007.)
3. For more information about specifications and standards for TEL see the website of the UK’s
Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (CETIS). www.cetis.ac.
uk (accessed April 2007.)
4. Pask (1968) defines teaching in cybernetic terms as “the control of learning”.
5. Cybernetics deals with control and communication in complex systems that adapt, evolve
and learn. For summaries of the principles underlying cybernetics, see Ashby (1956) and the
websites www.cybsoc.org/ and http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ (both accessed April 2007.)
6. See also D’Amasio (1999) on this topic.
7. Biggs (1999), in a separate development, makes similar proposals with respect to the need for
course components to be “constructively aligned”.
8. Von Foerster (Von Foerster et al., 1974) distinguishes between first order cybernetics (the
study of observed systems) and second order cybernetics (the study of observing systems).

References
Ackoff, R. (1974), Re-defining the Future, Wiley, London.
Alexander, C. (1979), The Timeless Way of Building, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
K Alexander, C., Silverstein, M. and Ishikawa, S. (1977), A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings,
Construction, Center for Environmental Structure Series, Oxford University Press,
36,9/10 New York, NY.
Anthony, D.L. (1996), “Patterns for classroom education”, available at: http://ianchaiwriting.
50megs.com/classroom-ed.html (accessed 20 January 2007).
Archer, B. (1979), “Whatever became of design methodology”, Design Studies, Vol. 1 No. 1,
1510 pp. 17-18.
Ashby, W.R. (1947), “Principles of the self-organizing dynamic system”, Journal of General
Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 125-8.
Ashby, W.R. (1956), An Introduction to Cybernetics, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bailey, C., Conole, G.i., Davis, H.C., Fill, K. and Zalfan, M.T. (2006), “Panning for gold: designing
pedagogically-inspired learning nuggets”, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 9,
pp. 113-22.
Biggs, J. (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning Buckingham, Society for Research in Higher
Education/Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bittner, K. and Spence, I. (2002), Use Case Modeling, Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.
Britain, S. (2004), “A review of learning design: concept, specifications and tools”, A Report for
the JISC e-Learning Pedagogy Programme, available at: www.jisc.ac.uk (accessed 18
February 2006).
Broadbent, G. and Ward, A. (1969), Design Methods in Architecture, Lund Humphries Publishers
Ltd, London.
Brown, W.J., McCormick, H.W. III and Thomas, S.W. (2000), Anti Patterns in Project
Management, Wiley, New York, NY.
Burt, G. (2004), “The conceptual degeneration of sophisticated knowledge: how others have used
Gordon Pask’s work”, Principled Discourse, Note 13, available at: http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/g.
j.burt/main.htm (accessed March 2006).
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.
Cooley, M. (1980), Architectt or Bee? The Human/Technology Relationship, South End Press,
Boston, MA.
Cross, N. (1984), Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley, New York, NY.
D’Amasio, A. (1999), The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of
Consciousness, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.
DeLanda, M. (1992), War in the Age of Intelligent Machines, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dijkstra, S., Schott, F., Seel, M. and Tennyson, R.D. (1997), Instructional Design: International
Perspectives,Vol. 1, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1992), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:
A Conversation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Eckstein, J., Bergin, J. and Sharp, H. (2002), “Patterns for active learning”, available at: http://csis.
pace.edu/ , bergin/patterns/ActiveLearningV24.html (accessed 20 January 2007).
Edwards, P.N. (1996), The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War
America, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
E-LEN (2005), “E-LEN: a network of e-Learning centres”, available at: www2.tisip.no/E-LEN/
(accessed 20 January 2007).
Gagné, R.M., Wager, W.W., Golas, K.C. and Keller, J.M. (2005), Principles of Instructional Design,
5th ed., Wadsworth/Thomson, Belmont, CA.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995), Design Patterns, Addison-Wesley, Cybernetic
New York, NY.
principles for
Garzotto, F., Retalis, S., Papasalouros, A. and Siassiakos, K. (2004), “Patterns for designing
adaptive/adaptable educational hypermedia”, Advanced Technology for Learning, Vol. 1. learning design
Goodyear, P. (2004), “Patterns, pattern languages and educational design”, paper presented at
ASCILITE Conference Perth, http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/
goodyear.pdf (accessed 20 January 2007). 1511
Grudin, R. (1990), The Grace of Great Things: Creativity and Innovation, Ticknor and Fields,
New York, NY.
Harri-Augstein, S. and Thomas, L.F. (1991), Learning Conversations, Routledge, London.
Heims, S.J. (1991), Constructing a Social Science for Postwar America: Cybernetics Group,
1946-53, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hughes, M. (2006), “A pattern language approach to usability knowledge management”, Journal
of Usability Studies., No. 2, pp. 76-90.
