Author S. Shurville
Scott B. & Shurville S. (2011) What is a symbol? Kybernetes 48(1/2): 12–22. https://cepa.info/1791
Scott B. & Shurville S.
(
2011)
What is a symbol?.
Kybernetes 48(1/2): 12–22.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1791
Purpose: In order to develop transdisciplinary working across the disciplines, clear epistemological foundations are required. The purpose of this paper is to show that sociocybernetics to provides the required unifying metadisciplinary epistemological foundations and transdisciplinary frameworks. Design/methodology/approach – The authors note that second-order cybernetics provides a metadisciplinary framework for discerning the causes and cures for the schisms within the natural and cognitive sciences. The particular contributions of sociocybernetics are to extend the second-order understandings to unify the social sciences and, by incorporating extant sociological theory back into the transdisciplinary pursuits of cybernetics and systems theory, to enlighten and enrich those pursuits. Findings: In order to highlight the power and fruitfulness of these contributions from sociocybernetics, the authors problematise, deconstruct and reconstruct key concepts concerned with human communication. To do this, they take as central the question, What is a symbol? and present a sociocybernetic, transdisciplinary solution. In doing so they make clear the epistemological poverty of approaches in cognitive science that are based on the thesis that brains and computers are both physical-symbol systems. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the metadisciplinary and transdisciplinary aims of cybernetics and, in particular, uses a sociocybernetic analysis to enlighten foundational issues in cognitive science.
Scott B., Shurville S., MacLean P. & Cong C. (2007) Cybernetic principles for learning design. Kybernetes 36(9/10): 1497–1514. https://cepa.info/1796
Scott B., Shurville S., MacLean P. & Cong C.
(
2007)
Cybernetic principles for learning design.
Kybernetes 36(9/10): 1497–1514.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/1796
Purpose: This paper aims to present an approach from first principles to the design of learning experiences in interactive learning environments, that is learning designs in the broadest sense. Design/methodology/approach – The approach is based on conversation theory CT, a theory of learning and teaching with principled foundations in cybernetics. The approach to learning design that is proposed is not dissimilar from other approaches such as that proposed by Rowntree. However, its basis in CT provides a coherent theoretical underpinning. Findings: Currently, in the world of e-learning, the terms instructional design and learning design are used to refer to the application of theories of learning and instruction to the creation of e-learning material and online learning experiences. The paper examines the roots of the two terms and discusses similarities and differences in usage. It then discusses how the processes of learning design fit into the larger processes of course, design, development and delivery. It goes on to examine the concept of a learning design pattern. Originality/value – The paper contends that, whilst learning design patterns are useful as starting-points for individual learning designs, learning designers should adopt the cybernetic principles of reflective practice – as expressed in CT – to create learning designs where received wisdom is enriched by contextual feedback from colleagues and learners.
Export result page as:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·