3.2 PART TWO: THE SYSTEMS VIEW AND ITS APPLICATION IN EDUCATION

In the first section of this part of the chapter is a discussion of the systems view and its relevance to education. This is followed by a focus on the application of the intellectual technology of comprehensive systems design as an approach to the transformation of education.

3.2.1 A Systems View of Education

For any system of interest, a systems view enables us to explore and characterize the system of our interest, its environment, and its components and parts. We can acquire a systems view by integrating systems concepts and principles in our thinking'and learning to use them in representing our world and our experiences with their use. A systems view empowers us to think of ourselves, the environments that surround us, and the groups and organizations in which we live in a new way: the systems way. This new way of thinking and experiencing enables us to understand and describe the following:

• Characteristics of the "embeddedness" of educational systems operating at several interconnected levels (e.g., institutional, administrational, instructional, learning experience levels)
• Relationships, interactions,, and mutual interdependencies of systems operating at those levels
• Purposes, the goals, and the boundaries of educational systems
• Relationships, interactions, and information/matter/ energy exchanges between our systems and their environments
• Dynamics of interactions, relationships, and patterns of connectedness among the components of systems
• Properties of wholeness and the characteristics that emerge at various systems levels as a result of systemic interaction and synthesis
• Systems processes, i.e., the behavior and change of systems and their environments over time.

The systems view generates insights into ways of knowing, thinking, and reasoning that enable us to pursue the kind of inquiry described above. Systemic educational renewal will become possible only if the educational community will develop a systems view of education, if it embraces the systems view, and if it applies the systems view in its approach to reform.

Systems inquiry and systems applications have been applied in the worlds of business and industry, in information technology, in the health services, in architecture and engineering, and in environmental issues. However, in education--except for a narrow application in instructional technology (discussed later)-systems inquiry is highly underconceptualized and underutilized, and it is often manifested in misdirected applications.

With very few exceptions, systems philosophy, systems theory, and systems methodology as subjects of study and applications are not yet on the agenda of our educational professional development programs. And, as a rule, capability in systems inquiry is not yet in the inventory of our educational research community. It is my firm belief that unless our educational communities and our educational professional organizations embrace systems inquiry, and unless our research agencies learn to pursue systems inquiry, the notions of "systernic" reform and . "systemic approaches" to educational renewal will remain hollow and meaningless buzzwords.

The notion of systems inquiry enfolds large sets of concepts that constitute principles, common to all kinds of systems. Acquiring a "systems view of education" means that we learn to think about education as a system, we can understand and describe it as a system, we can put the systems view into practice and apply it in educational inquiry, and we can design education so that it will manifest systemic behavior. Once we individually and collectively develop a systems view thea--and only then--can we become "systemic" in our approach to educational reform, only then can we apply the systems view to the reconceptualization and redefinition of education as a system, and only then can we engage in the design of systems that will nurture learning and enable the full development of human potential.

During the past decade, we have applied systems thinking and the systems view in human and social systems. As a result we now have a range of systems models and methods that enable us to work creatively and successfully with education as a complex social system. We have organized these models and methods in four complementary domains of organizational inquiry (Banathy, 1988) as follows:

• The systems analysis and description of educational systems by the application of three systems models: the systems environment, functions/structure, and process/behavioral models
• Systems design, conducting comprehensive design inquiry with the use of design models, methods, and tools appropriate to education
• Implementation of the design by systems development and institutionalization
• Systems management and the management of change

Figure 3-1 depicts the relational arrangement of the four domains of organizational inquiry. In the center of the figure is the integrating cluster.

In the center, the core values, core ideas, and organizing perspectives constitute bases for both the development of the inquiry approach and the decisions we make in the course of the inquiry.

Of special interest to us in this chapter is the description and analysis of educational systems and comprehensive systems design as a disciplined inquiry that offers potential for the development of truly systemic educational reform. In the rest of the chapter, we focus on these two aspects of systems inquiry.

3.2.2 Three Models That Portray Education as a System

Models are useful as a frame of reference to talk about the system the models represent. Because our purpose here is to understand and portray education as a system, it is important to create a common frame of reference for our discourse, to build systems models of education.