Jones, J.C. (1977), “How my thoughts about design methods have changed during the years”,
Design Methods and Theories, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 50-62.
Jones, J.C. (1991), Designing Designing, Phaidon Press Ltd, London.
Jordon, P. (2000), Designing Pleasureable Products: An Introduction to New Human Factors,
Taylor and Francis, London.
Kauffman, S.A. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Koper, R. (2006), “Current research in learning design”, Educational Technology and Society,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Koper, R. and Olivier, B. (2004), “Representing the learning design of units of learning”,
Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 97-111.
Koper, R. and Tattersall, C. (2005), Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering
Networked Education & Training, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Laurillard, D. (1993), Rethinking University Teaching, Routledge, London.
Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd ed., Routledge Falmer, London.
Lewis, B.N. and Pask, G. (1965), “The theory and practice of adaptive teaching systems”, in
Glaser, R. (Ed.), Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning,Vol. II, Nat. Educ. Assoc.,
Washington, DC, Data and Directions, pp. 213-66.
McCulloch, W.S. (1988), Embodiments of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Maclean, P.J. (2007), A Conceptually and Methodologically Well-Grounded Taxonomy of Learning
Designs, unpublished research proposal, Centre for the Support of Flexible Learning,
Cranfield University, UK Defence Academy, Cranfield.
MacLean, P.J. and Scott, B.C.E. (2006), “Learning design: requirements, practice and prospects”,
in Fernstrom, K. and Tsolakidis, K. (Eds), Readings in Technology in Education:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Communications Technologies
in Education, UCFV Press, Abbotsford, BC, 6-8 July, Rhodes, pp. 152-6.
Moment, D. and Zaleznik, A. (1963), Role Development and Interpersonal Competence: An
Experimental Study of Role Performances in Problem-Solving Groups, Harvard University
Press, Harvard, MA.
Mor, Y. and Winters, N. (2007), “Design approaches in technology enhanced learning”, Interactive
Learning Environments., Vol. 15 No. 1.
K Mouton, J.S. and Blake, R.R. (1984), “Principles and designs for enhancing learning”, Training
and Development Journal, Vol. 38 No. 12, p. 60.
36,9/10
Papanek, V. (1984), Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, Themes and
Hudson, London.
Pask, G. (1968), “Man as a system that needs to learn”, in Stewart, D. (Ed.), Automation Theory
and Learning Systems, Academic Press, London, pp. 137-208.
1512 Pask, G. (1972), “Anti-hodmanship: a report on the state and prospect of CAI”, Programmed
Learning and Ed. Tech., Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 235-44.
Pask, G. (1975), Conversation, Cognition and Learning, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Pask, G. (1976), Conversation Theory: Applications in Epistemology and Education, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Pask, G. (1996), “Heinz Von Foerster’s self organisation: the progenitor of conversation and
interaction theories”, Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 349-62.
Pask, G. and Scott, B. (1972), “Learning strategies and individual competence”, Int.
J. Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 217-53.
Pask, G. and Scott, B. (1973), “CASTE: a system for exhibiting learning strategies and regulating
uncertainty”, Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 17-52.
Pask, G., Kallikourdis, D. and Scott, B. (1975), “The representation of knowables”, Int.
J. Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 15-134.
Patel, A., Scott, B. and Kinshuk (2001), “Intelligent tutoring: from SAKI to Byzantium”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 30 Nos 5/6, pp. 807-18.
Pye, D. (1978), The Nature and Aesthetics of Design, The Herbert Press, London.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.) (1983), Instructional Design Theories and Models: An Overview of Their
Current Status, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of
Instructional Theory,Vol. 2, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Riding, R.J. and Rayner, S. (1995), “The information superhighway and individualised learning”,
Educational Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 365-78.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973), “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155-69.
Rowntree, D. (1990), Teaching through Self-Instruction: How to Develop Open Learning Materials,
Kogan Page, London.
Rumelhart, D.E. and McClelland, J.L. (1993), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the
Microstructure of Cognition, MIT press, Cambridge, MA.
Schmuck, P.A. and Schmuck, R.A. (1974), A Humanistic Psychology of Education: Making The
School Everybody’s House, National Press Books, London.
Schön, D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,
Boston, MA.
Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and
Learning, Jossey Bass Wiley, San Francisco, CA.
Scott, B. (1993), “Working with Gordon: developing and applying conversation theory
(1968-1978)”, Systems Research, Vol. 10, pp. 167-82.
Scott, B. (1999), “Knowledge content and narrative structures”, in Pemberton, L. and Shurville, S.
(Eds), Words on the Web: Language Aspects of Computer Mediated Communication,
Intellect Books, Exeter, pp. 13-24.
