fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers' design thinking and systems...

P1: vendor/GVG

PP598-378982-04 SPAA.cls August 26, 2002 11:27

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 2002 (C©2002)

Fostering Design Culture Through Cultivatingthe User-Designers’ Design Thinkingand Systems Thinking

Mingfen Li 1

Received January 20, 2002; accepted March 17, 2002

In this paper, the essence of design thinking and systems thinking is reviewed, analyzed,and synthesized. Although there are many valuable schools of systems thinking, I focuson both Banathy’s and Senge’s since there are design spirit embedded in their systemsthinking. I attempt to grasp the spirit of Banathy’s systems models and the essence ofSenge’s systems thinking, incorporating them into my design inquiry. I propose adopt-ing an enlightened, transformative design approach in order to enhance the revolution ofthe public’s inner and outer systems through collaborative design engagement. It is ex-pected that by utilizing the transformative design approach, the public or user–designerscould gain the necessary skills to envision their own learning, assume responsibility fordesigning their own learning environments, and systematically reflect upon their ha-bitual thinking and actions. Ultimately, the user-designers would be able to transformtheir model-driven or theory-driven approaches to systems application into a culturalapproach to the cultivation of systems “thinking” and design “thinking”. Indeed, designthinking, as well as contemporary systems thinking are two powerful wings to make usfly in the capacious learning world of the 21st century.

KEY WORDS: systems thinking; design thinking; transformative design inquiry.

1. TRANSFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC’S DAILY EXPERIENCESINTO DESIGN AND SYSTEMS VISION, THINKING, AND ACTION

1.1. Shift of Design Focus

Over the past 30 years, instructional design has been applied in the military, medi-cal, corporate and educational training contexts and is regarded as an inseparable,interdependent process of the systematic practice of instructional development andevaluation. The knowledge base of instructional design develops chronologically

1Department of Adult and Continuing Education, School of Education, National Taiwan NormalUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. Fax: 011-886-2-657-2930. e-mail: [email protected].

385

1094-429X/02/1000-0385/0C©2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: vendor/GVG


386 Li

from behaviorism to neobehaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and situatedtheory and ranges in perspective from critical theory to postmodernism. The foun-dations of design knowledge are indeed the eclectic integration of various types oflearning, methods of knowledge classification, notions about knowledge construc-tion, human characteristics, philosophical thought, media attributes, and, mostdominantly, systems thinking. The developmental process of design knowledgecan be outlined as follows.

During the 1970s, the professional development of instructional design anddevelopment was first consolidated on knowledge based on Bertalanffy’s gen-eral systems theory, behavioral learning theories, and various models and theoriesof instruction. In the early 1980s, instructional design theories and instructionaldevelopment models flourished in order to meet the needs of military and corpo-rate training programs and computer-assisted instruction in education. With theadvancement of information technology and the wider application of cognitive psy-chology in instruction and learning, instructional design has broadened its knowl-edge base and played an increasingly important role in both education and training.

While instructional design and development gained attention and recognition,challenges from both inside and outside the field of educational technology wereraised. The most vocal concern echoed in the design community was not merelyhow to integrate users’ needs or evoke their participation in the design process, butalso how to cultivate the user-designers’ design literacy and design competence.This design perspective takes a step away from the knowledge base issue of designtheories, shifting the focus from models and theories to the design process of profes-sionals and to the design cultivation of the affected laity, namely, the user-designers.

1.2. Shift of Designers’ Roles

In reviewing the evolutionary trend of instructional design, I discovered thatdifferent orientations of design models or theories imply distinct design philoso-phies and assumptions about design. I observed an evolutionary trend that in-structional design has shifted its focus from prescribing instructional applicationsto designing technological environments or learning resources for users’ naviga-tion. Design has also been more widely practiced in a collaborative teamworkenvironment. There is a better incorporation of technological advancements intodesign platforms, including a higher degree of cognitive, constructive, and situ-ated embodiments within. Nevertheless, there remains an outspoken demand forreconceptualizing instructional design thinking. In this paper, I advocate the sig-nificance of cultivating the public’s design thinking and systems thinking becausethey are integral in the formation of daily thoughts and subsequent actions.

Along with the shifting focus of design, we need to reconceptualize our vi-sions of the roles of instructional designers. When instructional designers workas outside consultants, their role is to design for the users, working at best as

P1: vendor/GVG


Fostering Design Culture 387

the partners of subject matter experts. When instructional designers are definedas facilitators of user-designers, they are expected to design with a deeper un-derstanding of the user-designers’ needs and feedback. When a greater number ofinstructional designers come to grips with Constructivism and situated theory, theyaim at creating a rich environment for the user-designers’ experience, reflectionand action (Streible, 1991). As instructional designers take the critical approach todesign, their responsibility is to empower the user-designers’ critical awareness oftheir own instructional thinking and action, enabling them to design learning andteaching for all participants (Li, 1993).

1.3. Shift from Designers’ Systems Models to User-Designers’Systems Thinking

Compared to design thinking, scholarly discussion about systems thinkinghas a much longer history and includes more multiple and divergent perspectives.Some major systems theories have been successfully applied in organizationalchange, such as Senge’s systems thinking, Checklend’s soft systems methodology,Ackoff’s design of idealized systems, and Nadler’s planning and design approach.However, Bertalanffy’s systems thinking has played the most critical role in thehistorical development of educational technology since the 1970s. With its wideapplication to the development of many instructional design and developmentmodels, the essence of systems thinking has been narrowed down to “systematicdesign.” This systematic approach has distorted the spirit of systems thinking.While constructive learning and situated learning receives greater attention inthe area of instructional design, the way systems thinking has been interpretedand applied is also challenged. Although some scholars turn to systemic views tobroaden their perspectives on systems thinking, its essence has yet to be thoroughlystudied. I contend that a deeper understanding and discussion of various modesof systems thinking is essential to cultivate the user-designers’ systems thinkingand systems vision of design. This is actually more important than developingmore systematic or systemic models for the user-designers to learn or use. Indeed,Tripp (1991), Rowland (1994), Akin (1994), Nelson (1994), and Banathy (1996)have expended great efforts in analyzing and synthesizing design thinking since1990. What we need to undertake now is to foster design culture and have thedesign community engage the public in design thinking and systems thinking.

1.4. Cultivating User-Designers’ Design Thinking and SystemsThinking by Transforming Their Daily Experiences

Since Cross (1990) claimed that design is a unique mode of culture, similarto science culture and humanities culture, design has been inquired as a mode ofthinking. He further contends that culture is the representation of everyday life and

P1: vendor/GVG


388 Li

design culture could be the embodiment of design thinking, design language in ourdaily discourse, and actions upon the outer society. Banathy (1996) is probablythe most preeminent scholar who profoundly interprets Cross’ thinking aboutdesign culture. He thinks it is important to build a design culture through thecultivation of the general public’s design competence and design literacy. In orderto enhance design competence and literacy, he constructs systems models fordesigning educational systems. The models are comprised of design image space,design solution space, design knowledge space, and design evaluation space and thedynamic relationships among these spaces. However, for the laity, novice designersor most user-designers, such a complicated theoretical construct may not be anappropriate starting point for cultivating their design thinking or systems thinking.

By extrapolating on Banathy’s thinking, I propose that we need to cultivatethe public’s design thinking and systems thinking using a more communicableapproach in order to foster a design culture. It is possible to translate the the-oretical construct of design thinking and systems thinking into a communicable“design language,” “systems language,” or even “systems design language,” whichis based on humanistic concern and leads toward self-realization. Indeed, thinkingis the most fundamental element for constructing competence or literacy. Think-ing is interrelated with action, which becomes the essence of daily experience thatgradually shapes and forms the content of our culture. If we could tranform theuser-designers’, or even the public’s, daily, routine, habitual thinking and actioninto design thinking and systems thinking, a design culture could possibly emerge.

2. THE EMERGENCE OF DESIGN THINKING ANDITS MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES

2.1. Design for Optimization Versus Design for Possibility

Design thinking is a historically developed discipline across many fields.However, in the field of instructional design, it has long been confined withinstrategic or systematic modes of interpretation and application, leaving much ofits rich essence yet to be discovered. Many contemporary perspectives on designthinking have pointed to a more spacious world for instructional designers toexplore. In order to exemplify the evolution of design inquiry, I use Fig. 1 topresent its developmental dimensions.

From Fig. 1, it is evident that design thinking evolved from the 1970s’ prob-lem solution orientation to the 1990s’ problem restructuring orientation and fromthe 1970s’ systems product to 1990s’ design culture. The focus of design alsoshifts from optimality to possibility and creativity. The dichotomous relationshipbetween novice and expert designers has also been modified to the public asdesign wholeness. I synthesize Tripp’s (1991) and Rowland’s (1993) discussionsabout design process and design nature and summarize Banathy’s discussion about

P1: vendor/GVG



Fig. 1. The evolution of design inquiry.

design nature and design culture to exemplify the development of design inquiryillustrated in this diagram.

Tripp (1991) thoroughly reviews numerous empirical studies of design acrossgeneral design fields, such as engineering, architecture, and software design. Whileprobing the nature of design, Tripp attempts to clarify if a theory of design canbe constructed. He synthesized many divergent views on design into two generaltheories, namely, design as optimization (searching for the most desirable) anddesign as dialogue (for nurturing possibilities). The former is in the same veinof Simon’s (1981) scientific perspectives, whereas the latter is in alignment withSchon’s (1987, 1991) reflection-in-action, both having different design focuses.Design as optimization usually involves logical, rational, and systematic processes,yet design as dialogue entails intuitive, creative, and artistic processes. In termsof problem solving in the design process, optimized design places emphasis oncomplete understanding of the problem and forming the best description of it priorto solution attempts. However, dialogical design makes early attempts at findinga solution. It is unlike optimization design, which handles design as an instanceof problem solving. Instead, design is treated as a reflection-in-action process anda social process of negotiation, hermeneutic in nature. In contrast with design foroptimization, the possibility design focus is on formal representation of problemheuristics activities and on dialogical design which is surrounded by uncertainty,uniqueness, and conflict.

P1: vendor/GVG


390 Li

2.2. Design as Problem Solving Versus Design as Problem Restructuring

Historically, design has been framed as a process of problem solving. Numer-ous instructional design models and theories are underlined with such a design pre-sumption, making the definition of problems a front-end analysis of the design pro-cess. However, as an architectural design researcher, Akin (1994) has very differentperspectives on problem solving and problem restructuring. He affirms that prob-lem restructuring is by no means a newly discovered phenomenon but has a ratherlong history in design research as well as historical discovery on reasoning. We needto be aware that, here, Akin focuses primarily on “problem restructuring,” ratherthan on problem solving or problem framing. It is such a problem restructuring pro-cess that underlies design and represents design as a unique, profound discipline.

We can describe the way Rowland situates designers in the liminal states forgenerating creative design as being very similar to how Akin emphasizes engagingdesigners in the problem restructuring process. Beyond our common-sense knowl-edge of problem solving, Akin maintains the view that the less a problem domainis understood, the more degrees of freedom the designer commands, therefore lessreliance on standard solutions can be expected.

Similar to Rowland (1994) and Banathy (1994), who both believe that to de-sign is to escape from the present to the possible future, Akin believes the processof creative design is to step outside of a framework to explore other possibilities orexpand the boundary of the problem domain. Although Schon’s research on pro-fessional practice is not limited to design-related fields, his opinion about problemsolving has great implication on design. In fact, Schon (1985) is more pragmaticin terms, regarding both problem solving and problem restructuring as an indis-pensable dual process, which provides us with a moderate way of knowledge andaction about design.

2.3. Design and Creativity

While clarifying the essence of instructional design, Davies (1981, 1994) at-tempts to uncover its multiple facets. The way in which he frames design to craft,science, and art facets is extremely illuminating. The art facet of design is in res-onance with the contemporary design scholars’ claim of focusing on the creativedimension of design. Davies also pinpoints the kinds of design possibilities fromthe “process” perspectives and proposes a “process design” approach for corporatetraining.

Rowland and Wilson (1994) examine the creative processes of design by ex-ploring Csikszentmihalyi’s flow psychology. They contend that to situate designersin liminal states is critical for nurturing their creative thinking. They enumerateseveral contexts that could trigger the designers’ mental occurrence of liminalstates. Most importantly, they depict design as the designing ways of knowingin the same vein of Banathy’s interpretation of design as a mode of inquiry.

P1: vendor/GVG



Meanwhile, Rowland (1993) investigates the design process of expert design-ers across many different design disciplines. By synthesizing the commonalitiesunderpinning many design-related fields, he enriches our thinking about and un-derstanding of the “design process.” Compared with Davies’ and Rowland andWilson’s views, the way Nelson (1994) approaches design is unique. He contendsthat design as learning is quite different from the traditional understanding oflearning and uses the concept of feedback for further explanation. Nelson (1994,p. 52) argues that “feedback in the learning process is typically presented as posi-tive or negative. Design learning involves another lesser known system’s processthat can best be characterized as feedforward (in Nelson’s term); inquiry pulledby volition and purpose. It is not about discovering correct or incorrect predic-tions, nor about describing reality in terms of truth. It is discovering knowledge atthe point between chaos and order; between the unknown and the known. Designlearning is also pragmatic in the discovery and mastery of skills needed to bringabout abstract concepts into reality.” Nelson (1994) advocates that we should havemore patience to live with indistinct and undisciplined design. He also claims thatdesign includes, but supercedes, the theory of a science of the artificial in thatit deals with the social organizations, patterns of human interactions, and func-tional sociotechnical structures that serve human purposes. Design is a synthesis ofcreativity (imagining new things) and innovation (bringing those new things intoexistence) within this multidimensional domain. It is both process and artifact.Compared to Davies and Rowland, Nelson seems to hold a more moderate stance,and there is a higher degree of synthetic spirit in his design thinking and designvision.

Based on the above discussion, we find that design has been researched fromvarious perspectives, which indeed range from design product (artifact), to de-sign skills and strategies, to design process, and, ultimately, to design thinking.Rowland (1993) traces the process of design by identifying the converging arenaof instructional design with design. He studies the relationships between designand instructional design from four aspects: the purposes or goal of design, relation-ships to other processes, factors that influence the design process, and the natureof the design process. In addition to exploring the designers’ creativity and designexpertise, Rowland extends much of his scholarly discussion to the issue of nurtur-ing the dialogical culture within the design community. However, we need to giveprominence to the nurturing of dialogical culture rather than simply embeddingthe dialogical strategy within the design process. Design thinking is indeed a vital,essential knowledge base of instructional design.

2.4. Design Culture

While clarifying the nature of design, Banathy (1996) enumerates the variousdefinitions of design from design-related disciplines, conveying the notion that

P1: vendor/GVG


392 Li

design is practiced in many professions, in many different ways, and is applied innumerous contexts. With reference to Cross’ (1990) design as a mode of culture,he advocates that we should not leave design decisions affecting our society tothe so-called design experts but, instead, should invite a broad-based participationof the users in the design of their systems. We should build design cultures thatwelcome the general public in order to complement the expertise of professionaldesigners. However, for this to be possible, we need to cultivate the public’s designliteracy. Banathy affirmatively states that our era can surely be called the “age ofdesign,” wherein the building of a design culture is an inescapable necessity: thereason being that, if we remove design, we deprive the world of most of its enablingmechanism. He urges the public to make choices for themselves, not simply relyon the experts’ design thinking and decisions. We can either live with the poordesigns created by so-called experts or empower ourselves by acquiring designliteracy and design competence so as to assume responsibility for designing thesystems in which we operate in and to which we are connected.

Banathy’s insights into the role of design experts and the public’s cultiva-tion of design literacy are certainly thought provoking. Indeed, we should not beengaged in design simply to repair or complement certain aspects of the wholelearning environment. What we need is to create a new image which is moreencompassing than the original one through reflective, critical, and enlightenedthinking. We also need to cultivate the designers’, user-designers’, or the designcommunity’s critical awareness of their beliefs and values that underlie their de-sign thinking and action. Similarly to the way Senge clarifies unwished vision andwanted vision, Banathy makes a clear distinction between improvement and re-structuring. Through such clarification and discernment, we can better understandthat design is a unique mode of thinking, not merely an addendum to other disci-plines. In particular, Page’s (1966) “design as an imaginative jump from presentfacts to future possibilities” seems to provide a clear direction for designers toendeavor towards. Considering this, some fundamental questions emerge. Howcan we transform current reality by design? Do we need any disciplines other thandesign to attain such a transformation? and While trying to generate the designimage of a new reality, how should we cope with our habitual thinking and actionof design, which are so deeply ingrained in our mental models?

3. LINK BETWEEN DESIGN THINKING AND SYSTEMS THINKING

Although design thinking and systems thinking seem to be literally differ-ent, they are two interrelated concepts when being applied in learning or instruc-tion. When dealing with design issues, instructional designers inevitably confrontcomplicated learning or educational systems. Indeed, design is a powerful bridgeto integrate systems thinking into learning or instructional practice. This is whyBanathy (1996) highlights systems thinking as the conceptual environment or

P1: vendor/GVG



parent of design thinking, regarding design as one of several disciplined inquirydomains of social systems in which systems thinking is manifested.

3.1. Banathy’s Intellectual Technology—“Designing” Social “Systems”

Banathy has engaged himself in design inquiry since the 1960s. While he iswell known as an enthusiast for systemic design of educational systems, his effortsin advocating design literacy and culture are not as well understood, perhaps inpart due to the complexity and profundity of his design thinking. InDesigningSocial Systems in a Changing World, Banathy (1996) engages in historical andextensive scholarly discussion about design, comparing design with other modesof inquiry and highlighting design as one of the three cultures, alongside scienceand humanities. Furthermore, Banathy tries to envision new social systems by re-generating design in an attempt to bring design to the social system, educationalcontexts, and everyday life. His design thinking is closely linked to systems think-ing, to be realized and carried out in the open social systems, depicting a spaciousand magnificent landscape for designers to travel. Banathy advocates that we needcreative and proactive design visions to transform social and educational reality.He defines design as a multidimensional inquiry by synthesizing systems thinking,design thinking, and multiple other perspectives while also investigating the ethicsof social system design and the design of an ideal system. In essence, Banathyintegrates a wide range of knowledge in approaching design inquiry. His contri-bution to design inquiry is that he elegantly and profoundly synthesizes designthinking and systems thinking to construct open social systems.

3.2. Nelson’s Designers as Symbolic Synthesizers

While Banathy conceptualizes social systems design as intellectual technol-ogy and integrates systems thinking into his social systems design inquiry, Nelsoncautiously probes the reasons for undertaking systems design. He claims that weneed to know why systems design is needed for the new age, asserting that newtimes need new designs, and regards systems designers as symbolic “synthesists.”Their role is inclusive of what a symbolic analyst does and has an emerging sig-nificant role in a world of complex environments.

Therefore, learning systems design should incorporate the synthesis of twovery important intellectual traditions which are gaining in prominence with theestablishment of the information age, namely, systems thinking and design action.Nelson further explains that systems thinking provides a framework for describ-ing or conceptualizing the complex, interconnected, and nonlinear dynamics ofinstitutional and organizational systems, while design thinking provides the actionframework for how to visualize and bring into existence, in functional form oftelelogic systems (i.e., serving human purpose). Of the two, systems thinking is

P1: vendor/GVG


394 Li

more theoretically developed, whereas design is more pragmatically developed.However, the latter is need of the most conceptual development in order to fullyenhance its synergistic potential in combination with existing systems thinking.

Nelson’s (1994) thinking about design is special in three aspects. First, heargues that problem solving and design are two entirely different phenomena.Design is a unique way of thinking, different from scientific thinking, that isperformed “out of control” with a deliberate break from restrictions on imagination.Second, in defining design, he distinguishes between self-expression of the arts andother expressions of design. He describes the relationship between designer (self)and the client (other) as synergistic, capable of more than the client or designeris separately. Third, like Banathy, he links systems thinking to design thinkingand argues that we need to move away from thinking in separate disciplines ofexpertise. Nelson proposes the integration of systems thinking and design thinkingas a powerful perspective for meeting current organizational challenges.

By synthesizing the above perspectives on design thinking and systems think-ing, I would frame design as a cross-disciplinary thinking to be integrated with sys-tems thinking. The maturation of such cross-disciplinary thinking heavily dependson human beings’ insights into the diversities and commonalities of all design-related disciplines. Systems thinking not only is vital to the successful design oflearning, instructional, and educational systems, but should also be recognizedas highly significant to the design of media, commercial, industrial product, andenvironment, as well as many emerging social programs. Figure 2 summarizes theinterdisciplinary nature of design.

Fig. 2. Design as an interdisciplinary and interrelated field.

P1: vendor/GVG



4. SYSTEMS THINKING AS ANOTHER POWERFUL WINGTO MAKE US FLY IN THE SPACIOUS LEARNING ERA

Systems thinking has played a critical role in the historical development ofeducational technology since the 1970s. The instructional design models whichadopt systems thinking were once widely recognized in many educational andtraining contexts. Despite the recognition of its positive value to education andtraining, the essence of systems thinking has been narrowed down to a “system-atic” view, greatly distorting its true spirit. While constructive learning and situatedlearning increasingly gain attention in the area of instructional design, the way sys-tems thinking has been interpreted and applied is also challenged. Although somescholars turn to systemic views to broaden their perspectives on systems thinking,its essence has yet to be thoroughly studied. I believe that a deeper understandingof and discussion about various modes of systems thinking is essential for uncov-ering the potential significance of systems thinking in terms of fostering designculture. At the fundamental level, cultivating user-designers’ systems thinking fordesign is more important than developing more systematic or systemic models.

Therefore, in addition to reviewing, analyzing, and comparing the designthinking mentioned above, I focus on Banathy’s and Senge’s systems thinking.Banathy not only synthesizes and critically reviews many system philosophers’systems thinking, but also successfully integrates systems thinking into his de-sign inquiry. He integrates a wide range of knowledge about design thinkingand systems thinking when undertaking his design inquiry, pointing out the routefor transforming existing educational systems into the ideal creative educationalsystems.

Senge’s systems thinking, as he named the fifth discipline, is embodied inand interacts with other disciplines (i.e. personal mastery, shared vision, teamlearning, and mental model) to help a team or organization cultivate their learningculture. In the past decade, his systems thinking, as well as other disciplines tobe practiced with systems thinking, has been widely recognized in restructuringorganizational learning culture. In recent years, he and several other researchersand practitioners also developed organizational learning through five disciplines ineducational contexts. Senge’s systems thinking has indeed captured much attentionacross various disciplines and made great implications for fostering a learningculture. Below, I first critique Banathy’s and Senge’s systems thinking and thenpropose the transformative design inquiry, which expands upon their perspectivesof systems thinking and design thinking.

4.1. Systems Thinking and Open Educational Systems Design

Banathy’s visions of systems thinking underwent significant change in the1970s. Earlier, he regarded instructional systems as closed systems which were

P1: vendor/GVG


396 Li

well thought out and designed like many instructional technologists. In the bookInstructional Systems, he remained confined within a closed-systems, engineer-ing type of thinking to construct instructional systems. Despite this fact, the in-structional systems he proposed were still much more systemic than those pro-posed by other instructional designers. However, he believed that as long as theinstructional systems are closed, they are useless in the domain of social sys-tems and even contrary to the spirit of learning and education. Therefore, heproposed an open systems view to deal with educational problems and pub-lishedDeveloping a Systems View of Education: A Systems Models Approachin1973.

During the past two decades, Banathy has been advocating for the use ofhis design thinking and systems thinking to design social systems. He attempts todiffuse systems thinking and the dynamism of it to the educational community. In1996, he completed his system design theory, which encompassed three modelsfor redesigning the educational system, namely, a system environment model, afunctions/structure model, and a process model. The three models are to be appliedin two aspects. First, they are to depict systems concepts and the systemic level ofthe ways we understand the educational structure of existing systems and evaluatethe educational environment. Second, they are used to design new educationalsystems by comparing the gap between ideal conceptual systems and existingsystems.

Banathy not only designed the three models but also provided many activitiesto guide users to apply these models, through which they might gradually cultivatetheir systems thinking and systems application abilities. In terms of this, he seemsto be much closer to Senge, both of whom did not merely invent models andtheories for user-designers or learners to apply but intended to engage them in thethinking process. Unlike many instructional technologists who spent much efforton constructing design models and theories, Banathy claims that more effortsshould be expended to cultivate the instructional technologists’ systems thinkingand their literacy of systems theories and systems methodology.

In reference to Stafford Beer’s vision that human beings are imprisoned bytheir own thinking, Banathy attempts to construct systems models to expand ourcognitive power and enhance our ability to deal with complexity. He found that tra-ditional science defines complexity by examining the multiple components withina system, whereas systems science defines complexity by the interaction betweenthe system and its environment and by the interrelationship between system com-ponents. The difference is that the former is a closed, static system, whereas thelatter is an open, dynamic system. It is essential to recognize that Banathy’s sys-tems thinking is to be applied in open social systems, and closely linked to theconcepts of synthesis and expansion, rather than the analysis which underliesmost instructional design and development models. He argues that through syn-thesis and expansion we can better understand the systems and their relationships

P1: vendor/GVG



to larger systems or environments. Meanwhile, we should shift from anticipating,predicting, and controlling the human world to understanding the uncertainty andcomplexity of the environment.

4.2. Critical Thoughts About Transforming Existing Systemsto Ideal Systems

Banathy is the foremost scholar who advocates the cultivation of creative andproactive design visions to transform the social, educational reality. InDesigningSocial Systems in a Changing World, Banathy (1996) conducts profound inquirieson design. He not only defines design and social systems, but also comprehensivelycompares design with other modes of inquiry, viewing design from a culturalhorizon. He defines design as a multidimensional inquiry by synthesizing systemsthinking, design thinking, and other perspectives. He also examines the ethicsof social systems design. In essence, he integrates a wide range of knowledgein approaching design inquiry. His contribution to the epistemology of design istremendous. In addition to Banathy, the scholarly visions of Rowland, Nelson,Akin, and Frantz also have great implications on fostering design culture.

While applying Banathy’s systems models to designing educational systems,we need to reflect upon how our habitual thinking and acting patterns might bein opposition to our newly developed design thinking or systems thinking. Re-gardless of how sound the systems methodology or models are, our thoughts andaction have a tendency to follow habitual routes, rather than new, less traveledchannels. Reflection upon the gap between their old and their new thinking is evenmore important, especially when the user-designers are engaged in teamwork. Ev-eryone’s understanding of and conduct in response to systems methodology andmodels might diverge at different levels and dimensions in the teamwork process.Therefore, the way to encourage user-designers to use design language or sys-tem language at a more communicable level and platform becomes a fundamentalissue. If users-designers do not have complete understanding and clear communi-cation of the visions of ideal systems or cannot form a design team, they might addanother dimension of complexity to the system itself. Indeed, the human factorsthat interfere with or even fail many restructuring tasks in education are not at alluncommon.

From Banathy’s systems thinking, we have a much broader view of what sys-tems are and how systems thinking might be applied to solve the existing problemsor design new educational systems. Such systemic perspectives help to expand ourcognitive power and reconceptualize our rigid understanding of instructional oreducational systems. However, as mentioned earlier, the user-designers or learn-ers should be provided with ample opportunities to reflect upon their habitualthinking and action which might have interfered with their engagement in systemsthinking or even prevented them from understanding the new mode of thinking.

P1: vendor/GVG


398 Li

Transforming one’s design habits may be more difficult than redefining systemproblems, or generating strategies to create ideal systems. We can gain insightsfrom Senge’s systems thinking to overcome this dilemma. If we could undertakethe task of design from alternate perspectives, we might be able to shift design focusfrom designing learning products and environments to cultivating user-designers’thinking and actions. Below, I critically analyze Senge’s systems thinking.

4.3. The Essence of Senge’s Systems Thinking: Philosophical Rootsin Both Western and Eastern Culture

Senge’s systems thinking has profound philosophical roots in both Westernand Eastern cultural traditions. While developing his systems thinking, he com-bines a fair amount of ancient Chinese wisdom with traditional Western philoso-phies and, furthermore, integrates them into the theory of systems dynamics. If weinterpret Senge’s systems thinking without recognizing its profound philosophicalroots, we may not be able to capture the entirety of his systems thinking. Throughcritically reviewing the essence of Senge’s thesis, I found that his systems think-ing is framed from views of learning, time and space, cause and effect, universe,structure, and work ethics. He argues that “learning” has lost its central meaningin contemporary usage, because learning has become synonymous with “taking ininformation.” He postulates that taking in information is only distantly related toreal learning, which should involve a fundamental shift or movement of mind. Reallearning gets to the heart of what it means to be human. It is through such learningthat we re-create ourselves. In other words, true learning should be a transforma-tion of spirit and mind, not merely an accumulation of information or knowledge.Furthermore, he proposes that we need to transform the technical mode of workinginto the spiritual pursuit of work ethics.

Senge also contends that our distorted views of time and space often destroyour patience because we can easily encounter today’s problem, resulting fromyesterday’s solution. The relationship between cause and effect is not as closelyrelated in time and space as we might always imagine and expect. Quite often ourimpatience and intolerance with the effect makes us rush into erroneous judgmentor decision-making, which is even worse than forming no judgment or decision atall. His perspectives on the universe greatly distinguish him from other systemsthinkers. Senge does not define the system components or categorize types ofsystems, instead emphasizing that lines between inside and outside, the parts andthe whole are very arbitrary. We often unconsciously complicate the nature of theproblems, because we tend to treat problems as if we are outsiders, rather thantreating the problems and ourselves as one. Based on this kind of philosophicalthinking and these perspectives, he develops laws of systems thinking, such as“today’s problems come from yesterday’s solutions,” “the harder you push, theharder the system pushes back.”, and “the cure can be worse than the disease.”

P1: vendor/GVG



4.4. Systems Thinking as a Thinking Language to Be Cultivated

Similar to many other systems thinkers, such as Banathy and Checklend,Senge’s systems thinking is also a discipline for seeing wholeness, a frameworkfor seeing interrelationships rather than individual things. However, his systemsthinking is also characterized by recognizing patterns of change. Senge regardssystems thinking as discipline for seeing the “structure” underlying complex sit-uations and discerning high from low leverage change. The reason that structuralexplanations are so important is that only they address the underlying causesof behavior at a level where behavioral patterns can be altered. Therefore, heclaims that we need to look into the underlying structure of many organizationalbehaviors rather than being confined within incidents or patterns of behaviors.It is only when we see the systemic structure that we can be collectively en-gaged in generative organizational learning, rather than in responsive or reactivelearning.

Another unique aspect of Senge’s systems thinking is that he constructs sys-tems thinking as a thinking language to be learned, practiced, and used to capturethe structures underlying the individuals’ or organization’s behavioral structure.He develops three primary thinking tools for cultivating systems thinking.

(1) Feedback loop 1—reinforcing loops: when small changes become bigchanges.

(2) Feedback loop 2—balancing loops: pushing stability, resistance, andlimits.

(3) Delays: when things happen eventually.

In order to guide us to learn these thinking tools, he developed four toolboxes:

(1) learning how to draw systems maps, including the interaction betweencause and effect, its dynamic loop, system feedback perspectives,antiagnosticism, and sharing systems problems;

(2) learning how to describe reinforcing loops;(3) learning how to describe balancing loops; and(4) learning how to describe delays.

Senge identifies the limitation of our written and spoken language and, thus,tries to demonstrate how systems thinking can be represented through drawingsystems maps, systems loops, nodes, and time delays. He translates his long-termobservation of and experience with recurrent organizational learning developmentand problems into “systems archetypes” used to frame structural and deep-rootedproblems of certain organizational behaviors or phenomenon. Such problems, in-cluding limits to growth, shifting the burden, eroding goals, escalation, success tothe successful, tragedy of the commons, fixes that fail, and growth and underin-vestment, are found in many organizations.

P1: vendor/GVG


400 Li

In addition, Senge regards systems thinking as the fifth discipline which isthe conceptual cornerstone underlying all of the five learning disciplines: teamlearning, shared vision, mental model, personal mastery and systems thinkingitself. According to Senge (1990, p. 69) all five disciplines “are concerned witha shift of mind from seeing parts to seeing the whole, from seeing people ashelpless reactors to seeing them as active participants in shaping their reality, fromreacting to the present to creating the future.” We should identify the fact thatsystems thinking has been successfully integrated into the instruction of manyschool subjects and many organizational learning-training programs. Its potentialand value to education genuinely require further exploration.

4.5. Comparison and Synthesis of Banathy’s and Senge’s Systems Thinking

Generally speaking, Senge’s systems thinking not only incorporates Banathy’ssystemic view, but also has its own unique features. From his profound systemicviews, self and others are inseparable. Therefore, the purpose of applying systemsthinking is not to depict the details of the component systems, and relationshipsamong major and minor systems, but to frame and reframe our own problems bysituating ourselves within the systems which we intend to understand and inter-pret. Meanwhile, Senge’s systems language translates complexity of reality intosimplicity of wisdom, with which we can better identify the structural and rootedproblems embedded in our own thinking and action. Systems archetypes becomepowerful tools for converting complicated problems into simple communicablelanguage. In addition, Senge’s systems thinking is intended to be practiced withother disciplines, personal mastery, mental models, team learning, and shared vi-sions. All five disciplines cannot be cultivated in isolation. Through the mutualcultivation of the five disciplines, each discipline can exert its greatest learningimpact on the team or organization. The five disciplines have been widely recog-nized and successfully practiced in many organizations. It is time for us to thinkabout its value to education. Although Senge and other scholars and practitioners(Cambron-McCabeet al., 2000) have developed a fifth discipline field book, enti-tledSchools That Learn, for educators, parents, and anyone who values education,many educational technologists have yet to incorporate Senge’s five disciplinesinto their educational practices.

From the discussions about Banathy’s and Senge’s systems thinking, I triedto synthesize the essence of their views into Table I.

5. AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN APPROACH TO FOSTER DESIGNCULTURE—THE TRANSFORMATIVE DESIGN INQUIRY

In past decades, educational technologists’ visions of systems thinking havebeen narrowed down to systematic ways of design. Although many intellectualclarification between “systematic” and “systemic” have been brought up, we still

P1: vendor/GVG



Table I. Comparison of Banathy’s and Senge’s Systems Thinking

Senge’s systems thinking Banathy’s systems thinking

Orientation Transformative spirit oriented towardLEARNING

Transformative spirit oriented towardDESIGN

Ultimate goal Concerned about fostering INNERand SOCIETAL revolution throughorganizational learning

Concerned about fostering DESIGNliteracy, conversation, and culture

Knowledge base Systems thinking as a synthesis ofFORRESTER’S Systemsdynamics, EASTERN andWESTERN wisdom

Systems thinking as a synthesis ofVARIOUS systems thinking anddesign thinking

Representation Systems thinking as a communicableform of LANGUAGE to identifythe recurrent structure inindividuals and organizations anddepicting all five disciplines

Systems thinking represented asMODELS aimed at designing opensocial systems and integrated withdesign thinking

Focus Focus on TEAM learning andorganizational learning

Focusing on DESIGN learningthrough forming a designcommunity

Linkage Close link and integration betweenthinking systems thinking andOTHER DISCIPLINES

Close link between systems andDESIGN THINKING

need to deepen further our thinking about the true nature of systems thinkingand explore alternative interpretations of systems thinking. Indeed, educationalresearchers have placed too much emphasis on defining outer educational systemsand have long ignored the inner systems with which they define and interpretouter systems. Therefore, we need to probe ways of bridging the inner and outersystems. I contend that we could situate all learners, instructors, and designers(user-designers) within the boundless circles of educational systems, learning tocope with the indistinct nature of system boundaries, rather than let these bound-aries confine our perspectives of systems. If more designers (user-designers) couldintegrate the systems thinking proposed by Banathy and Senge into their practices,design would no longer be treated as merely models or theories for application.Likewise, if more designers could delve into their own inner systems, design wouldnot be merely dealt with at a phenomenal level. When the design community be-comes more concerned about expanding systems visions and cultivating systemsthinking, design culture will be cultivated at a truly holistic and profound level.

5.1. Transformation and Deep Learning

After reviewing and critiquing the essence of design thinking and systemsthinking in the previous passages, I would like to propose a new transformative

P1: vendor/GVG


402 Li

design approach, which aims at discovering possibilities for fostering a designculture. While advocating and diffusing the theory and practice of learning organi-zation into many corporate and educational contexts, Senge has held the view thattrue learning is not an accumulation of information or construction of knowledge.He affirms that the very spirit of learning is transformation of mind and spirit.Transformation has certainly been regarded as essential to human development,organizational innovation, and societal revolution. In this sense, we could arguethat learning is to transform our thoughts, feelings, emotions and habitual powersinstead of accumulating information or knowledge. He also advocates the conceptof “deep learning cycle”—the interrelated capacity for change inside individualsand embodied in group cultures. Deep learning takes place when new skills andcapabilities, new awareness and sensibilities, and new attitudes and beliefs rein-force each other (Sengeet al., 2000, p. 26). Indeed, I attempt to synthesize theconcept of deep learning and numerous thoughts about systems thinking and de-sign thinking by proposing a transformative design inquiry. Table II is a diagramof transformative design inquiry from which we can see the dynamic interplay ofsystems design inquiry.

5.2. The Intersubjectivity of Design Thinking and Systems Thinking

In Table II, I intend to juxtapose designers and users at the two sides of theinner circle, centering around their reflective thinking and action. It is through suchcollaboration of reflective action that design can be cultivated as a mode of inquiry,rather than models of theories to be applied. It is important to extend and deepenthe art of design to the level of an inquiry mode and into a unique way of thinking,knowing, acting, and even living. Design is by no means composed of a set ofmethods, tools, or models, on which a great deal of instructional design researchefforts have been expended. When the product of instructional design is no longertreated as merely models and theories, and the goals of design are no longer lockedinto efficiency and effectiveness, we might foresee the magnificence of design.

Table II. Transformative Design with Inner Revolution

Arousing our AWARENESS of Our design thinking and action patterns/structuresPersonal and collective design thinking and action

patterns/structuresThe embedded causal links in our design thinking and action

Deepening our INSIGHTS of The multiple relationships of self, others, world, and the universeThe multiple relationships of cause and effectComplexity and uncertainties of the human world

Cultivating our VISIONS of Integrating self with others through mutual growthTranscending personal limitation and vicious causal linksTracing the pattern and structure of problems

P1: vendor/GVG



Transformative design focuses on clarifying users’ and designers’ purposes andbeliefs, wherein users and designers would probe their philosophy and values ofdesign in reflective dialogue and cultivate their compassion, critical awareness, oreven enlightened wisdom.

5.3. A Design Philosophy Arises from Inner Revolution

According to Mair (1977), we live in and experience an inner society of con-versational relationships within ourselves. Coombs and Smith (1998) elaborate onsuch an inner society and extend it to an outer society comprised of the physicalworld and other human beings. They frame this as duality of psychological ex-istence, which they believe is a fundamental construct to perceive the inner andouter learning conversation of so-called self-organized learning. However, suchinner conversation and its interaction with the outer society have been largely ne-glected by educational researchers in past decades. I would argue that to relize thetransformation of our learning and educational environment, we need to focus onthe transformation of both our inner and our outer societies. In order to cultivateour inner revolution, we should hold a truly holistic, systemic view of our innersystems and relate them to the outer systems. Furthermore, we should focus moreon resolving the boundary between the systems rather than classifying or catego-rizing the systems. Such systems thinking aims not only at depicting individuals’and organizations’ recurrent behavioral structure, but also at integrating one’s in-sights into the inner systems and visions of the outer systems. It is to be cultivatedthrough nurturing our awareness, insights, and visions. To nurture the growth ofsuch inner systems, we could take efforts through the following three tasks.

If users’ and their own inner growth are not taken into consideration, designersmight be confined within existing systems while engaged in the design process.Collectively and dialogically designing certain products may not guarantee thecultivation of design team spirit, if not every participant’s inner self is nurturedin the design process. It is evident that different thought engagements and innersystems orient toward different outer systems. Inner and outer systems are alwaysinterconnected regardless of whether we are conscious of it or not. Transformativedesign is an interactive process from outward to inward, and vice versa. At thetime when we recognize that our inner and outer systems are unified, we mighteasily expand our visions of learning and enable the learners to take responsibilityfor caring for the whole, rather than merely improving the parts.

5.4. Interconnectedness of Inner and Outer Systems Dynamicsfor Self-Realization

Without any question, the transformative design approach is humanisticallyoriented toward one’s inner realization, rather than being product-based or

P1: vendor/GVG


404 Li

goal-based. It is an approach which extends from inner to outer learning systemsand stretches from outer learning systems back to inner systems. It focuses on theongoing dynamics among our inner systems, outer systems, and intersystems. It isthrough such inner–outer–inter systems dynamics that users and designers, or theso-called user-designers, might cultivate truly systemic thinking and coordinatewith one another as an interconnected design community. If designers and userscould collaborate with one another beyond the level of information and knowl-edge sharing, and engage themselves in such inner revolution, transformation ofthe social reality would become highly possible. It is very likely that user-designerscould step out from the existing systems if their inner growth is taken into seriousconsideration.

The transformative design approach aims at collective and dialogical engage-ment of all design participants’ inner revolution. It focuses on methods, tools, andmodels for engaging all design participants in the processes of systemic think-ing and inner revolution, instead of on creating products. Its ultimate goal isto transform existing inner and outer systems. When our design thinking is nolonger confined to product-oriented design, we might foresee the magnificenceof design art. This approach is to explore the alternative design possibilities fortransforming both inner and outer worlds. It is feedforward from and feedback tothe inner systems that are integrated with any other outer systems we attempt todesign.

5.5. Fostering the Transformation of the User-Designers’ Inner Systems,Outer Systems, and Intersystems Dynamics

While developing the construct of the transformative design approach, I ac-tually imbue the design process with Eastern views of thinking and actions. Thisapproach aims at engaging the professional group, the teacher–student group, andany intended community as a collaborative team in critical dialogues and reflectiveactions. In synthesis, I frame system design inquiry as embodied in internal, exter-nal, and interactive system design. The three-level systems design inquiry couldbe conducted in individual, group, and institutional/organizational contexts. It isintended to foster the inner, mutual, and collective dialogues of a learning teamand to cultivate mindful actions with a sense of selflessness, compassion, vision,and mutual growth. I also propose envisioning design thinking and systems think-ing, and the cultivation of design culture, such as probing design values, nurturingdesign sensitivity and awareness, exploring one’s and the other’s meaning-makingprocess, searching for system tools, envisioning design possibilities, cultivatingvisions through design dialogues, and so forth.

In Fig. 3, we can see that transformative design inquiry integrates both in-ner and outer systems, transforms from habitual into enlightened design think-ing, and changes existing systems into ideal systems. Such transformative inquiry

P1: vendor/GVG



Fig. 3. Transformative design inquiry.

indeed embodies Banathy’s views of “design by transformation” and Senge’s be-lief of learning being transformation. However, it truly is systemic design in whichlearning and design come to be one with everyone working with the whole sys-tem in mind. Unity becomes the philosophical foundation for constructing anintegrated design team or community. Through such integration, design prod-uct and process can be significantly enriched and all participants’ awareness,vision, insights, and will to transform reality by design can be nurtured andcultivated.

5.6. New Roles of Designers—Envisioning Design Teams(the Fifth-Generation Designer)

Before elaborating on what roles transformative designers might take, it ishelpful to understand how the roles designers with different modes might play.Table III is the author’s synthesis of Banathy’s perspectives on the evolutionaryroles of designers and includes my inquiry of the fifth-generation designer’s rolein the transformative approach.

P1: vendor/GVG


406 Li

Table III. The Evolutionary Roles of Designers

The first-generation designer Enters a system as an outside expertCreates an image of the future systemHands it over to the clients for implementation

The second-generation designer Has slightly more interaction with clientsAsks clients for feedback on the final draft before

turning it over to them for implementationThe third-generation designer Enters an organization as outside expert

Drafts plans for the design or redesign of a system withconsiderably more interaction with clients

Invites input and feedback from the clients throughout the designprocess and possibly assists them with the implementation

The fourth-generation designer Assumes a radically different role in the design processFunctions primarily as a facilitator to help clients learn to

design for themselvesShifts primary responsibility for learning and designing

to the clientsShoulders reponsibility for fostering participants’

design competence“Does with” the clients, instead of “does to” or “does for”

the clientsThe fifth-generation designer Enters the design systems by treating

themselves, other design participants,and the social systems as a “systemic oneness”

Cultivates all design participants’ inner and mutual growthEngages all design participants in reflective and critical thinking

about their habitual thinking and action about designFunctions as learning enablers by transforming design

into an inner and societal learning processShifts design focus from design product to design process

to “design mind,” a truly humanistic-based design

Compared to Banathy’s four generations of design which focus on “designto” enhance users’ learning, “design by” the professionals, “design for” the users,and “design with” users, respectively, the transformative design approach placesemphasis on all design participants’ engagement and their inner vision and innerrevolution. It is a thought engagement and action engagement process undertakeneither individually or collectively. Its systemic spirit builds on the integration of ourinner systems into outer systems and intersystems. It is through such holistic systemdynamics that designers, users, and all design participants become “envisioning”teams or design communities, rather than “visible” teams or design communities.Through such envisioning design teams or communities, both inner and societalrevolution could be fostered.

Designers of this approach share some similarities with fourth-generationdesigners, but there are still some major differences. I would frame designers of

P1: vendor/GVG



this approach as fifth-generation designers. They act as learning facilitators to helpclients assume the responsibility to learn and design for themselves. Their rolesare to cultivate the user-designers’ design competence. In addition, they wouldplay other significant roles of which fourth-generation designers may not evenbe aware. For example, they enter the design systems by treating themselves, theuser-designers and the learning and educational systems as “systemic oneness.”They would engage all user-designers in reflective and critical thinking about theirhabitual thinking and action in order to foster their inner and mutual growth, whichis vital to the transformation of existing learning and educational systems.

5.7. Enacting the Envisioning Design Partnership

When we endeavor to enact the envisioning design partnership, there areseveral approaches we might take into consideration, outlined below.

5.7.1. Reframing the Essence of the Collaborative SpiritWhen designing with those who hold different views, designers need to deal

with their level, depth, and scope when discussing the issues of learning, design,and change. A design teams collaboration with a community relies on continuousengagement in transformative spirit, vision, and willingness. If we design for userswithout sharing each others’ vision and face each others’ mental models withoutthe willingness to transform them, the design will result in a technical application.Only when those in the design community can undertake the transformative designinquiry will the sense of true association arise, not being connected by rules, orobligation, but by the true feeling of being part of the learning design teams.

5.7.2. Embedding Goal-Setting or Seeking into Design Vision SharingLearning or instructional goals are to be planned well in advance or negotiated

in the conventional or constructive paradigm of design. Many constructive learningadvocates endeavor to include a constructive spirit into the process of collabora-tive goal-setting or goal-seeking. However, if are framed too early in the designprocess, transformation through design might be hindered to a certain extent. Inthe transformative design approach, what is required is ideal seeking and visionsharing. When user-designers are engaged in the coenvisioning process, learningcould enter a positive cyclical feedback and feedforward process. Nevertheless,this does not diminish the value of setting or seeking goals with user-designers.What is advocated here is that we should cultivate the visions of learning beforesetting specific goals. Such visions could be much better articulated and related tothe user-designers beliefs, values, enthusiasm, compassion and critical awarenessin design dialogues.

P1: vendor/GVG


408 Li

5.7.3. Transforming a Novice-Expert Relationship into an Inclusiveand Participatory Relationship

When user-designers attempt to undertake the transformative design approachand engage in the envisioning teams, they have to transform simultaneously theirdesign relationship. While most design approaches claim expertise is requiredto facilitate learning, the transformative approach focuses much more on designpotential than on design expertise. By involving all the user-designers in the designteams, we need to build in flexibility and role transaction into the team relationship.User-designers might play the role of peripheral designers in one scenario and therole of guiding designers in others. Whatever roles anyone might assume, theyare invited to participate without being identified as “novice” or “expert.” What isvalued in such a design approach is each person’s vision and design potential. Themost important task for generating such relationships is to cultivate the public’sdesign literacy and their willingness to explore design potential in a timely, flexiblemanner.

5.7.4. Enabling User-Designers’ Design Potential and Expertise—DesignAbout How to Design

Most of us understand the value of learning by experience, but few have heardof learning by design, transforming by design, or designing by transformation.If we intend to cultivate the public’s design literacy and competence, we needto create a space for design exploration and foster a learning environment forconversing about shared visions, learning invitation, identity inclusion, and mutualgrowth. By doing so, we might transcend the efficient criteria for design, which hasresulted in short-term cost benefits and long-term cost deficits. When we designwith vision, inclusion, and growth, we could transform our habitual thinking andaction into enlightened design thinking and action. In other words, transformativedesign enables user-designers to explore their unconscious design potential andunlimited design possibilities. It is feedforward from the inner systems to outersystems and feedback from the outer systems toward inner systems.

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, I have outlined the evolutionary trend of instructional designand development from the 1970s to 1990s. I have also synthesized the creativeand critical views of design thinking (Rowland, 1994; Akin, 1994; Nelson, 1994)and design culture mentioned by Frantz and earnestly advocated by Banathy. Mostimportantly, this paper proposes enlightening visions of fostering design culture.Such visions would be harnessed through cultivation of design thinking, systemsthinking, and the Eastern philosophy of wholeness, which Senge borrows heavilyon in developing his systems thinking. In reviewing the evolutionary trend ofinstructional design, I discovered that different orientations of instructional design

P1: vendor/GVG



imply different design philosophies and approaches to design. Although previousresearch efforts have consolidated the knowledge base of instructional design to acertain degree, the essence of instructional design is yet to be fully explored. It isnot until the early 1990s that the nature of design thinking and systems thinkingreceived greater attention in the field of instructional technology, and more scholarsshared in the vision of transforming reality by design.

Indeed, no matter whether design is a problem solving, problem restructuring,or dialogical process, we need to be aware if we are designing in the mode of“reflection in action” or in our original habitual thinking, acting, and ways ofdesign. We also need to cultivate our critical awareness and understanding of theessence of design thinking and systems thinking. We need more space to allow oneanother to navigate so that design visions can be shared, and one’s beliefs, values,and mental models can be transformed through team learning. This is especiallythe case when designing in a team or an organization. It is through the cultivationof design thinking and systems thinking in a learning team and organization thata design culture can gradually be fostered. As instructional designers, we needto step out from our technical mode of thinking and acting. We need systemicchanges in the way we think and act about learning in order to foster inner andsocial revolution. Most important of all, we need to cultivate an indefatigablewillingness to redefine our roles as teachers, learners, or designers. We shouldlearn to be more responsible for our own education and assume the responsibilityto design our own learning.

In summary, problems in the realm of transformative design point inwardrather than outward. Furthermore, transformative design clarifies how an individ-ual’s beliefs, values, knowledge, expertise, and experience might influence designthinking and action. It aims at cultivating design vision and wisdom that enables oneto reconceptualize the relationship between self and others, designers and users,in truly systemic views and could foster an individual and collective willingnessto crystallize personal design mental models.

REFERENCES

Akin, O. (1994). Creativity in design.Perform. Improve. Q. 7(3), 9–21.Banathy, B. H. (1990). Systems design: A creative response to the current educational predicament. In

Reigeluth, C. M., Banathy, B. H., and Olson, J. R. (eds.),Comprehensive Systems Design: A NewEducational Technology, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Banathy, B. H. (1992).A Systems View of Education: Concepts and Principles for Effective Practice,Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Banathy, B. H. (1994). Comprehensive systems design in education: The architecture of transformation.Educ. Technol. July–Aug. 32–34.

Banathy, B. H. (1996).Designing Social Systems in a Changing World, Plenum Press, New York.Bertalanffy, L. (1968).General Systems Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, G. Braziller,

New York.Checkland, P. (1981).Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

P1: vendor/GVG


410 Li

Coombs, S. J., and Smith, I. D. (1998). Designing a self-organized conversational learning environment.Educ. Technol. May–June,17–28.

Cross, N. (ed.) (1984).Developments in Design Methodology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Cross, N. (1990). The nature and nurture of design ability.Design Stud. 11,127–140.Davies, I. (1981). Instructional development as an art: One of the three faces of I.D.Perform. Instruct.

20(7), 4–7.Davies, I. (1994). Process re-design for enhanced human performance.Perform. Improve. Q. 7(3),

104–114.Dick, W., and Carey, L. (1990).The Systematic Design of Instruction, 3rd ed., Scott, Foresman and

Co., Glenview, IL.Frantz, T. G. (1994). Systems for design learning: Evolving perspectives.Educ. Technol.Jan., 54–61.Gustafson, K. L. (1993). Instructional design fundamentals: Clouds on the horizon.Educ. Technol.

Feb., 27–32.Li, M. F. (1993).Convergence of Western Critical Theory and Eastern Zen Philosophy for Designing

Metacognitive Learning and Instruction, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University—Bloomington.Mair, M. (1977). The community of self. In Bannister, D. (ed.),New Perspectives on PCT, Academic

Press, New York.Nelson, H. (1994). The necessity of being ‘undisciplined’ and ‘out-of-control’: Design action and

systems thinking.Perform. Improve. Q. 7(3), 22–29.Page, J. K. (1966).Conference Report, Ministry of Public Building and Works, London.Richey, R. C. (1993).The knowledge base of the domain of instructional design. Paper presented at the

Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, NewOrleans.

Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design.ETR&D41(1), 79–91.Rowland, G. (1994). It’s the sound! Preface to the Special Issue on Designing for Human Performance.

Perform. Improve. Q. 7(3), 3–6.Rowland, G., and Shapiro, D. W. (1996). Lighting the fire’ of design conversation.Educ. Technol.

Jan.–Feb.,42–45.Rowland, G., and Wilson, G. (1994). Liminal states in designing.Perform. Improve. Q. 7(3), 30–45.Schon, D. (1985).The Design Studio, RIBA, London.Schon, D. (1987).Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and

Learning in the Professions, Jossey–Bass, San Francisco.Schon, D. (1991).The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice, Teachers College,

Columbia University, New York.Senge, P. (1990).The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency

Doubleday, New York.Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., and Kleiner, A. (2000).Schools

That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares AboutEducation, Currency, New York.

Simon, H. A. (1981).The Sciences of the Artificial, 2nd ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Streible, M. J. (1991). Instructional design and human practice: What can we learn from Habermas’

theory of technical and practical human interests?Proceedings of Selected Research Presenta-tions at the 1991 Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications andTechnology, New Orleans, Feb., pp. 850–884.

Tripp, S. D. (1991). Two theories of design.Proceedings of Selected Research Presentations at the1991 Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,New Orleans, Feb., pp. 918–927.

fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers' design thinking and systems...

Documents