Models of social systems are built by the relational organization of the concepts and principles that represent the context, the content, and the process of social systems. I constructed three models (Banathy, 1992) that represent (a) systems-environment relationships, (b) the functions/structure of social systems, and (c) the processes and behavior of systems through time. These models are "lenses" that can be used to look at educational systems and understand, describe, and analyze them as open, dynamic, and complex social systems. These models are briefly described next.

3.2.2.1. Systems-Environment Model. The use of the systems-environment model enables us to describe an educational system in the context of its community and the larger society. The concepts and principles that are pertinent to this model help us define systems-environment relationships, interactions, and mutual interdependencies. A set of inquiries, built into the model, guide the user to make an assessment of the environmental responsiveness of the system and, conversely, the adequacy of the responsiveness of. the environment toward the system.

3.2.2.2. Functions/ Structure Model. The use of the functions/structure model focuses our attention on what the educational system is at a given moment of time. It projects a "still-picture" image of the system. It enables us to (a) describe the goals of the system (that elaborate the purposes that emerged from the systems-environment model), (b) identify the functions that have to be carried out to attain the goals, (c) select the components (of the system) that have the capability to carry out the functions, and (d) formulate the relational arrangements of the components that constitute the structure of the system. A set of inquiries are built into the model that guide the user to probe into the function/structure adequacy of the system.

3.2.2.3. Process/Behavioral Model. The use of the procesAehavioral model helps us to concentrate our inquiry on what the educational system does through time. It projects a "motion-picture" image of the system and guides us in understanding how the system behaves as a changing and living social system; how it (a) receives, screens, assesses, and processes input; (b) transforms input for use in the system; (c) engages in transformation operations by which to produce the expected output; (d) guides the transformation operations; (e) processes the output and assesses its adequacy; and (f) makes adjustment in the system if needed or imitates the redesign of the system if indicated. The model incorporates a set of inquiries that guides the user to evaluate the systems from a process perspective.

What is important for us to understand is that no single model can provide us with a true representation of an educational system. Only if we consider the three models jointly can we capture a comprehensive image of education as a social system.

3.2.3 Designing Social Systems

Systems design in the context of human activity systems is a future-creating disciplined inquiry. People engage in design in order to devise and implement a new system, based on their vision of what that system should be.

There is a growing awareness that most of our systems are out of sync with the new realities of the current era. Those who understand this and are willing to face these realities call for the rethinking and redesign of our systems. Once we understand the significance of these new realities and their implications for us individually and collectively, we will reaffirm that systems design is the only viable approach to working with and creating and recreating our systems in a changing world of new realities. These new realties and the societal and organizational characteristics of the current era call for the development of new thinking, new perspectives, new insight, and-based on these-the design of systems that will be in sync with those realities and emerged characteristics.

In times of accelerating and dynamic changes, when a new stage is unfolding in societal evolution, inquiry should not focus on the improvement of our existing systems. Such a focus limits perception to adjusting or modifying the old design in which our systems are still rooted. A design rooted in an outdated image is useless. We must break the old frame of thinking and reframe it. We should transcend the boundaries of our existing system, explore change and renewal from the larger vistas of our transforming society, envision a new image of our systems, create a new design based on the image, and transform our systems by implementing the new design.

3.2.3.1. Systems Design: A New Intellectual Technology. Systems design in the context of social systems is a relatively new intellectual technology. It emerged only recently as a manifestation of open-systems thinking and corre_ sponding soft-systems approaches. This new intellectual technology emerged, just in time, as a disciplined inquiry that enables us to align our societal systems, most specifically our educational systems, with the "new realities" of the information/knowledge age.

3.2.4 When Should We Design?

Social systems are created for attaining purposes that are shared by those who are in the system. Activities in which people in the system are engaged are guided by those purposes. There are times when there is a discrepancy between what our system actually attains and what we designated as the desired outcome of the system. Once we sense such discrepancy, we realize that something has gone wrong, and we need to make some changes either in the activities or in the way we carry out activities. The focus is changes within the system. Changes within the system are accomplished by adjustment, modification, or improvement.

But there are times when we have evidence that changes within the system would not suffice. We might realize that our purposes are not viable anymore and we need to change them. We realize that we now need to change the whole system. We need a different system; we need to redesign our system; or we need to design a new system.

The changes described above are guided by self-regulation, accomplished, as noted earlier, by positive feedback that signals the need for changing the whole system. We are to formulate new purposes, introduce new functions, new components, and new arrangements of the components. It is by such self-organization that the system responds to positive feedback and learns to coevolve with its environment by transforming itself into a new state. The process by which this self-organization, coevolution, and transformation comes about is systems design.

3.2.5. Research Findings on the Nature of Design Activity

In Cross's compendium (1984), design researchers report their findings on the general nature of design. I briefly review their findings as follows.

3.2.5.1. Darke (1984). He has found that contemporary designers have rejected the earlier "systematic, objective, analysis-synthesis approach" to design and replaced it with what Hiller et al. (1972) called conjecture-analysis. The point of departure of this approach is not a detailed analysis of the situation but the formulation of a conjecture that Darke has termed primary generator The primary generator is formed early in the design process as initiating concepts. (We later called this a system of core ideas: the first image of the system.) This primary generator helps designers make the creative leap between the problem formulation and a solution concept, as Cross noted (1982). Broad design requirements, in combination with the primary generator, help designers arrive at an initial conjecture that can be tested against specific requirements as an interactive process. Conjectures and requirements mutually shape each other. While earlier design approaches concentrated on design morphology as a sequence of boxes bearing preset labels, Darke (1982) finds that now designers fill the boxes with their own concepts and the sources of their concepts. An understanding of the subjectivity of designing reflects the diversity of human experience, which, in turn, should reflect the diversity in approaches to design.

3.2.5.2. Akin (1984). He challenges earlier assumptions about design. As Darke did, he also takes an issue with the analysis-synthesis-evaluation sequence in design. He says this approach was at the heart of almost all normative design methods of the past. He suggests that one of the unique aspects of designing is the constant generation of new task goals and the redefinition of task constraints. "Hence analysis is part of virtually all phases of design. Similarly, synthesis or solution development occurs as early as in the first stage" (p. 205). The rigid structuring of the design process into analysis-synthesis-evaluation and the tactics implied for these compartments are unrealistic. Solutions do not emerge from an analysis of all relevant

aspects of the problem. Even a few cues in the design environment can be sufficient to evoke a recombined solution in the mind of the designers. Actually, this evoking is more the norm than a rational process of assembly of parts through synthesis. Many rational models of design violate the widely used criterion of designers, namely, to find a satisfying, rather than a scientifically optimized, solution. No fixed model is complex enough to represent the real-life complexities of the design process. That is why designers select approaches that produce a solution that satisfies an acceptable number of design criteria.

3.2.5.3. Lawson (1984). He conducted a controlled experiment between scientists and designers. He discovered that scientists used processes that focused on discovering the problem structure, while designers used strategies that focused on findings solutions. For the designers, the most successful and practical way to address design problem situations is not by analyzing them in depth but by quickly proposing solutions to them. This way, they discover more about the problem as well as what is an acceptable solution to it. On the other hand, scientists analyze the problem in order to discover its patterns and its rules before proposing a solution to it. Designers seek solutions by synthesis, scientists by analysis. Accordingly, designers evolve and develop methodologies that do not depend on the completion of analysis before synthesis begins.

3.2.5.4. Thomas and Carroll. Thomas and Carroll (1984) carried out a broad range of studies on design that indicated a wide range of similarities between the behavior of designers and their approaches to design, regardless of the particular subject of design. They said that they changed their original assumption that design is a form of problem solving to the opinion that design is "a way of looking at a problem." They considered design as a dialectic interactive process among the participants of the design activity. In this process, participants elaborate a goal statement into more explicit functional requirements, and then from these they elaborate the design solution.

In reviewing the four research findings, Cross (1982, pp. 172-73) arrives at two major conclusions. The first is an inevitable emphasis on the early generation of solutions so that a better understanding of the problem can be developed. Second is that the earlier systematic procedures tend to focus on an extensive phase of problem analysis, which seems an unrealistic approach to ill-defined problems.

In discussing systems design, the difference between systematic and systemic is a recurring issue. The term systematic was in vogue in the 50s and the 60s. During that period, a closed systems engineering thinking dominated the scene. The term implied regularity in a methodical procedure. In design, it means following the same steps, in a linear, one-directional causation mode; it means adhering to the same prescribed design method, regardless of the subject and the specific content and context of the design situation. Designers of the 70s and 80s have learned the confining and unproductive nature of the systematic approach. Once we understood the open-system, dynamic complexity, nonlinear, and mutually affecting nature of social systems, we developed a "systemic" approach that liberated us from the restrictive and prescriptive rigor of being systematic. Systemic relates to the dynamic interaction of parts from which the integrity of wholeness of the system emerges. Systemic also indicates uniqueness, which is the opposite of the sameness of systematic. Systemic recognizes the unique nature of each and every system. It calls for the use of methods that respect and are responsive to the uniqueness of the particular design situation, including the unique nature of the design environment.

3.2.6 Models for Building Social Systems

Until the 70s, design, as a disciplined inquiry, was primarily the domain of architecture and engineering. In social and sociotechnical systems, the nature of the inquiry was either systems analysis, operation research, or social engineering. These approaches reflected the kind of systematic, closedsystems, and hard-systems thinking discussed in the previous section. It was not until the 70s that we realized that the use of these approaches was not applicable; in fact they were counterproductive to working with social systems. We became aware that social systems are open systems; they have dynamic complexity; and they operate in turbulent and ever-changing environments. Based on this understanding, a new orientation emerged, based on "soft-systems" thinking. The insights gained from this orientation became the basis for the emergence of a new generation of designers and the development of new design models applicable to social systems. Earlier we listed systems researchers who made significant contributions to the development of approaches to the design of open social systems. Among them, three scholars-Ackoff, Checkland, and Nadler-were the ones who developed comprehensive process models of systems design. Their work did set the trend for continuing work in design research and social systems design.

3.2.6.1. Ackoff: A Model for the Design of Idealized Systems. The underlying conceptual base of Ackoff's design model (1981) is a systems view of the world. He explores how our concept of the world has changed in recent time from the machine age to the systems age. He defines and interprets the implications of the systems age and the systems view to systems design. He sets forth design strategies, followed by implementation planning. At the very center of his approach is what he calls idealized design.

Design commences with an understanding and assessment of what is now. Ackoff calls this process formulating the mess. The mess is a set of interdependent problems that emerges and is identifiable only in their interaction. Thus, the design that responds to this mess "should be more than an aggregation of independently obtained solutions to the parts of the mess. It should deal with messes as wholes, systemically" (1981, p. 52). This process includes systems analysis, a detailed study of potential obstructions to development, and the creation of projections and scenarios that explore the question: What would happen if things would notchange?

Having gained a systemic insight into the current state of affairs, Ackoff proceeds to the idealized design. The selection of ideals lies at the very core of the process. As he says: "it takes place through idealized design of a system that does not yet exist, or the idealized design of one that does" (p. 105). The three properties of an idealized design are: (1) It should be technologically feasible, (2) operationally viable, and (3) capable of rapid learning and development. This model is not a utopian system but "the most effective ideal-seeking system of which designers can conceive" (p. 107). The process of creating the ideal includes selecting a mission, specifying desired properties of the design, and designing the system. Ackoff emphasizes that the vision of the ideal must be a shared image. It should be created by all who are in the system and those affected by the design. Such participative design is attained by the organization of interlinked design boards that integrate representation across the various levels of the organization.

Having created the model of the idealized system, designers engage in the design of the management system that can guide the system and can learn how to learn as a system. Its three key functions are: (1) identifying threats and opportunities, (2) identifying what to do and having it done, and (3) maintaining and improving performance. The next major function is organizational design, the creation of the organization that is "ready, willing, and able to modify itself when necessary in order to make progress towards its ideals" (p. 149). The final stage is implementation planning. It is carried out by selecting or creating the means by which the specified ends can be pursued, determining what resources will be required, planning for the acquisition of resources, and defining who is doing what, when, how, and where.

3.2.6.2. Checkland's Soft-Systems Model. Checkland in his work (1981, 1992) creates a solid base for his model for systems change by reviewing (a) science as human activity, (b) the emergence of systems science, and (c) the evolution of systems thinking, He differentiates between "hard-systems thinking," which is appropriate to work with, rather than closed, engineered type of systems and "soft-systems thinking," which is required in working with social systems. He says that he is "trying to make systems thinking a conscious, generally accessible way of looking at things, not the stock of trade of experts" (p. 162). Based on soft-systems thinking, he formulated a model for working with and changing social systems.

His seven-stage model generates a total system of change functions, leading to the creation of a future system. His conceptual model of the future system is similar in nature to Ackoff's idealized system. Using Checkland's approach, during the first stage we look at the problem situation of the system, which we find in its real-life setting as being "unstructured." At this stage, our focus is not on specific problems but the situation in which we perceive the problem. Given the perceived "unstructured situation," during stage 2 we develop a richest possible structured picture of the problem situation. These first two stages operate in the context of the real world.

The next two stages are developed in the conceptual realm of systems thinking. Stage 3 involves speculating about some systems that may offer relevant solutions to the problem situation and preparing concise "root definitions" of what these systems are (not what they do). During stage 4, the task is to develop abstract representations, models of the relevant systems, for which root definitions were formulated at stage 3. These representations are conceptual models of the relevant systems, comprised of verbs, denoting functions. This stage consists of two substages. First, we describe the conceptual model. Then, we check it against a theory-based, formal model of systems. Checkland adopted Churchman's model (197 1) for this purpose.

During the last three stages, we move back to the realm of the real world. During stage 5, we compare the conceptual model with the structured problem situation we formulated during stage 2. This comparison enables us to identify, during stage 6, feasible and desirable changes in the real world. Stage 7 is devoted to taking action and introducing changes in the system.

3.2.6.3. Nadler's Planning and Design Approach. Nadler, an early proponent of designing for the ideal (1967), is the third systems scholar who developed a comprehensive model (Nadler, 1981) for the design of sociotechnical systems. During phase 1, his strategy calls for the development of a hierarchy of purpose statements, which are formulated so that each higher level describes the purpose of the next lower level. From this purpose hierarchy, the designers select the specific purpose level for which to create the, system. The formulation of purpose is coupled with the identification of measures of effectiveness that indicate the successftil achievement of the defined purpose. During this phase, designers explore alternative reasons and expectations that the design might accomplish.

During phase 2, "creativity is engaged as ideal solutions are generated for the selected purposes within the context of the purpose hierarchy," says Nadler (1981, p. 9). He introduced a large array of methods that remove conceptual blocks, nurture creativity, and widen the creation of alternative solutions ideas.

During phase 3, designers develop solution ideas into systems of alternative solutions. During this phase, designers play the believing game as they focus on how to make ideal solutions work, rather than on the reasons why they won't work. They try ideas out to see how they fit.

During phase 4, the solution is detailed. Designers build into the solution specific arrangements that might cope with potential exceptions and irregularities while protecting the desired qualities of solutions. As Nadler says: "Why discard the excellent solution that copes with 95% of the conditions because another 5% cannot directly fit into it?" (p. 11). As a result, design solutions are often flexible, multichanneled, and pluralistic.

Phase 5 involves the implementation of the selected design solution. In the context of the purpose hierarchy, we set forth the ideal solution and plan for taking action necessary to install the solution. But we have to realize that the, "most successful implemented solution is incomplete if it does not incorporate the seeds of its own improvement. An implemented solution should be treated as provisional" (p. 11). Therefore each system should have its own arrangements for continuing design and change.

In Nadler's recent book, coauthored by Hibino (1990), a set of principles are set forth that guide the work of designers. These principles can serve as guidelines that keep designers focused on seeking solutions rather than on being preoccupied by problems.

• The "uniqueness principle" suggests that whatever the apparent similarities, each problem is unique, and the design approach should respond to the unique contextual situation.
• The "purposes principle" calls for focusing on purposes and expectations rather than on problems. This focus helps us strip away nonessential aspects and prevents us from working on the wrong problem.The "ideal design principle" stimulates us to work back from the ideal target solution.
• The "systems principle" tells us that every design setting is part of a larger system. Understanding the systems matrix of embeddedness helps us to determine the multilevel complexities that we should incorporate into the solution model.
• The "limited information principle" points to the pitfall that too much knowing about the problem can prevent us from seeing some excellent alternative solutions.
• The "people design principle" underlines the necessity of involving in the design all those who are in the systems and who are affected by the design. "betterment timeline principle" calls for the deliberate building into the design the capability and capacity for continuing betterment of the solution through time.

3.2.7 A Process Model of Social Systems Design

The three design models introduced above have been applied primarily in the corporate and business community. Their application in the public domain has been limited. Still, we can learn much from them as we seek to formulate an approach to the design of social and societal systems. In the concluding section of Part 2, we introduce a process model of social system design that has been inspired and informed by the work of Ackoff, Checkland, and Nadler, and is a generalized outline of our earlier work of designing educational systems (Banathy, 1991).

The process of design that leads us from an existing state to a desired future state is initiated by an expression of why we want to engage in design. We call this expression of want the genesis of design. Once we decide that we want to design something other than what we now have, we must:

• Transcend the existing state or the existing system and leave it behind.
• Envision an image of the system that we wish to create.
• Design the system based on the image.
• Transform the system by developing and implementing the system based on the design.

Transcending, envisioning, designing, and transforming the system are the four major strategies of the design and development of social systems, which are briefly outlined below.

3.2.7.1. Transcending the Existing State. Whenever we have an indication that we should change the existing system or create a new system, we are confronted with the task of transcending the existing system or the existing state of affairs. We devised a framework that enables designers to accomplish this transcendence and create an option field, which they can use to draw alternative boundaries for their design inquiry and consider major solution alternatives. The framework is constructed of four dimensions: the focus of the inquiry, the scope of the inquiry, relationship with other systems, and the selection of system type. On each dimension, several options are identified that gradually extend the boundaries of the inquiry. The exploration of options leads designers to make a series of decisions that charts the design process toward the next strategy of systems design.

3.2.7.1. Envisioning: Creating the First Image. Systems design creates a description, a representation, a model of the future system. This creation is grounded in the designers' vision, ideas, and aspirations of what that future system should be. As the designers draw the boundaries of the design inquiry on the framework and make choices from among the options, they collectively form core ideas that they hold about the desired future. They articulate their shared vision and synthesize their core ideas into the first image of the system. This image becomes a magnet that pulls designers into designing the system that will bring the image to life.

3.2.7.3. Designing the New System Based on the Image. The image expresses an intent. One of the key issues in working with social systems is: How to bring intention and design together and create a system that transforms the image into reality? The image becomes the basis that initiates the strategy of transformation by designThe design solution emerges as designers: (1) formulate the mission and purposes of the future system, (2) define its specifications, (3) select the functions that have to be carried out to attain the mission and purposes, (4) organize ' these functions into a system, (5) design the system that Will guide the functions and the organization that will carry out the functions, (6) define the environment that will have the resources to support the system, (7) describe the nev system by using the three models we described earlier-the systems-environment model, the functions/structure model, and the process /behavioral model(Banathy, 1992)-and (8) prepare a development/implementation plan.

3.2.7.4. Transforming the System Based on the Design. The outcome of design is a description, a conceptual representation, or modeling of the new system. Based on the models, we can bring the design to life by developing the system based on the models that represent the design and then implementing and institutionalizing it (Banathy, 1986).

We elaborated the four strategies in the context of education in our earlier work (199 1) as we described the processes of (1) transcending the existing system of education, (2) envisioning and defining the image of the desired future system, (3) designing the new system based on the image, and (4) transforming the existing system by developing/ implementing/institutionalizing the new system based on the design.

In this section, a major step has been taken toward the understanding of systems design by exploring some research findings about design, examining a set of comprehensive design models, and proposing a process model for the design of educational and other social systems. In the closing section, we present the disciplined inquiry of systems design as the new imperative in education and briefly highlight distinctions between instructional design and systems design.

3.2.8 Systems Design: The New Imperative in Education

Many of us share a realization that today's schools are far from being able to do justice to the education of future generations. There is a growing awareness that our current design of education is out of sync with the new realities of the information/knowledge era. Those who are willing to face these new realities understand that:

• Rather than improving education, we should transcend it.
• Rather than revising it, we should revision it.
• Rather then reforming, we should transform it by design.

We now call for a metamorphosis of education. It has become clear to many of us that educational inquiry should not focus on the improvement of existing systems. Staying within the existing boundaries of education constrains and delimits perception and locks us into prevailing practices. At best, improvement or restructuring of the existing system can attain some marginal adjustment of an educational design that is still rooted in the perceptions and practices of the l9th~century machine age.

But adjusting a design-rooted in an outdated imagecreates far more problems than it solves. We have already found this out. The escalating rhetoric of educational reform has created high expectations, but the realities of improvement efforts have not delivered on those expectations. Improving what we have now does not lead to any significant results, regardless of how much money and effort we invest in it.

Two roads diverged in a woods--and I--I took the road less traveled by, and that has made all the difference" (Robert Frost).

Our educational communities--including our Educationa Technology Community--have reached a juncture in our journey toward educational-renewal. We can continue to travel on the well-known road of our past and present practices with some attention paid to improving the road, so that we can travel faster. We can even restructure the schedules, the programs of--and the responsibilities for--the joumey. None of these adjustments will make much difference. Or we can take the risk of choosing the less-traveled road so that we can make a difference in the education of this nation and in the development of our society.

But taking the less-traveled road, we must transcend our old ways of thinking and develop new ways. We must reframe our mindset from problem focus to solution focus, We must unload the baggage of our past practices, and must learn new ones.

The new thinking is systems thinking; the new mindset is a systems view of education; and the new practice is the application of systems design. These are the prerequisites of a purposeful and viable creation of new organizational capacities and individual and collective capabilities that enable us to empower our educational communities so that they can engage in the design and transformation of our educational systems by creating new systems of learning and human development.

3.2.9 Instructional Design Is Not Systems Design

Some of my friends in the educational technology community continue to ask me: Is there really a difference between the intellectual technology of instructional design and systems design? My answer continues to be a definite Yes. A review of this chapter should lead the reader to an understanding of the difference.

An understanding of the process of designing education as an open social system, reviewed here, and the comparison of this with the process of designing instructional or training systems, known well to the reader, will clearly show the difference between the two design inquiries. I discussed this difference at some length earlier (1987). Here I briefly highlight some of the differences:

Education as social system is open to its environment, its community, and the larger society, and it constantly and dynamically interacts with its environment. An instructional system is a subsystem of an instructional program that delivers a segment of the curriculum. The curriculum is embedded in the educational system. An instructional system is three systems levels below education as a social system. We design an educational system in view of societal realities/expectations/aspirations and core ideas and values. It is from these that an image of the future system emerges, based on which we then formulate the core definition, the mission, and purposes of the system.

We design an instructional system against clearly defined instructional objectives that are derived from the larger instructional program and-at the next higher level-from the curriculum.

An instructional system is a closed system. The technology of its design is an engineering (hard-system) technology. An educational system is open and is constantly coevolving with its environment. Its design applies soft-systems methods.

In designing an educational system we engage in the design activity those who are serving the system, those who are served by it, and those who are affected by it.

An instructional system is designed by the expert educational technologist who takes into account the characteristics of the user of the system.

A designed instructional system is often delivered by computer software and other mediation. An educational system is a human/social activity system that relies primarily on human/social interaction. Some of the interactions, e.g., planning or information storing, can be aided by the use of software.

3.2. 10 The Challenge of the Educational Technology Connnunity

We as members of the educational technology community face a four-pronged challenge: (1) We should transcend the constraints and limits of the means and methods of instructional technology. We should clearly understand the difference between the design of education as a social system and instructional design. (2) We should develop open-systems thinking, acquire a systems view, and develop competence in systems design. (3) We should create programs and resources that enable our larger educational community to develop systems thinking, a systems view, and competence in systems design. (4) We should assist our communities across the nation to engage in the design and development of their systems of learning and human development. Our societal challenge is to place ourself in the service of transforming education by design and help create just systems of learning and development for future generations.

Education creates the future, and there is no more important task and no more noble calling than participating in this creation.