Scott, B. (2001), “Conversation theory: a constructivist, dialogical approach to educational Cybernetic
technology”, Cybernetics & Human Knowing, Vol. 8 No. 4.
Simon, H.A. (1969), The Science of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
principles for
Skinner, B.F. (1954), “The science of learning and the art of teaching”, Current Trends in
learning design
Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme (2006) Announcment of Forthcoming
ESRC/EPSRC Call for Research on Technology Enhanced Learning: Understanding, 1513
creating, and exploiting digital technologies for learning, available at: www.tlrp.org/tel/
(accessed 19 January 2007).
Thorndike, E.L. (1911), Animal Intelligence, York University, Toronto, available at: http://
psychclassics.yorku.ca (accessed 19 February 2006).
von Foerster, H. (1960), “On self-organising systems and their environments”, in Yovits, M. and
Cameron, S. (Eds), Self-Organising Systems, Pergamon Press, London, pp. 31-50.
von Foerster, H. (1984), “On constructing a reality”, in Watzlawick, P. (Ed.), The Invented Reality:
How Do We Know What We Believe We Know?, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
von Foerster, H. (1991), “Through the eyes of the other”, in Steier, F. (Ed.), Research and
Reflexivity, Sage, London, pp. 63-75.
von Foerster, H., et al. (Eds) (1974), Cybernetics of Cybernetics, BCL Report 73.38, Biological
Computer Laboratory, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Wilhelm, R. and Baynes, C.F. (1989), I Ching or Book of Changes, Arkana, Paris, (translator).

Further reading
Avgeriou, P., Papasalouros, A., Retalis, S. and Skordalakis, M. (2003), “Towards a pattern
language for learning management systems”, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 11-24.
Chen, D. (2003), “Uncovering the provisos behind flexible learning”, Educational Technology and
Society, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 25-30.
Dijkstra, S. and Seel, N.M. (Eds) (2004), Curriculum, Plans and Processes in Instructional Design:
International Perspectives, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Mackain-Bremner, M. and Scott, B. (2006), “E-learning projects at the Defence Academy,
Shrivenham”, Military Simulation and Training, No. 1, pp. 243-62.
von Foerster, H. (1993), “Ethics and second-order cybernetics”, Psychiatria Danubia, Vol. 5 Nos
1/2, pp. 40-6.

About the authors

Bernard Scott is Head of the Flexible Learning Support Centre, Cranfield University, Defence
College of Management and Technology, Shrivenham. Previous appointments have been with:
the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute, De Montfort University, the
Open University and Liverpool John Moores University. His research interests include: theories
of learning and teaching, course design and organisational change and foundational issues in
systems theory and cybernetics. He has published extensively on these topics. He is a Fellow of
the Cybernetics Society and an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society.
Bernard Scott is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: B.C.E.Scott@cranfield.ac.uk
Simon Shurville holds a BA and a PhD in artificial intelligence and an MA in change
management. His PhD integrated artificial intelligence with design-theory, including
participative design and socio-technical theory. His post-doctoral research focused on artificial
intelligence, conversation theory and flexible learning. He returned to industry to architect an
K intelligent learning environment for postgraduates. He also started a consultancy, from which he
has co-directed blended courses for City University and the University of Essex. In 2002, became
36,9/10 a Project Director at the University of Sussex, where he introduced managed and virtual learning
environments via participative design. He later moved to Cranfield University, Defence College
of Management and Technology, Shrivenham, to lecture in Knowledge Management. He was
promoted to a new post to support flexible learning within the university’s Flexible Learning
Support Centre. He is currently interested in applying cybernetics to change management and
1514 developing personalized learning environments.
Piers Maclean is a Lecturer in the Flexible Learning Support Centre, Cranfield University
(CU), Defence College of Management and Technology, Shrivenham. He started his teaching
career as a Burnham lecturer providing Arabic language tuition to Armed Forces personnel.
After some years as a senior Lecturer, he decided to embark upon a career in IT which saw him
working as an IT manager at the Air Warfare Centre, RAF Cranwell. This combination of
teaching and technical experience was to lead him to take up a position as the E-Learning
Development Manager on the RAF’s Air Warfare Training Management Team. His interest in
the design and provision of online learning experiences continued to develop to the extent that he
decided to undertake a MSc by Research with CU to investigate learning design within the UK.
Towards the end of his studies, he was recruited into his current post.
Chunyu Cong is a research student with Cranfield University at the Defence College of
Management and Technology, Shrivenham. She holds a BSc in Computer Science and a MSc in
Educational Technology. Her research is concerned with the design and evaluation of interactive
learning environments.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints