ABSTRACT

A SYSTEMS THEORY APPROACH TOWARD THE
RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF CURRICULUM

BY

Leo Dworkin

The major purpose of this study was to consider
curriculum as a social system. This formulation of
curriculum was deve10ped so that educators could have
the use of a conceptual vieWpoint that would enable
the application of systems and model theory to the
problems of curriculum change. A secondary purpose of
the study was to develop the basis by which curriculum
change could be assessed in terms of its potential con-
sequences.

In order to develop the necessary conceptual
frameworks for a humanly oriented approach, concepts
were derived from the fields of: (1) mathematics,

(2) general systems theory, (3) phi1050phy, (4) social
systems theory, and (5) various behavioral sciences.
The concepts of set, isomorphism, model, systems and
social system were the major foundations upon which

this conceptual framework was established.

The traditional and popularly held theory of
curriculum usually refers to a "course of study." In
professional practice curriculum is defined as all of
the experiences of the student under the direction of
the school. The first conception of curriculum, in
terms of a systemic approach, refers to a single ele-
ment (prOperties) and consequently lacks explanatory
power for the consideration of change. The second
concept implies a systemic approach but fails to identi-
fy the elements of the system and their interconnections.

In order to facilitate a revitalized orienta-
tion toward curriculum, an eXplicit formulation of the
conceptual frameworks of curriculum viewed as a social

system was made. In this context, curriculum was de-

 

fined as a socialsystem composed of the interactive
elements of_persons, processes, and prOperties organized
for the purpose of providing the conditions necessary

for continuing educative experiences.

 

The unique aspects of considering curriculum as
a social system are to be found in its elements and
their interactive relationships. Change in a system
(curriculum event) is generated from the interactive
relationships of the elements of the system. To the

extent that characteristic effects are identifiable

from such relationships, it is possible to estimate
the probable consequences of a change in conditions
meant to facilitate educative eXperiences.

Because each set of relationships generates
characteristic effects and consequences, models can be
derived to diagnose the condition or state of a system.
The models can then be used to suggest strategies for
change in terms of realizing the purposive functions of
the system.

Using the new model of curriculum as a starting
point several models were derived to serve as means for
analysis, decision-making and planning for change in
curriculum improvement and development.

The models are meant as examples rather than
exemplars and, as such, can only acquire further value
from a systemic viewpoint as they are tried, tested and
modified in empirical situations. The models derived
from the model of curriculum viewed as a social system
were: (1) A Model of Symbolic Distance, (2) A Model
for the Expansion of Shared Meaning, (3) An Analog
Model of the Change Process in Curriculum Viewed as a
Social System,(4) The Qualitative Control of Conse-
quences in the Curriculum System, (5) A Model of Sym-

bolic Orientation, (6) A Concern Matrix for Curriculum

as a Social System, and (7) A Model of Systemic Dis-
orders.

Change, in the context of this study, is con-
sidered to be a reordering of the relationships that
obtain between the interactive elements of the system.
In this sense, a consequence is any result or output
of a curricular system. From this point of view, the
potential consequences of change are amenable to the
methods of intelligence as applied by means of models
to diagnose and restruct the system to achieve planned
change. Curriculum, from this perspective, is never
a completed object, but rather a system in a state of
change where the focus of change is intended to fa-
cilitate educative experiences for the persons in the

system.

A SYSTEMS THEORY APPROACH TOWARD THE
RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF CURRICULUM

BY

Leo Dworkin

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.

College of Education

1969

Copyright by
Leo Dworkin

1969

DEDICATION
To Alva, Deborah and Jeffrey,

whose help and faith made all things

possible.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A great educator at Michigan State University,
Dean Ernest O. Melby, counseled me to select men
rather than courses. I am grateful and fortunate for
this advice and would like to thank the men I picked.

I would like especially to thank Dr. Charles A.
Blackman for his help in the capacities of teacher,
friend and advisor. His interest, encouragement, ef-
fort and humanistic tradition were a source of inspira-
tion in my development as a professional and in the
formulation of this document.

I am most appreciative to Dr. Richard C.
Featherstone for his exciting example as a teacher and
the encouragement he gave me to enter doctoral studies.
I am particularly grateful to Dr. Troy L. Stearns and
his lovely wife for their warm friendship and guidance
during my residence at Michigan State University.

Dr. Joseph Hill is deserving of Special thanks for his
many hours of discussion, help and encouragement both
as friend and teacher.

Thanks are in order to my friends and col-
leagues, Constance Young, Dr. Joseph Johns, Dr. Harvey

Sterns, Esther Davis, Charles Fishman, Dr. Leonard Demak,

iii

Dr. Sam Mangione and Dr. Steven Zussman for their en-
couragement and assistance.

I would like to express appreciation to Grace
Brown for her efforts on my behalf in the preparation
of this manuscript. Finally, a thanks to all of my
friends and family whose encouragement and faith meant

so much.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter

I.

II.

INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Study .
Purpose of the Study .
Background of the Study

The Forces of Change

Universe of Discourse . .

A New Conceptual Framework
as the Basis for Change . .

The Integrative and Comprehensive
Function of a Systems Approach

The Need for Educators to Provide
Leadership for the Use Of Systems

Significance of the Study . . . . .
Design and Procedures of the Study .
Assumptions Underlying the Study
Definitions of Key Terms . . . .
Summary and Overview . . . . . .

MODEL THEORY.

Models: Their Isomorphic Foundations
Abstractions, Synthesis and Concretion
Further Clarifications

Concerning Model Theory
A Topology Of Models . . . .

The Iconic Model . . . .
The Iconic Temporal Model .
Spatial- Temporal Combinations
The Analog Model . .

The Formal Symbolic MOdel

Summary . . . . . . . . . .

Page

viii

H

N0 O\U1|'-"

Chapter Page
III. GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY

AND THE SOCIAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . 66
General Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . . 66
Defining Systemic Level . . . . . . 70
The Application of General Systems
Theory to Specific Systems . . . . . . . 73
Systemic Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Open and Closed Systems . . . . . . . . . . 75
The Feedback Process . . . . . . . . . . . 77
The Social System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Value-Orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Purposive Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Normative Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Role Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
IV. CURRICULUM AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM . . . . . . . 98
A New Model for Curriculum . . . . . . . . 98
Personal and Shared Meaning.

8 Their Interrelationships . . . . . . . 102
Differential Symbolic Orientations . . . . 107
Curriculum and Meaning . . . . . . . . . 109
A Model of Symbolic Distance . . . . . . 110
Change and the Consequence of Change . . . 113
The Qualitative Control of Conse-

quences in the Curricular System . . . . 120
A Model of Symbolic Orientation . . . . . . 125
The Concern Matrix. . . . . . . . . . 127
A Model of Systemic Disorders . . . . . . . 132
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

V. SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Implications of the Study . . . . . . 141
A Universe of Discourse as the Basis of

Professional Effort and DevelOpment . . 142
Systems Theory as a Means of Re-

conceptualizing Curriculum . . . . . . . 144
Curriculum Change as Change

in a Social System . . . . . . . . . 145
Systems Analysis and Creativity . . . . . . 148
Curriculum and the Individual . . . . . . . 150

vi

Chapter Page

The Curriculum Generalist

and Systems Approaches . . . . . . . . . 154
The Arts of Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . 155
Systemic Diagnosis and Change . . . . . . . 157
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . . 162

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. (Untitled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2. (Untitled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. (Untitled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4. (Untitled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5. (Untitled) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6. Model of Symbolic Distance . . . . . . . . 111

7. A Model for the Expansion
of Shared Meaning . . . . . . . . . . 112

8. An Analog Model of the Change
PrOcess in Curriculum‘
Viewed as a Social System . . . . . . 118

9. A Concern Matrix for Curriculum
as a Social System . . . . . . . . . 128

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Study

 

Because of the intensity of social tensions that
have activated pressures toward change, increasing ef-
forts to respond to social problems have been made in
the educational arena. Although there is both a variety
and abundance of innovative change in curriculum, the
attempts toward improvement seem to have remained on the
level of piecemeal tinkering.

Many scholars in the field of curriculum have
noted the necessity to create new conceptual foundations
in order to make significant progress toward the develop-
ment of improved curriculum theory. The need is ap-
parent for a conceptual framework and universe of dis-
course upon which to build new approaches toward the re-
conceptualization of curriculum.

Because of their capacity to integrate diverse
factors into a viable total, the most promising develop-
ments to date are those employing General Systems Theory.
A variety of systems approaches in the field of business,

'government, biology and the military have been used and

are being applied to education. The use of systems
theory in education has been met with both positive and
negative feelings. Both Opponents and proponents of
systems approaches have clouded the issue Of its value
by failing to develop a clear understanding of its mean-

ing. A system, simply defined, is a collection of ele-

 

ments and their interconnections viewed over a period
of time.

The ultimate purpose of a systems approach is
to provide its user with a sound decision-making process.
This purpose is accomplished by enabling the decision-
makers to consider all elements and their interconnections
in the context of a series of options, one or some of
which are of greater utility, effectiveness, and benefit
in outcomes than are the others.

A human being is a living system composed of sub-
systems and is involved in and a part of a suprasystem
(his social system). Man lives in a universe of change.
The continuing processes of birth, life, growth, develOp-
ment, decay and death are structurally a part of him and
his world. What man becomes, in large measure, depends
upon what he does to himself and what peOple do to him
and to each other.

To derive decisions which help him make his way

through the tangle of problems that beset him, man makes

use of models. That is to say, he has certain constructs
which affect his thinking and behavior. The term ”model,"
as used here, requires definition. This definition in
turn depends upon two definitions associated with set
theory in mathematics: (1) the definition of a "set" and

(2) the definition of "isomorphism." A set is considered

 

to be a carefully defined collection of elements. The
term isomorphism pertains to a relationship between two
sets. Two sets are said to be isomorphic if, (a) there is
a one—to-one correspondence between the elements included
in the respective sets, and (b) if certain structures are
common to them.

If two sets are found to be isomorphic, either
set can serve as a model for the other. It is in this
context that man employs models to derive decisions about
the world around him. Organizing, making sense of and
interpreting his perceptions of the world by means of
models, in turn, affects the way in which man perceives
the world.

Within the limits of certain structural "givens"
in the cycle of his development the human being is richly
plastic. That is to say, what he is capable of becoming
is inherently diverse and subject to wide variation. The
major constraints to what he might become, excluding bio-

logical ones, are to a large extent defined in the

context of social interaction. The social system Oper-
ates to set the pattern and direction of development of
its individual and collective members.

Man lives in and is involved in systems. He
makes sense of the world by means of models. The nature
of his eXperience as it is affected by his conceptual
orientation is an important aSpect governing the process
of his becoming. Whether or not man is aware of the
systems and models with which he functions, they Operate
and determine the outcome of educational effort. With
an awareness of systemic analysis and model construction,
the ongoing processes of change affecting human purposes
become accessible to planning and Open to choice. It
should be noted, however, that we can, by carefully
selecting means and ends, or purposes and goals, develop
powerful methodologies for doing very efficiently that
which is not worth doing in the first place. Even worse,
we can more effectively constrain the process of becoming
to a meagre model of man's potential. On the other hand,
we can do very effectively that which we judge to be
highly worthy.

Leslie J. BishOp eXplains that change involves
modification of the system-structure. In Bishop's view,

the systems approach can be an important resource to

those who are concerned with the whole network of ex—
periencing and learning.1
If curriculum is viewed as a social system, then
the develOpment of conceptual frameworks capable of
handling its complex variables is an important step in
its reconceptualization. Systems analysis and model
theory, applied in a humanly oriented system, furnish
educators with the means by which human purpose and
choice can become operative. With a new awareness for
fostering the extension of man's ability to act with the

realization of consequences, new possibilities for en-

riching human potentials can emerge.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to consider curri-
culum as a social system so that curriculum personnel may
have the use of a conceptual vieWpoint that will enable
the application of systems and model theory to the prob-
lems of curriculum change. Secondly, it is the intent of
this study to develOp the basis by which curriculum
change can be assessed for decision-making in terms of

its potential consequences.

 

1Leslie J. Bishop, "The Systems Concept," Educa-
tional Leadership, Vol. XXIV (May, 1967), p. 676.

 

Background of the Study

The Forces of Change

 

The forces of change have brought education to
the brink of a new era. With each new confrontation in
both the struggle for power and the desire to close the
,gap between our ideals and our practices, a storm of
criticism is leveled at the educational establishment.
Changes with roots deeply embedded in the previous
century are in the process of rapid and intensified
acceleration. As jobs became more specialized and
child labor was removed from the economic market place,
it brought about the necessity to keep children in school
for a greater number of years. Later, compulsory educa-
tion kept still greater numbers of children in school and
was responsible for the democratization of the educational
program with the idea of a basic minimal education ex—
tended in most cases through high school.

Today the influence of change has meaning in still
another sense. The connection of technological advance
with political unrest has literally forced a race toward
improvement on the educational scene. Robert J. Blakely
describes the changes that have been forced on American

education by recent international events:

To have the Soviet Union be first in space
was a traumatic eXperience for the American
people. Perhaps it was because we found
ourselves bested in an area where we had
considered ourselves without serious rival:
the large scale application of science to
technology. This triggered Off a reexamina-
tion of education which had been gathering
force for a number of years. The first
statements tended to be frenetic and hys-
terical, many people calling for radical
reorganization of our schools to produce
mathematicians, scientists and engineers

as sharply tooled for particular purposes
as the rockets themselves were tooled.

In every crisis situation a political process
begins in which the various sectors of the social system
seek to fix blame. Despite the obvious failure of po-
litical administrations to provide either direction or
funds, they tended to shift the burden of response to
educators, a fact which has increased pressures for
change.

Each new social crisis brings a rash of critics
storming down upon educators with panaceas for improve-
ment. Automation, social security, and a longer useful
life-span point toward an education that must develOp as
a safeguard for the young against delinquency and become
a positive step in the direction of mental health in a

world of anxiety and unrest.

 

1Robert J. Blakely, "The Copernican Revolution in
Attitudes," Changing Attitudes in a Changing World (New
York: Associates of Bank Street, Conference Report, 1958),
p. 24.

 

Peter F. Drucker, in speaking about the effect of
automation on education, points out the increasing need
for the creative mind and the adjustability of the in-
dividual to job situations that will be subject to fre-

quent and excessive change.1

It is already evident that
changes in the educational scene are under way to meet
increasing efforts needed to get and hold a job and for
the rehabilitation of the "hard core" of the technologi-
cally unemployed.

The maintenance of world leadership as a powerful
force in favor of democracy will necessitate an even
closer look at curriculum practice in order to build in
our citizenry a strong conviction and understanding of
democratic values for the present and for the uneasy years
to come.

Since our other institutions are also caught in
the intensified trauma of change, education is expected
to play an important role in the amelioration of social
change. Riots in Watts, Newark and Detroit have re-
sulted in divergent analysis and requests. For those

who believe the cause of racial unrest to be primarily a

matter of racial inequality in matters of opportunity, the

 

1Peter F. Drucker, America's Next Twenty Years
(New York:' Harper and Bros., 1957), p. 30.

answer seemed to be equalization of educational Oppor-
tunity. For some, the emphasis was placed on desegrega-
tion schemes advocating bussing, redrawing school boun-
daries and/or the centralization of the school plant.

For others still there is a battle for community control
of schools. Because Of the new-found power of teachers
and their movement toward both negotiations and in-
creased professional standing, the future will hold still
further conflict.

As educators, we are not only held responsible
for the problems, we are accused of being effective in
the promotion of social ills and ineffective in almost
everything else. The intensified pressures for accounta—
bility particularly on the part of the public that augurs
for improved education for children that are designated
as educationally deprived, should cause the profession to
seek both more effective means and ends for its own re-
construction.

Obviously, the concepts of education must undergo
fundamental changes if it is to become a serious factor
in providing leadership in social change. John I. Goodlad
concludes that if an examination of the rates of nonpro-

motion, dropouts, alienation and minimal learning are any

10

indication, one could believe that the schools are Ob-
solete.l

Everett Rogers describes the rate of change in
education in terms of an extensive review of literature.2
In his review of the work of Paul Mort and his students
it was found that a period of fifty years was needed to
achieve a change from the conception to the adOption of
a new idea. Current studies indicate a rate of change
closer to five years. As the rates of change have ac-
celerated, it has become evident that new ways must be
found to c0pe with the complexities of change.

Negative reactions are widespread concerning the
effect of our increased abilities to effect changes. We
are not at all certain the problems and issues that we
had intended to improve were in fact improved. What has
become increasingly ironic is that while we have more
dollars for experimentation, a vastly eXpanded ability to
increase the flow of information, and the techniques for
Speeding adOption, we still have barely demonstrated that

what we can now do more rapidly was worth doing in the

first place.

 

1John I. Goodlad, "The Future of Learning and Teach-
ing," AV Communication Review, Vol. XVI, NO. 1,(Spring 1968),

p. 5.

 

2Everett M. Rogers,"Toward a New Model for Educa-
tional Change" (mimeographed paper presented at the Con-
ference on Strategies for Educational Change, Washington,
D. C., 1965), p. 2. i

11

"The very promising curriculum revolution"
of the 1950's and 1960's was far less suc-
cessful than it might have been because it
tried to improve education generally by im-
proving just one component of the system,
the CUrriculum. There is now ample evidence
that improving the curriculum is an insuf-
ficient step in school improvement, concomi-
tant changes are necessary in the rest of
the system.1

In light of the results of recent efforts, it has
become clear that there is a need to consider curriculum
as a system. One of the most highly publicized curriculum
reforms occurred in the field of mathematics. The results
of the failure to really conceptualize curriculum as a
total system are very highly visible in an examination of
the results.

Many experts in the vanguard of the new math
movement say what has happened to new math
in the hands of the old mathers is worse
than what happened to old math when taught
by old mathers.

They insist too many math teachers think
they are teaching new math if they just use
new terminology, yet keep the same old drill,
repeat, test, drill techniques. What new
mathers want is an explore-discover approach
to the subject.

Some experts insist new math hasn't begun
to be taught yet and that almost all that 2
parades under that name really isn't . .

 

1Francis A. J. Ianni, Culture, System and Behavior:
The Behavioral Sciences and Education, The Foundation of
Education Series (Chicago: Science Research Associates,
Inc., 1967), p. 124. '

 

2Christian Science Monitor, (April 30, 1966), p. l.

12

The curious set of circumstances reported here
can be noted in reference to almost any Of the current
innovations whether they are in subject matter areas or
organizational methodology. As Goodlad reports:

. . Curriculum planning takes place in
such a piecemeal fashion that across-the-
board examination of the total school ex-
perience of children and youth is not
likely to occur.

What becomes painfully obvious is that if education
is to do anything more than imperfectly transmit culture,
it must make the massive effort called for by John Dewey
to reconstruct the basis and conception of education.

The school in his terms must become a part of the social
reality and the social reality must become a part of the
school. The systems approach offers at least one pro-

mising way toward the reconceptualization of the problems

involved in reconstructing our social eXperience.

Universe of Discourse

 

Some educators have led themselves into a faulty
conception of language usage by admonishing each other to
use the language of simplicity. What has been mis-

educative in this notion is a confusion of purpose.

 

1John I. Goodlad et al., The Changing School
Curriculum (New York: Ford FoundatiOn, 1966), p. 17

 

13

The educator works in a social system. He com-
municates to many publics, such as teachers, students,
parents, administrators as well as other kinds of pro-
fessionals. As in the case of medical doctors, lawyers
or engineers,_his use of a layman's language for the
'general public should be one type of matter, while his
professional understanding and utilization of a language
for his professional colleagues should be quite another.

When the attempt is made to bring clarity and
precision into language for the develOpment of any given
field, a departure is made from everyday usage. The
lawyer consulting with his client may employ technical
terms but they are geared to explicating ideas that are
to be understood by his client. In discussing some aspect
of a case with another lawyer, his language again shifts
into another but more precise universe of discourse. Thus,
to reject common usage where a language is to be used as a
resource for the develOpment of a systematic conceptual
framework is not to reject it where it is desirable and
applicable to everyday human interactions.

The recognition of the need to develop a universe
of discourse is prevalent in the efforts of many thinkers.

Jeromme Bronowski, in an effort to demonstrate that
art and science have striking and vital similarities that

could form the basis of mutual understandings, pointed out

14

When Coleridge tried to define beauty, he
always returned to one deep thought:
"beauty, he said, is unity in variety."
Science is nothing else than the search
to discover unity in the wide variety of
nature - or more exactly in the variety
of our eXperience. Poetry, painting, the
arts are the same search . . . for unity
in variety.

In the field of foreign relations, practitioners
either learn each other's language, use a translation,
or learn a language common enough to others to function
as a universal language. The story of the difficulty
Of agreement or understanding in the face of absence of
consensus on a commonly defined universe of discourse of
political values, law and order at the international level
is of course a source of continuing anxiety on the world
scene.

In the field of education, the gap between re-
searcher and scholar and the practitioner at the local
level is a well known phenomenon. Many attempts to build
a universe of discourse are under way. Among the examples
of the utilization of socialization processes,the example

2

of Stephen Corey's action research provides a strategy

 

1Jeromme Bronowski, Science and Human Values: And
the Abacus and the Rose, Rev. Edition, Harper Torchbooks
(New York: Harper 8 Row, Publishers,l965), p. 16

 

 

2Stephen M. Corey, Action Research to Improve
School Practices (New York: Téachers College, Columbia
University, 1953).

 

 

15

for bringing research into the classroom by having the
educator become the researcher in the field.

Recent efforts to extend and improve education
by means of inservice education in the unique efforts
of Wayne County's Interinstitutional Innovation WorkshOpl
are further instances of the recognition of the necessity
of building a community of effort to effect change. The
workshOp brought local school teachers together as a
systems group with administrators to consider an analysis
of their problems and to generate solutions for them.
This concept was employed to maximize the possibilities
of change taking place at the local level. The targets
of change in a sense became the innovative forces them-
selves in a mutually supportive endeavor. Four major
universities and the county district staff provided the
instructional leadership in a team teaching effort of un-
usual social reality.

Providing a universe of discourse in part is a
matter of coming to terms with referrents for reality.

Although the problem involves the process of defining, in

 

1Leo Dworkin and William C. Miller, "Increasing
Educational Innovations in Wayne County," Report of
Title III, OE Grant #66-2479, Activities of the Chair of
Innovation and the Consortium of Advanced Educational
Thinking (Detroit, Michigan: Wayne County Intermediate
School District, 1969).’

16

a broader sense, the problem is a social one. Establish-
ing a universe of discourse for the applied field of
education, in effect, consists of not only institutional-
izing usage, but also of enabling professionals in the
field to utilize it.

Enmeshed in bewildering proliferation of research
and innovation, the educator without a whole series of
interdependent competencies is often unable to achieve an
understanding of new develOpments. People trained in one
aSpect of education simply do not speak the same language
as those trained in another.

When C. P. Snow1 spoke of two cultures in which
the scientist could no longer Speak to the artist, he
perceived a truth, but missed an even more Obvious one.
Professionally we are split into a multi-culture. As
Louis Guttman observed, the condition of uncertainty of
meaning of terms and the lack of a universe of discourse
creates problems in the develOpment of theory and re-
search in the behavioral sciences:

No uniformity of meaning appears to prevail
and it is Often difficult to assign a par-

ticular technical meaning even in a particu—
lar context. . . . Such a welter of

 

1Charles P. Snow, Two Cultures: ‘And the Second
Look (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965).

l7

differential usages has hardly been con-
ducive to ease of communication between
different scientists, whether in the
same or different fields.1

Progress has been made toward utilizing a di-
versity of innovations, enhancing the role of the pro-
fessional and moving toward the develOpment of a clearer
understanding of the social context of education.

The development of language that is functionally
useful in the description, exploration, explanation, pre-
diction and control of curricular problems is high in
priority if we are to make education relevant to human
problems. Work toward the establishment of a universe
of discourse for the field of education is needed. Once
the "universe" is established, vehicles by which avenues
for change can be conceived, discussed, and explained
will be readily available to all those educators who are
participating in the field of education as professionals.
A universe of discourse based upon selected aspects Of
mathematical, model and systems theory will be developed
in this study to serve as the foundation for conceptual

frameworks necessary to move toward the restructuring of

curriculum theory.

 

1Louis Guttman, "Notes on Terminology for Facet
Theory" (mimeographed, 1959), pp. 36-37.

18

A New Conceptual Framework as the Basis for Change

 

The conceptual framework by which we interpret
our daily experiences is a guide to our perceptions and
actions. In large measure, it provides the basis upon
which we can react to a rather large variety of phe-
nomena and situations. It forms the means by which we
can communicate with one another sharing common concerns
and moving in concert when required.

The meaning of the social aspects of our being
are dependent on a commonality of meaning. The checks
we use to see if communication is really taking place are
implicit in the adult phrase, "do you understand?" and
in the vernacular of youth, "do you dig?" It is important
to us as social beings to feel that we are communicating
and part of the process involves the act of checking to
see if we really have.

Many linguists believe that if we spoke a differ-
ent language we would perceive the world in a slightly
different manner. Perhaps we have no greater evidence of
this than when we indeed witness some of the differences
between adults' and students' perceptions.

Sharing the same language we derive a multitude
of meanings from the same events or objects. We ex-

perience the world differentially as a condition of our

19

own uniqueness. Our orientations toward symbolic pre-
ferences and the conceptual frameWork we hold varies to
a considerable degree.

Social action takes place in the context of a
social system in which persons, both as individuals and
as members of groups, interact to carry out the varied
purposes of the educational organization. The curriculum
worker thus functions and is part of a social system.

The ways in which we organize ourselves to pro-
vide for the educational growth of the persons in a
system may be a large factor in constraining as well as
facilitating learning. If for example, the preferred
ways of working toward the acquisition of personal mean-
ing in the system excludes the ways in which an individual
acquires meaning, then the restrictive conceptions from
which we operate form a real block to meaningful educa-
tional eXperiences. Change for the individual is thus
related to the conceptionsheld, valued, sanctioned by,
and implemented in the social system.

In order to create or set the conditions for
change in the social system, it is necessary to communi-
cate new experiences in order to develOp a new conceptual
framework. Insofar as we carefully define and perceive
the world or a part of it in terms of the boundaries of

its "conceptual eye-glass," we are constrained in a very

20

real sense to Operate within its borders. If our model
matches reality, it sharpens our perceptions by giving
.greater clarity to its form and structure. If we are
committed to a model or models that are at odds with
reality, then we are trapped in the rigidity of our own
conceptions. Therefore in the context of change as it

is here conceived, a change in the model becomes the

basis of unleashing the potential of enlarged and enriched
human experiencing.

The Integrative and Comprehensive Function
of’a Systems Approach

 

 

The major tendency in curriculum is to work on
problems on a piecemeal basis. In Spite of the various
attempts to integrate approaches by means of core teach-
ing, team teaching and interdisciplinary studies, the
planning of change often results in the grafting of in-
tegrative approaches onto compartmentalized structures.
It is unfortunately rare to see comprehensive attempts
made in the planning of curriculum change at the practi-
cal or theoretical level.

As Hilda Taba suggests, "any enterprise as com-
plex as curriculum develOpment requires some kind of

theoretical or conceptual framework to guide it."1

 

1Hilda Taba, Curriculum DevelOpment Theory and
Practice (New York: Harcourt, Brace 6 World, Inc., 1962),

p. 413.

21

What in effect has occurred in recent years has been the
production of a richdiversity of unrelated (unsystematic)
ideas eXpreSSed by a variety of symbolic means. Our
failure to find a theoretical means to make sense of our
own innovations is now blocking our efforts to revitalize
curriculum.

The means for utilizing research or even guiding
it into usable direction has been impeded by our failure
to make significant progress in the establishment of a
common frame of reference (system). "What is lacking is
a coherent and consistent conceptual framework."1

Much attention is being devoted to the process
of change with particular emphasis on the "how." Little
attention is being given to the consequences Of change.
Equally important is the consideration of what changes
are to be sought that enable enriched eXperiences which
mark the foundations of growth for the individual. There
is a need to consider how the system of which individuals
are a part affects a person and is affected by him.

To build the foundations for a conceptual frame-
work for curriculum, it is necessary to bring together

ideas from a wide variety of disciplines. There is a

 

11bid., p. 413.

22

need for the integrative function of systems and modelis-
tic approaches to enable the exploration of complex
elements and their interconnections that comprise the
social system in which education functions.
The Need for the Educators to Provide
Leadership for the Use of Systems

The increasing need for education to take its
place among other major institutions in the solving of
major social problems requires new strategies that are
capable of generating creative alternatives. In his
analysis of the sources of innovation, Roland J.
Pellegrin found the greatest stimuli to change in educa-
tion originated in sources outside of the field of educa-
tion and the local community.1

Education has so neglected the creative aspect
of its own progress that the major contributions to its
own field are now largely coming from external sources in
terms of "packages" to be accepted or rejected.

The utilization of the systems approach in busi-

ness, industry and governmental agencies is in a period

 

1Roland J. Pellegrin, An Analysis of Sources and
Processes of Innovation in Education (Eugene, Oregon:
University of Oregon, Center for the AdVanced Study of
Educational Administration, 1966), p. 12.

 

23

of expansion. Because of the success of systems ap-
proaches in other organizational settings, there is a
.growing effort to bring it into the mainstream of the
field of education.

From the standpoint of business and industry,
education is increasingly viewed as a potentially fertile
field for the gardening of profits. To have it so viewed
may prove to be a stimulating force in the creation of a
diversity of new educational materials and, ultimately,
the "coming of age" of education as it begins to make
use of vastly expanded technological and scientific know-
ledge.

The inherent danger Of a business-oriented
systems approach being applied directly to education is
implied by the difference between the end-means relation-
ship in which the purposes of educational development
must be oriented to benefit everybody, while the function
of a corporation must of necessity be structured to bene-
fit stockholders. This statement does not mean that
business interests are not cognizant of the awesome im-
plications of becoming a controlling force in education's
future and the parallel danger of alienating the pro-
fessional educator. The business community after con-

siderable investment and massive mergers of publishing,

24

electronic and communication industries is proceeding
cautiously.

Systems develOpment in education is coming from
sources external to the field, since educators, as yet,
have not provided the leadership due to lack of awareness
or experience with the approach.

The major problems generated by this condition
are: (l) the problem of whose systems will be in con-
trol? (2) whose purposes will the emerging systems serve?
(3) are the kinds of systems being created to be oriented
toward the purposes of corporate profit or peOple?

Because the potential effect of using a system
approach in education can be productive of considerable
change, it is important to develop a humanly oriented
systems approach which can be used in the practice of

education.
Significance of the Study

Researchers in the field of innovations, such as

1

Everett Rogers and Richard Carlson,2 have pointed out

 

1Rogers, ”Toward a New Model for Educational
Change," 1965.

2Richard O. Carlson, AdOption of Educational
Innovations (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press,
1963).

 

 

25

the lack of attention given to exPloration of the con-
sequences of educational change. The difficulty of
approaching the problem of anticipating the consequences
of change in a system with a degree of certainty has

been generally attributed to the large number of variables
involved and to the general lack of models or frames of
reference by which they could be viewed.

The development of model theory, and systems
approaches can provide new insights for the examination
of interactive relationships and furnish the resources
for the generation of innovative solutions. In addition,
the use of systems enables the integration of complex
variables which can be examined more efficiently in pro-
cess than current practice might allow.

Basically a systems approach to curriculum pro-
vides the means by which the relationships in a system
can be understood and analyzed as a conceptual whole.

In his search for the sources that could serve as a
basis for a science of education, John Dewey eXpressed
the major value of a systems approach.

No genuine science is formed by isolated con-

clusions, no matter how scientifically cor-

rect the technique by which these isolated

results are reached, and no matter how exact

they are. Science does not emerge until

those various findings are linked up to-
'gether to form a relatively coherent system

26

--that is, until they reciprocally confirm
and illuminate one another, or until each
.gives the others added meaning.l

This study should be useful to curriculum workers,

supervisors, administrators and teachers because it pro-

vides them with:

1.

A universe of discourse and a conceptual
framework with which to view curriculum as

'a social system. Curriculum viewed in this

way can be examined in terms of its parts
and their interrelationships.

New tools in the form of model theory
(subsumed under general systems theory)
which enables educators to:

(a) Plan in terms of an analysis of antici-
pated consequences;

(b) Generate creative alternatives;p

(c) Exercise choices in decision-making
with a realization of options;

(d) Build systems that are geared to
humanly oriented purposes and values.

New ways of perceiving curriculum by viewing
it as a system that can be modelled.

Understandings that can help educators achieve
their own leadership in the use of systems.

A strong linkage with the social problems in
the suprasystem.

The basis of eXploring the systemic character
of innovation.

 

1John Dewey, The Sources of a Science of Education

(New York: Liveright Publishing Corporatibn,1929),,
pp. 21-22. ' ' '

27

7. A base from which theoretical explorations
of curriculum can develOp.

8. A strengthened position for the curriculum
.generalist that is brought into focus by
the realization that changes in one part
of a system can effect changes in other
parts.
9. A basis for eXperimenting with a model of
the system instead of disrupting the
system itself.
Since systems theory attempts to conceptualize the basic
elements of curriculum and their interconnections, it
covers a broad spectrum and should be useful to all

educators concerned with improving the curriculum.

Design and Procedures of the Study

The major sources of information employed in this
study were found in: (1) existing literature, (2) ob-
servations in school settings culled from empirical ex-
periences, (3) conversation and dialogues with educators.

The method employed included researching and
synthesizing materials from model theory, general systems
theory, "educational sciences," philosophy,aesthetics,~
curriculum theory, communications theory and the behavioral
sciences.

The synthesis of ideas from the above fields was
created to provide a universe of discourse and a con-

ceptual framework for explaining and exploring curriculum

28

as a social system. Models were then derived that could
serve as tools for curriculum in terms of (1) analysis,
(2) the develOpment of theoretical constructs, (3) the
_generation of alternatives, and (4) the anticipation of

the consequences of a change in the system.

Assumptions Underlying the Study

The following assumptions are fundamental to the
study effort.

1. Curriculum may be viewed as a system where
the term "system" is defined as a collection of elements
with their interconnections viewed over a period of time.

2. It can be assumed that a curriculum is a
social system composed of the generic elements of persons,
processes and prOperties and their interconnections viewed
over a period of time.

3. A model can be constructed for the social
system called the curriculum.

4. Potential consequences of changing or con-
structing a system of curriculum can be determined by
manipulating each, or combinations of the elements com-
prising that system without disturbing the system under

consideration.

pri

3131'

HE

29

Definition of Key Terms

 

1. Curriculum is a social system which is com-

prised of the interactive elements of persons, processes

 

 

and properties organized for the purpose of providing
the conditions necessary for continuing educative ex-
periences.

2. Curriculum consequence - a result or output
of systemic interaction.

3. Curriculum event - a happening or act in the
curriculum system.

4. Educative experience - that which facilitates
.growth in personal and/or shared meaning.

5. Estimation - the general process of obtaining
an Optimum degree of approximation.

6. Inputs - the present and future status of

persons, processes and properties necessary to produce

 

 

desired outcomes (performance goals) in a given system.

7. Innovation - the introduction of something
new. A new idea, method, or device. The term "new" is
a relative one to the extent that it: (1) indicates
something of recent vintage, (2) denotes something which
is generally unfamiliar to the "user," (3) designates

something which is other than the former, or the old,

 

(4) indicates something which is modern, or, finally,

(5) denotes something which is refreshed, or regenerated.

 

U)
(D
(‘9

via

“an a

£111;

3O

8. Isomorphism - a condition that is said to
exist if there is (l) a one to one correspondence between
the respective elements of two sets, (2) a preservation
of certain structures essential for its identification.

9. Modalities of Inference - the characteristic
method or methods of symbol mediation employed by an in-
dividual in the process of reasoning.

10. Model - a model is the isomorphism Of two
sets.
11. Output - the performance measures Of persons,

processes and prOpertieS of a system defined in terms of

 

 

what is presently possible, what actually occurred and
what is desirable.

12. Performance Goals - the desired outcomes of
a system, consisting of physical measurements, Specific
skills, role expectations, normative structure differing
from nonhuman systems and amenable to measurement.

13. Personal meaning - the unique aspects of
individually held and understood meanings.

14. Process - a series of interdependent steps
established for the purpose of attaining a goal or end.

15. PrOperties - the ideas or things in a curri-
cular system, such as books,concepts, and rooms.

16. Qualitative Independence - a situation in

31

which an individual or group is oriented toward meaning
by means of qualitative symbols only.

17. Qualitative Predominance - a situation in
which an individual or group is oriented toward meaning
largely by the qualitative symbolic with occasional
references to theoretical symbols.

18. Qualitative Symbol - that symbol which pre-
sents and represents to the mind that which it, itself
is, i.e., a particular strain of music or the color of
a given object.

19. Reciprocity - a condition or situation in
which an individual utilizes the qualitative or theoreti-
cal symbol with approximately equal ease.

20. Set - a collection of elements of the same
kind or type identified by a common characteristic or
rule formation.

21. Shared meaning - mutually held personal
meanings. The basis of communication and the base
from which personal meaningsare generated in a social
system.

22. Symbolic Orientation - the manner in which
an individual employs symbols to achieve a sense of
identification or awareness of a given situation.

23. System - a collection of elements and their

interconnections viewed over a period of time.

32

24. Theoretical Predominance - a situation in
which the individual or group is mainly presented with
or influenced by the theoretical symbol.

25. Theoretical Symbol - is a symbol that stands
for and represents something other than itself, i.e., the

word "car" standing for the object ”car."

Summary and Overview

In the first chapter the need for and significance
of develOping a systems theory approach for the reconceptu-
alization of curriculum as a social system was developed.
The purposes of the study were formulated and the under-
lying assumptions Of the study were stated.

Chapter II focuses upon the development and ex-
plication of model theory specifically geared to building
the foundation of a scientific approach to humanly oriented
systems. Further, it serves to establish a universe of
discourse meant to clarify the sometimes bewildering and
contradictory use of models.

In Chapter III a conception of selected aSpects
of general systems theory is developed and important
aSpectS of the social system such as telos, normative
structure, value-orientation, and role expectations are

considered.

33

In Chapter IV, the idea of curriculum as a social
system is develOped with the concepts of personal and
shared meaning as a basis. Models are developed and
derived to eXplore selected aspects of the systemic
character of the curriculum.

In Chapter V the implications of considering
curriculum a social system are explored and recommenda-
tions for further study are developed to suggest new and

needed areas for research.

CHAPTER 11
MODEL THEORY_
Models: Their Isomorphic Foundations

Considerable efforts are under way in a variety
of disciplines to generate new means to foster improve-
ments in their respective fields. Among these means are
models and systems theory. AlthOugh they have been in-
troduced in education, these approaches have had rela-
tively little impact in general practice and have tended
to produce a certain amount of confusion in particular
aspects of educational theory. The notion of a model
and systems theory, if it can be appropriately linked
to the human aspects of curriculum improvement, seems to
offer new insights that are worthy of eXploration.

Models have been variously defined as non-
representational, which is impossible; metaphorical,
which is only one aspect of its meaning; abstract, which
is only part of the truth. Definitions have labelled
models as c0pies and some writers have criticized the
model because it fails to be the same as that which it
represents. Some vieWpoints stress the role of models

as exemplars and have been criticized by those who

34

35

believe that the model is constructed as something that
must be tested.

The available literature about models, a major
component of systems theory, presents a bewildering array
of conflicting usage and definitions. Thus, it is neces-
sary to clarify their meaning so that they may be applied
in the formulation of conceptual frameworks for curri-
culum.

A model as defined here, is to be considered as

 

one of two sets found to be isomorphic to each other.
To understand this particular usage of the term model, it
is necessary to explore the concept of the isomorphism

of sets and its inherent processes. Isomorphism is de-

 

fined, or said to exist, if two conditions are satisfied:

1) if there exists a one-to-one correspondence

 

between the respective elements of the two

 

sets,_and;

 

2) if certain structures of the sets are pre-

 

served.

A set is defined as a collection of elements of

 

the same kind or pype identified byga common characteristic

 

or rule of formation.
In the context of the previous definition it is
possible to say that to reach out for the stars--to sing

a song--to cross the street--to solve a problem, man

36

makes use of models. In his attempt to articulate or
_grasp the meaning and form of consequences or ends, he
builds constructs (sets) that he believes to be iso-
morphic to the set of elements he perceives. He then
manipulates the models (sets) to reveal insightful esti-
mates of the how and what of future states of affairs of
the perceived set. A boy playing the guitar, searching
for the right combination of notes and rhythms, is en-
.gaging in a quest for the appropriate model. He is
matching the set of sounds to a conception (set) or
framework almost as if he were placing a fragment of a
puzzle in its proper place.

In the recent dramatic flight of Apollo llto the
moon, extensive use of models and systems analysis were
necessary. Prior to theiiight, each system was checked
by tests on simulation models. Confidence in the ability
to judge the outcome or series of consequences involved
was high not only to protect the investment of public
funds but more importantly to insure the lives of its
human cargo. Although models are not exact replicas of
the systems they represent, the most effective ones are
those that by careful definition establish a more precise
isomorphic relationship between the sets involved than
those found to be less effective.

Heinrich Hertz, a nineteenth century physicist,

37

comments with clarity on the conditions referred to here
as the isomorphic relationship. He notes its basis in
experience as follows:
We form for ourselves images or symbols of
external Objects; and the form which we give
them is such that the necessary consequents of
the images in thought are always the images of
the necessary consequents in nature of the
things pictured. In order that this require-
ment may be satisfied, there must be a certain
conformity between nature and our thought. Ex-
perience teaches us that the requirement can be
satisfied, and hence that such a conformity does
in fact exist.1
The notion of an isomorphic relationship is also
present in Dewey's work; it is in the correspondence of
ideas and practices, ideas and ideas, and practices and
practices that Dewey saw a basic methodology (possible
isomorphic relationship) for the clarification of mean-
ing.2
The establishment of the isomorphism of two sets
is dependent on the perceptions of the individual defining
the condition. In this context, models are defined on the
basis of selectivity. Their construction necessitates the

careful choosing of their basic elements along with their

 

1Heinrich Hertz, The Principles of Mechanics, trans.
by D. E. Jones and Walley (London: Macmilian and Co., 1899),
p. 1.

2John Dewey, Experience and Nature (New York:
W. W. Norton and Co., 1929).

38

interconnections. Although all the possible elements of
one set that might be represented in its model need not
be included, as far as one is able, the elements should
be so abstracted so that the model represents the cru-
cially important features of the system under considera-
tion.

Besides simplification and abstraction, Hertz
indicates another important feature of models is their
manipulative ability in relation to time.

When from our accumulated previous ex-

perience we have once succeeded in deducing
images of the desired nature, we can then

in a Short time develop by means of them,

as by means of models, the consequences
which in the external world only arise in a
comparatively long time, or as the result of
our own interposition.1

The theory of model construction performs the
useful function of attempting to unify the phenomena that
are encountered in the empirical world. Bits and pieces
of reality, and sequence in time, fail to_give us a clear
notion of their interconnections and relationships until
some structure or frame of reference is formulated to
bring them together as a cohesive whole. The basic pro-

cess involved in forming a model is that of engaging in

reflective imagination. Providing the base for richer

 

1Hertz, The Principles of Mechanics, p. l.

 

39

experiencing, models also furnish the frames of reference
for further observation and analysis and ultimately in-
voke the means by which the model itself can be changed.
One of the highly productive means of planning
utilized by groups is the construction of a "straw man."
The strategy employed is to attack critically the (model)
"straw man" at every vulnerable Spot and in so doing ex-
tract what is desirable to formulate a new model. One
humorous example of this technique is utilized effective-
ly by the philosopher, Nathaniel Champlin, when he asks
his readers to consider the meaning of learning and prag-
matism. In this case, a model is built that is deliber-
ately isomorphic to an absurd conception of learning.
Learning is the manifestation of the
emotional strain between the orbit of Mars
and—theggfiid hOldings of Englana and France
during any given fiscal year as they are

caused 6y fhe mutation of genes in the
DeclaratiOn ofiIndependence.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Man attempts to solve problems and eXplain pheno-
mena in terms of models. Curriculum theory, as yet, is
considered to be in its early stages of development. In

the context of the present study, the theory of models

 

1Nathaniel Champlin, "Methodological Inquiry and
Educational Research," A Seminar in Art Education for
Research and Curriculum—DevelOpment (University Park:
The PennsylvafiiaiState University), C00perative Research
Project No. V-OOZ, 1966, p. 300.

 

 

40

and systems analysis are used to provide a universe of
discourse that has the capacity of adding new perceptions
to the field of curriculum theory. The development of
this type of curriculum theory permits a flexibility in
analysis, evaluation, construction and development of
educational programs and offerings not possible in terms
of current approaches.

In order to bring further clarity into the
centrality of the isomorphic relationship to model theory,
it is necessary to eXplore the range in which isomorphism
is possible.

The search for truth in science and art, is an
example of trying to find an isomorphic relationship
between the findings of these areas and selected aSpects
of reality. When something is found to fit poorly, a
new search is undertaken to find something that fits
better.

The Michaelson-Morely eXperiments demonstrated
that the Speed of light remained a constant no matter
what the direction of light. Albert Einstein noted a
contradiction in the conception of ether held in accord-

ance with Newtonian mechanics. The cornerstone of modern

 

1Albert Einstein, The World as I See It (New York:
The Wisdom Library, 1934), pp. 28-39.

 

41

physics emerged in a search for isomorphic relationships
between phenomena (sets) under consideration and sets of
rational concepts (words and numbers) to eXpress these
phenomena. Thus, the creative revolution in modern
physics can be said to have begun with a search for new
models to explain and explore the physical phenomena Ob-
served in nature.

By using the idea of "limits” borrowed from cal-
culus, an isomorphism can be considered to exist between
two conditions: (1) the ideal and (2) the non-related.

An ideal condition is defined as a condition
which is an imagined or arbitrarily definedperfect state
of affairs. In geometry, the referent "point" is defined
in terms of a dimensionless position in space having zero
diameter. Engineers make use of a state of ”zero friction,"
although no moving parts can be said to exist or be found
to match this condition empirically. In this frame of
reference, deviations in actual particular instances are
understood as departures from an ideal condition.

Although agreement upon the nature of description
of an ideal teacher may not be easily reached, it is at
least conceivable that many of our judgments of teachers
are made on the basis of comparisons with an ideal.

When the behavior of a student is isomorphic to a

concept of "ideal student," the student is labelled,

42

defined, or judged to be Ugood." No matter how distorted
the particular definition held might be, the ramifications
for the student, so considered, can be quite significant.

The partial isomorphism can be a powerful wedge in

 

the understanding of humanly organized undertakings. The
critique applied to the use of models by many authors
points to the lack of complete isomorphism. If an iso-
morphism is regarded as perfect c0py, we are in the po-
sition of thinking a hammer is a whole tool box and the
criticism is indeed justified. On the other hand, to
consider a hammer to be valueless because it is not the
whole tool box is equally short-sighted.

What is missing from this modality of criticism
is the value of drawing sharply defined distinctions to
enhance our comprehension with the clarity of the charac-
ter of the isomorphisms claimed. Using the idea of
"limits," it is possible to conceive of isomorphism as
ranging between ideal and non-related. Everything in
this range can be considered to be on a continuum that
defines the isomorphic precision represented or sought.

Using the idea of "range," the categories ideal,

isomorphic, partially isomorphic and non-related can be

 

 

 

established to indicate a continuum of possible relation-
ships. From this simple classification system, it is

possible to examine structures or models in a useful

43

manner with a more precise understanding of both areas

of similarity and difference. The error of misconceiving
an isomorphism is considerably lessened when the value of
partial isomorphisms is realized as both heuristic and
analytic categories.

Many of the arguments about human sciences being
sciences at all proceed from a model presumed to be iso-
morphic to the contents, e.g., concepts, factual data,
principles, theories of a body of information called a
science (ideal). The argument generally demonstrates
that the models of physics are not the same as the models
for human sciences. Conclusions following from this line
of reasoning generally state that, since human sciences
cannot use the models of physics completely, a so-called
"perfect human science" is impossible.

Ernest Nagel by carefully interpreting a multi-
plicity of common models (isomorphisms) with the diversity
of models used in the various branches of science and
partial Similarities between models (partial isomorphisms)
establishes a case for the ways in which human science
can be a science.1 This of course is of more positive

value than total negation of systematic investigation.

 

. 1Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science: Problems
in the Logic of Scientific Explanatibn (New YOrk: Harcourt,
Brace and World, Inc., 1961).

 

44

Abstraction,§ynthesis and ConCretion

To form a model or system it is necessary to
utilize the process of abstraction. Confusion in the
usage of this idea and its function is widespread. As
Hubert Alexander points out: "The notion of abstracting
has probably produced more nonsense than any other idea
where processes of thought are concerned."1 Artists,
critics and historians have tended to use abstraction to
mean distant from reality and in some cases to refer to
that which is not representational. Irving Sigel, a
psychologist, defined "abstract" in terms of its not
representing something or being just a design.2

To abstract is to be selective in choosing the

 

essential characteristics of that which is under con-

sideration.

 

When essential ingredients are removed from a
totality the new configuration thus formed does not match
the source from which it was derived. It is instead a
match of the elements and structure preserved in the pro-

cess of abstraction. Any part of reality is so complex

 

1Hubert G. Alexander, Language and Thinking: A
PhilOSOphical Introduction (NengOrk: D.'Van Nostrandi
Co., Inc., 1967), p. 99.

 

2Irving Sigel, Design Tasks: A Test for Cognitive

 

Organization, Merrill-Palmer Institute, n.d.

45

that the.necessity of understanding, graSping its sig-
nificance or controlling it requires simplification.

Models in general are constructed from elements
that are abstracted. The one notable exception occurs
when a something is to be used, aS'a model (as is) in
its totality.

To the artist working with a reality of a pro-
fusion of forms and an estimated 7,500,000 color possi-
bilities, it becomes a human necessity to focus and se-
lect. Thus even the mostexacting representation always
involves abstraction. For the scientist, Arturo Rosen-
blueth and Norbert Wiener explain the same process,_
"Abstraction consists in replacing the part of the uni-
verse under consideration by a model of similar but
simpler structure. Models . . . are thus a central neces-
sity of scientific procedure."1

To abstract involves selecting. It includes the
focusing of attention on some selected qualities, at-
tributes or aSpect of our eXperience. Thus to abstract
from nature is to give selected attention to a portion of

perceived reality. The focus on selected parts or aspects

 

1Arturo Rosenblueth and Norbert Wiener, "The Role
of Models in Science," PhilOSOphy of Science, XXII (1945),
p..316.

 

46

while removing us from the "totality" which it represents
in part, is no less real. The confusion can only come
when it is compared to or expected to be the same as the
"phenonological whole" from which it came.

If the totality of the universe in its awesome
complexity could be understood directly in its entirety,
there would be no functional purpose for abstraction. An
educator working in a profusion of inputs can only focus
on selected aspects of the whole at any given point in
time. In helping a student, it may be irrelevant that
his eyes are blue and his socks yellow.

To focus on the Significant aSpects of reality
is to be selective in terms of choosing, among available
alternatives, the essential characteristics of that
which is under consideration. The elements and their
interconnections are brought together or synthesized.

To represent a segment or facet of reality requires the
bringing together of selected elements and their inter-
connections. The configuration of relationships and
structures that stand for "that" from which they were
derived is a synthesis produced for the purpose of repre-
sentation. To bring together into a whole or total is

to make that which is unified concrete. Thus to form a

model is to bring together (synthesize) selected aspects

47

(abstractions) into a set or new whole (concretion),
which is isomorphic to the "model set."

Alexander, in his analysis of linguistic errors,
explains: "That confusion of 'abstract' and 'general'
is so widespread that some excellent thinkers fall into
it."1 To abstract is to be selective, to generalize,
to be inclusive. He observes the similar confusion with

2 Concrete refers to wholeness

concrete and particular.
while particular means specific.

The emphasis placed on the clarification of ter-
minology is intended to provide a basis by which a uni-
verse of discourse can be built. Insofar as the mean-

ings we attribute to words remain confused, the communica-

tion or the sharing of meaning remains difficult.
Further Clarifications Concerning Model Theory

Models are often criticized for being different
than the real thing. For example, it is pointed out
that a map is not the same as the country. While this
is true, it is equally true that the model is not that
which is modeled nor is it the modeler. To criticize a

model on this basis is to commit at least two kinds of

 

1Alexander, Language and Thinking, p. 111.

 

2Ibid.

 

48

logical errors: (1) the reductionist fallacy, and
(2) the categorical fallacy.

In the reductionist fallacy, one thing is ex-
plained away in terms of another that is considered more
basic or fundamental. Familiar examples are abundantly
available in the behavioral sciences. Sociology is ex-
plained in terms of psychology, and in turn, it is ex-
plained in terms of biology. While it is true that
psychological and biological concepts are involved and
must be used to eXplain sociological phenomena, the
crucial point to realize is that they are involved as
parts of a system. The reductionist error begins when
the system and its various levels are ignored in terms
of their own integrity and descriptions are made in terms
of a single part of the system.

The categorical fallacy is simply considering
two different things to be the same: to stand for some-
thing or to be a model of, is not the same as being that
thing. Hence the symbol (word) "car" cannot be driven
and it is not the same as the (object) "car." Nor is a
.globe the same as the earth of which it is a model. Quite
logically, in neither case, is the utility of the symbol
or the model in any way diminished.

The reality of the model (set) lies in its con-
creteness as a new entity which is isomorphic to that

which it represents.

49

Elizabeth Maccia carefully distinguishes between
the "model of" and the "model for."1 The "model of" is
characterized by representation of an existential and the
"model for" is explained as ideal or pattern for some
future state of affairs. The categories in that sense
are useful, however, Maccia proceeds to equate "model of"
with the designation "representational" and the "model
for" as non-representational. While the systems approach,
used by Maccia, has logical precision, it appears that
she has committed a categorical fallacy.

To be a model, certain structures of one set
must be preserved in the model set and if a one-to-one
correspondence between the elements exists, then the iso-
morphic relationship is present. To have this isomorphic
relationship is to stand for or represent rather than to
non-represent. TO the extent that a set is non-representa-
tional, it is not a model. That is to say, the conditions
of the isomorphism fail and the conditions for a model
(set) do not exist. The salient points to be considered
imply that the dimensions of past, present, becoming and

future states of affairs locate the model in time and

 

1Elizabeth Steiner Maccia, "The Conceptions of
Model in Educational Theorizing"(Washington: COOperative
Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Occasional Paper,,
62-114), pp. 3-4. ‘

50

relate the selection of a model to be developed to the
intent of the modeler.

In an axiological sense, a continuum from repre-
sentational-non-representational could be constructed to
define good-bad models. Thus, a model (set) can be lo-
cated in a continuum that variently defines the degree
of isomorphic relationship to that which it purports to
model.

It would appear to be valuable to think of models
in terms of categories that have greater powers of ap-
plication such as time, purpose and type.

All models are:

1. Abstract in that they are selective.

2. Representational in that they form an iso-

 

morphism.

3. Concrete in that they are formed into a
total or whole (these may be parts of larger
wholes).

4. Symbolic in that they are composed of or use a

system of symbols.
A Topology of Models

Because of the widespread use of the idea of

models in many different fields of study, they are

51

described and function in a variety of ways. Names in
pOpular usage such as "material model," "physical model,"
"process model," "symbolic model," "mathematical model"
and others found in the literature can be classified in
three basic ways: (1) iconic, (2) analog, and (3) formal
symbolic.

The iconic model is a visual, auditory, pictorial

 

or physical representation of certain parts of,or the
total system under inquiry. It can be characterized as
having three basic forms: (a) spatial, (b) temporal,
(c) spatio-temporal combinations.

Examples of spatial iconic models include pic-

 

tures, photographs, physical models. In the automotive
industry, small models are made to scale in other ma-
terials to serve as a model for the actual size car.
Full Size models are developed in clay and wood to serve
as models both for design decisions and the construction
of plaster molds for die-making. Animation models of
the exploded view type are sometimes employed to illus-
trate the relationships of hard to visualize assemblies.
Plastic skins of three dimensional forms are used to lo-
cate drill holes.

It is important to note that exact representation
is not the primary function of the model. The representa-

tion to be found is in the isomorphic character of the

52

model and that which is modeled. The usefulness of this
conception of model allows the concretizing function of
models to become operative. It is difficult to visualize
the whole earth and the interrelations of all of its
parts. The model, by selective abstraction and con-
cretizing presentations of a globe of smaller than real
size, makes this possible. In science, the educator uses
models of atoms (physical isomorphisms of invisible en-
tities) or larger than actual models of anatomical parts,
i.e., the human ear.

The spatial model is particularly useful where
the purpose intended is served by showing the static
character of forms and the interrelationships of parts.

The iconic temporal model is characterized by its

 

dynamic functions. It is capable of serving as a vehicle
for studying change in process and time.

Examples of the iconic temporal model include
video tape, television, various types of acting or role
playing and motion picture photography. Any kind of
sensory data that can be eXperienced and arranged to
illuminate change in form or sequence where the experi-
ence is qualitatively predominate, or in other words
where the media and message depend on sensory material,

can be used to construct iconic temporal models. Thus,

53

the muscular formations of a speech teacher forming
words can be used as a model for a student. Video tape
is being used to provide models for exploration, ex-
plication and evaluation. Slow motion photography is
employed to provide models for the examination of
process and change in time that are difficult to observe
or analyze otherwise. The compression of time in time-
lapse photography is particularly useful in the forma-
tion of models for the examination Ofgrowth and process.

Spatial-temporal combinations are combinations

 

of the iconic-temporal and iconic spatial model forms.
The combination of the various forms is particularly
helpful in depicting characterizations of mixed systems.
Static elements requiring a high degree of specificity
can be best depicted with the iconic spatial models.
Change process, particularly in reference to a structural
system, can be represented by means of the iconic tem—
poral model. A combination of the two is particularly
helpful in providing a comprehensive iconic isomorphic
representation.

The analogmodel1 results from using selected

 

characteristics of one area of inquiry to represent

 

1Joseph E. Hill and August Kerber, Models,
Methods and Analytical Procedures in Educatlon (Detroit,
Michigan: Wayne State University Press,'1967), pp. 14—19.

 

54

another in such a manner as to maintain an isomorphic
relationship between them. For example, in the early
work on electrical theory certain aspects of hydro-
dynamics were used as analogs for considering the flow
of electricity through a wire.

When a map is used to represent geologic struc-
ture, certain characteristics are substituted for others,
i.e., color for geological structures. When one sub-
stitution of characteristics is used to represent
another isomorphic set of characteristics according to
certain rules of transformation, an analog model is
created. A map constructed according to this plan be-
comes an analog rather than an iconic representation.1

Man has explained his world by a number of dif-
ferent models. In the classical model of mechanism, the
world was considered to be a perfect clock wound up by
the master clockmaker (God). Medical books gave ex-
planations that proceeded by describing body functions
and structures substituting the machine characteristics
for human ones. To a very great degree, much of the
same kind of model is useful in the treatment and de-
velOpment of life saving ideas. The pacemaker, an

electronic device that provides a mild electrical shock

 

11bid.

 

55

to keep the heart beating in cases where the patient's
neurological "mechanisms" can no longer provide the
impulse, is a concrete example.

Newton's scientific formulations of gravitational
astronomy were referred to as celestial mechanics. They
were highly successful in predicting the movement of the
planets, yet as Karl Deutsch explains: ". . . the classi-
cal notion of mechanism is a strictly metaphysical con-
cept. Nothing completely fulfilling these conditions has
ever been on land or sea . . . [or] among the stars."1
The recognition of the interdependence of parts and the
interaction of parts and the whole with environment be-
comes increasingly important with the SOphisticated in-
ventions of today's world. Thus, the pacemaker becomes
a part of an organic system, subject to being affected
by and affecting the processes of that system.

A unique example of the use of analog models was

made by Robert Fox2

in helping participants evaluate
their own group's processes in the Wayne County Inter-

mediate School District's Innovation Workshop. Team

 

1Karl Deutsch, "Mechanism, Organism, and Society:
Some Models in Natural and Social Science," PhilOSOphy
of Science, Vol. XVIII (April, 1951), p. 234.

 

ZRobert Fox, "Staff Consultation With Team
Leaders," Wayne County Intermediate School District's
Innovation WorkshOp Report (Feb. 13, 1968), pp. 1-2.

56

members were asked to describe the diagram (analog)
that most closely approximated the way in which their
,group Operated. Circles were used to represent persons,

while squares represented the leader. Just two of the

choices are pictured below. 0
O
o
o o o o
o
o o o o o
o 0 O o o
E] :3
Fig. 1 Fig. 2

In the group characterized by Figure 1, the leader is
separate from and dominates the group. In Figure 2,
the leader is a part of the group. It is easy to see
how changes in the group process and structure can be
manipulated to estimate consequences in the empirical
domain, given the idea that the model is an analog of
the "real" Situation.
For example, remove the formal leader and split

the group as in Figure 3. Let the letter P represent

one opinion held by persons and the

° ° 7 V P circles represent a conflicting
o o P P P . . . .
9 Opinion. The analog now is 150-
o .
morphic to a situation of conflict-
Fig. 3

ing vieWpoints. Manipulations of

the model may suggest some avenues of change. For

57

example, in Figure 4, let a dotted line represent inter-

 

‘; ~v action and a line with a double arrow
0 1a a; ‘3? I’ P
Em‘ represent a sharing of Opinion. It
0 o o. .‘p p P I
can be seen that a restructurin of
o(————)P '3

the model can be suggestive of
Fig. 4
changes in the empirical domain.
Another model originally develOped by Kurt Lewin
was used to help groups analyze progress towardgoals.1
Using the basic idea of "quasi-equilibrium," team

leaders employed the following analog to analyze and de-

vise strategies for change toward effective goal realiza-

tion.

Force Field
current state of affairs

Forces For-—+ (— Forces Against
Analytic Statements A Q—Analytic Statements
__€> lé__.

Fig. 5

 

In Figure 5, movement toward a goal can be pre-
sented and an appraisal made for any given point in
time. Altering of forces in the model can give clues

for change in the group situation. It is apparent that

 

1Ibid., p. 2.

58

changes in a model are more readily and easily achieved
than changes in the actual human situation. This factor
is precisely the advantage that models offer in planning
with foresight for application to the more difficult
area of reality.

If scoring were added to the analog model, it
would then utilize the arithmetical features of the for-
mal model to predict or estimate with greater accuracy
the direction and force involved in the realization of
algiven.goa1.

In addition to its verbal form, the analog model
Often takes the form of a flow chart, diagram or a graph.
While it lacks the precision of formal symbolic models,
it is useful in predicting and inferring changes in
dynamic and/or complex systems. The relative ease in
terms of time and exPedience with which analogs can be
used makes them particularly valuable for work related
to human Situations.

The formal symbolic model is a representation

 

which employs a symbolic system that Operates on the
basis of a formula or set of rules. When the laws,
theories, or conceptual constructs of a symbolic system
represent the problem situation or system under inquiry
in terms of the laws, theories or conceptual constructs,

a condition of isomorphism can be said to exist.

59

Much of the empirical investigations consistsof
quantifying some aSpect of that which is observed. The
quantifications are then manipulated according to mathe-
matical procedures and applied to the empirical pheno-
mena.

In interaction analysis, several arithmetical
methods are employed. The interactions are defined in
terms of observable qualitative events and instances of
these events are enumerated and summed. These summa-
tions are total scores that have the prOperty of more
than, less-than, or equal-to relationships.

In mathematical terms, an isomorphism between
the set of structure of the events so viewed and the
structure (set) of a mathematical model is assumed.

The process of scoring, that is, the arbitrary assign-
ment of a number to a quality or an event is used.
Enumeration, that is, the Specification or recording of
instances are recorded (1, l, l. . .). The instances
are added following the arithmetical model of addition
and total scores for various categories are Obtained.
The quantified data are manipulated to compare inter-
actions as observed according to rules that are formed
by the constructs included in the model. Empirical in-

terpretations can be substituted for the mathematical

60

ones associated with the model because the two sets in-
volved are isomorphic to each other. Thus, one can
Speak in quantified terms, or empirical terms Of less
interaction, or more interaction of a defined type with
mathematical precision.

The transitive relation indicated by A<B and
CI<:A1: C <CB can be empirically translated to describe
_greater-than or less-than instances of a particular kind
of interaction. If, for example, student-initiated inter-
actions as compared to teacher-initiated interactions,
can be Shown to improve instruction as related to
achievement, then an isomorphismcan be established be-
tween a set of probability constructs and the set of
relationship of student interaction and achievement. If
this condition is true, the utility of relations that
obtain in statistical manipulations of a probability set
can be applied to understanding in the empirical domain
and one can speak of student-initiated interactions
having a greater probability of affecting achievement
than teacher-initiated interactions.

Such models are frequently utilized in education
and are often taken to be empirical without sufficient
consideration given to the antecedents that establish

them as models. The foundations for the model lie in a

61

model that is not in itself empirical. The mathematical
model is usually taken for_granted. More importantly,
what is ignored even more is that the process of quanti-
fying a quality or act is in itself a matter of human
judgment.

The aim of scientific endeavor is the
discovery of the truth, falsity, or proba-
bility of occurrence of formulated generaliza-
tions about selected aspects of sensory data,,
or experiences. . . . Meanings in science
are usually expressed as prObable empirical
truths based upon certain rules of evidence’
and verification. The rules of evidence in
turn are based upon specified systems of
analytic translation of qualitative symbolic
information into theoretical symbolic know-
ledge. Therefore the ultimate goal Of a
science is a theoretical symbolic understand-
ing of the qualitative symbolic phenomena in-
cluded in the 'world' under examination.1

The problems of finding apprOpriate means for
looking at humanly-based phenomena in terms of formal
symbolic systems are particularly frustrating when the
"ideal" of physics as a science is held as a model. The
biologist Joseph H. Woodger describes the development of
mathematics in terms of a bias directed toward the special
requirements of the problems of physics. He argues that

in terms of biology it may not be wholly suitable.2‘

 

1Joseph Hill, "The Educational ScienceS" (unpub-
lished manuscript, 1969).

2J. H. Woodger, "The Technique of Theory Con-
struction," International Encyc10pedia of Unified
Sciences, II, 5 (University of ChicagoPress, 1939).

 

62

Various aspects of mathematics, in addition to
probability theory, lend themselves to quantification
based upon prior human judgmental operations. Set theory
and empirical mapping are particularly promising in
sciences involving human transaction.

Set theory has played an increasing role in
social theorizing because of its flexibility and the

ease with which it accommodates human judgment. A set

 

is defined as a collection of elements of the same kind

or type identified by a common characteristic or rule

 

formation. What can be classified aS‘a set depends on

 

somebody deciding which common characteristic or rule
they wish to employ and a judgment as to whether or not
certain items to be placed in a set do have the speci-
fied commonalities. The logical power of sets rests on
an isomorphism of set theory and empirical sets. "Since
the axioms and theorems of set theory are tautologically
true of all sets, they will also be true of the observed
ones."1 Thus it is possible to use what is known about
sets to make deductivegeneralizations from empirical
hypotheses cast in this form.

The classification of the elements of a given

 

1May Brodbeck, Synopsis on Psychological TheOries,
ed. L. T..Gross (Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson, Inc, 1959),
p. 403.

 

63

set into a second set composed of at least two subsets

is a process defined as "mapping."1

Separation of
children into reading groups by the color of their eyes
or percentile ranks of test scores are forms of mapping.

In mathematical mapping only the theoretical
symbols of abstract logic or mathematics are employed.
The notation commonly employed to indicate such a
mapping of Set A into Set B is: A—)B, where in an
isomorphism of sets, Set A is called the domain and
Set B, the range.

In sciences that are formed for fields of human
application, i.e., medicine, education and engineering,
the process of "empirical mapping" involves human
judgment in the classification of elements. Thus the
determination of the classification of the elements of
one set into two or more "logical" categories included
in the second set is a matter of someone making a de-
cision. The process, in human terms, proceeds on a
"makes-sense" or "does not make sense" basis. In ad-
dition to involving the theoretical symbols of mathe—

matical mapping, e.g., thinking in terms of words and

 

1Hill, "The Educational Sciences" (unpublished
manuscript, 1969). The discussion of empirical mapping
is based on the distinction drawn here between mathe-
matics as a pure form and mathematics for the applied
"sciences of education" as defined by Joseph Hill.

64

numbers, it includes the qualitative symbolic aspects of
reasoning, e.g., picturing the characteristics of a
problem,as well.

The concept of mapping can be employed to ex—
plicate models and their implications for the develOp-
ment of a "new" conceptual outlook for the solution of
curriculum problems. In a very crucial sense, what can
be done in education in large measure is limited to the
abilities and characteristics of the persons involved.

The limitations and strengths of any humanly-
oriented process are ever concerned with the develOp-
ment of the persons involved. Under these circumstances,
the ability to employ increasingly relevant conceptual
tools to the particular curricular events, becomes a

necessary condition of curriculum improvement.

Summary

A universe of discourse was established based
on model and set theory. The model was defined as an
isomorphism of sets and the various forms of modelling
were defined and explained. The model as it is con-
ceived in this study is considered to be a construct
basic to the utilization of systems theory.

It will be recalled from Chapter I that a system

65

is a defined collection of elements with their inter-
connections viewed over a period of time. According to
this definition, a system is a set. Under these cir-
cumstances, systems theory is related in many ways to
set theory. For example, the whole function of
"modeling" a system is dependent upon the construct of
the isomorphism of sets.

The elements of a model (set) of a system, be
they words, numbers or pictorial representations must
be isomorphic to the set of elements they represent.

In this context, a model of a system can be produced,
studied, manipulated and interpreted without undue dis-
turbance of the set of actual elements (e.g., persons,
processes and properties) which it represents. In
Similar fashion a model can be analyzed to determine
the potential consequences of change or alternatives
among the set of actual elements which it represents.

In the next chapter General Systems Theory and
selected aspects of the social system will be eXplored
and eXplained to build further foundations for consider-

ing curriculum as a social system.

CHAPTER III
GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY AND THE SOCIAL SYSTEM
General Systems Theory

Man is a social being. He creates his perceptions
of the world by means of an ongoing transaction with his
environment. His perceptions influence and are influenced
by the culture in which he lives. In this context he ob-
serves, figures out and speculates about the nature of
the salient features of his eXperiences and reflects upon
the way in which they are related. To the extent that
man continuously defines collections of things with their
interconnections, he is thinking in systems.

The notion of relationships is central to why
systems approaches are useful. It enables educators to
consider not only the ingredients of an educative ex-
perience, but also how they variously interact and affect
each other in the process. In this sense, General Systems
Theory forms the foundations from which educational
sciences can emerge.

In scientific practice, thinking in systems has
been refined to the point where phiIOSOphers debate about

whether or not reality exists in systems or is defined by

66

67

man. In the context of this study, systems are Ways in
which man organizes his perceptions Of the world.

One of the most significant aspects of systems
analysis is that it makes possible the consideration of
a complex number of variables. While the problem of
doing so remains difficult at best, systems analysis
provides the potential conceptual frameWorks isomorphic
to situations as they are found or can be developed in
reality.

Von Bertalanffy found that models of classical
science based on problems having two variables with
linear causal chains of "one-cause—one effect reasoning"
are not sufficient for understanding complex organiza-
tions (systems). Problems based on the interaction of
a large number of variables require new conceptual out-
looks.1

Stressing the focus of science on a multiplicity
of variables, William Whyte eXplains the primacy of re-
lationships required to interpret the facts of the em-

pirical world.

 

1Ludvig von Bertalanffy, "General Systems Theory:
A Critical Review," The Yearbook of Social General Systems

 

Research, Vol. VII (1962), p. 2.

68

In science we no longer search for the cause
for a given phenomenon. We recognize that
there are always a number of factors in-
volved. We don't try to determine which is
the factor or even which is the most impor-
tant factor. Instead, we try to discover
how the factors fit together to produce the
results we observe.

Perhaps one of the most persistent difficulties
in curriculum change is the tendency to proceed in a
piecemeal fashion. Recent efforts to introduce change
in the field of education have centered increasingly on
the "so called" disciplines emphasizing the role of
separate subject matters. The results of such efforts
appear to be increasing unbalance and fragmentation of
planning and effort in curricular endeavors.

Systems analysis focuses on planning in a com-
prehensive sense based firmly on the idea that change
in one part of a system has the potential for affecting
other aSpects of the system.

Among the early efforts to use general systems
theory was that of James C. Miller and his associates.

Using general systems theory as a model, Miller's group

_generated a theory of general behavior.2 Working from

 

1William Foote Whyte, Pattern for Industrial Peace
(New York: Harper 8 Brothers, Publishers, 1951), p. 189.

2James G. Miller, "Toward a General Theory for the

Behavioral Sciences," The American Psychologist, Vol. X
(1955), pp. 513-53.

69

the premise that there are a series of characteristics
that can be identified as true of all systems, Miller
defined the field as follows:

General systems theory is a series of

related definitions, assumptions, and postu-
lates about all levels of systems from

atomic particles through atoms, molecules,
crystals, viruses, cells,organs, individuals,
small groups, societies, planets, solar sys-
tems and galaxies.

Following the implications of his definitional
concept, Miller in a more recent work identified a number
of hypotheses that apply in a cross-level consideration
of a hierarchy of systems from cellular to international.2
Generalizations that serve as a basis for application to
any system are important in that they serve as a frame of
reference for the building and understanding of Specific
systems.

One of the major functions of systemic approaches
is to furnish a conceptual framework that is applicable
to all scientific thinking. As the Blalocks point out,

"Systems analysis involves a way of thinking which is

common to all sciences whether eXplicitly rec0gnized or

 

11bid., p. 514.

2James G. Miller, "Living Systems: Cross-Level
Hypotheses," Behavioral Science, Vol. X (1965), pp. 380-
411.

 

70

not."1 It provides a methodological basis for the syn-
thesis of relevant variables in the examination of events
of all types and a way of generating alternative solutions
to problems.

Before proceeding further, it should be re-

emphasized that a syStem is defined as a colleCtion of

 

elements with their interConnections viewed Over'a period

of time. Since a mathematical set is a collection of well
defined elements, a system can be considered to be a set.

Further, Since a model is an isomorphism of sets, systems

can be modelled.

The analysis of systems considered as models under
varying conditions enables the derivation of information
helpful in the process of decision-making. When a system
is modelled, it can be eXpressed by iconic, analog or
formal symbolic means as eXplicated in the proceeding

chapter in the section on the "Topology of Models."

Defining Systemic Level

 

When a system is under discussion as a focal
point, it is named "the system." A system can be composed

of smaller systems which are called subsyStems. From the

 

 

1H. M. Blalock and Ann B. Blalock, "Toward a Clari-
fication of Systems Analysis in the Social Sciences,"
Philospphy of Science, Vol. XXVI, No. 2 (April, 1959), p. 84.

 

71

vantage point of a subsystem, the larger system of which

 

it is a part is called a suprasystem. For purposes of

clarity, the environment Of a system is defined to include

 

everything in its suprasystem except the system itself.
For example, a person may be considered as a primary ele-
ment in a social system such as a group. When so con-
sidered, the element "person" is a subsystem. On the
other hand, a person may be considered as a suprasystem
for his heart, brain, or his set of values.

What is considered as an elementary component or
particle in one system is not necessarily the same when
the context shifts from the micro to the macro levels of
a system. An atom is considered as a basic particle which
is the buildingtflock of a molecule. Molecules in turn
are subsystems of elements and they in turn are subsystems
of compounds. What we choose to indicate as a basic ele-
mentary particle is somewhat arbitrary, but definitely re-
lated to the inclusiveness of it as a part in a larger
system.

Not too long ago, the atom was considered by
physicists to be the elementary particle. With the dis-
covery of numerous sub-atomic particles, it is now viewed
as a complex system of uncertain description.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin comments on the

72

astonishing network of interconnecting subsystems and
suprasystems to be found in nature:

The further and more deeply we penetrate

into matter by means of increasingly power-

ful methods, the more we are confounded by

the interdependence of its parts. Each

element of the cosmos is positively woven

from all others from beneath itself by the

mysterious phenomenon of "composition"

which makes it subsistent throughout the

apex of an organized whole.
In order to avoid confusion, when a system is considered
as a whole, it is labelled a system even though in some
other context it may be considered to be a subsystem or
a suprasystem. For example, when focusing on a group of
students in a classroom with a teacher, it may be con-
sidered to be a system. In the context of considering a
.group of teachers and_groups of students in several class-
rooms with administrators, a single classroom is referred
to as a subsystem and each person a subsystem of the sub-
system.

As more and more information is discovered it be-
comes increasingly important to Specify the systemic level
that is affected in a given change process. AS it becomes
clearer that interrelations are systemic in character, it

also will become necessary to seek systemic consequences in

a whole series of levels that affect the curricular system.

 

1Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man
(New York:' Harper 6 Brothers, Inc., 1959), pp. 43-44.

 

73

The Application of General
Systems Theory to Specific Systems

From the vieWpoint Of general systems theory,
every system has certain characteristics in common. One
of the values of General Systems Theory is its ability to
function as a resource for the formation of models for
other specific kinds of systems. Recognizing this value,
Bertalanffy explains:

The existence of laws of similar structure
in different fields enables the use of
systems which are Simpler or better known
as models for more complicated and less
manageable ones. Therefore, General
Systems Theory, methodologically, is an
important means of controlling and in-
stigating the transfer of principles from
one field to another . .

Since some systemic principles apply in a wide
variety of disciplines, the resources for the reconceptu-
alization of curriculum are greatly enhanced by the use
of general systems theory.

The greater the generality of a system, the more
likely it is that it can be found useful in a variety of
applications. However, it must be remembered that each

separate field sets the limitations by which fruitful and

convenient application can occur. If the conditions

 

1Ludwig von Bertalanffy, "An Outline of General
Systems Theory," British Journal for the Philosophy of
Science, Vol. I (1950), p. 1421

74

required by specific fields are met,_then a general con-
ceptual framework has value in a diversity of fields.1
It must be kept in mind that the application of_generaliza-
tions cannot be made to apply directly to specific systems.
The isomorphic character of a system is sought so that an
interpretation and a model construction can proceed with
effective.generalizations toward specific adaption to the
requirements of a particular system.

In order to use the concepts of general systems
theory in Specific instances, a translation must be made
to the realities of experience in the empirical world.
The persons in the theoretical system must come-alive with
the names, attitudes and purposes of specific people that

are considered in the planning and decision-making pro-

cesses .

SyStemic Boundaries

 

The boundary of a subsystem forms the demarcation
between itself and the larger system of which it is a part.
Since Open systems are transactive in character, the
boundary serves the function of selectively admitting some

inputs and rejecting others as well as controlling the

 

. 1C. West Churchman and Russell L. Ackoff, "Purposive
Behavior and Cybernetics," Social Forces, Vol. XXIX (1950),
p. 33.

 

75

nature of the outputs. Boundaries can be natural barriers
and filters such as a cell wall or the skin covering of a
person. On the other hand, boundaries can be constructed
physical entities such as the wall of a classroom.

In a non-physical sense, a boundary of a person
or a collectivity of persons can be, among other things,
the value-orientation held, the normative structure, or
the way meaning is perceived. The boundary acts as a
control in the matter-energy transactions that facilitate
or block a selective filtering of inputs and outputs.
Thus in an educational system, when a curricular event is
held to be a frill, even if it may contribute to the de—
veIOpment of human capacities, it will tend to be blocked

from the mainstream of the systems activities.

Open and Closed Systems

 

A closed system is characterized by a finite set
of variables contained within its own boundaries. It is
absolute in the sense that all that must be accounted for
is within the system.

Open systems, which include all living systems,
are characterized by transactions with their environment
(suprasystem). The means by which purpose is translated
into action are called inputs, and the results of systemic

interaction are the outputs of the system.

76

The organismic Open systems theory has been the
dominant system model used to generate theory involving
social process. In the field of social work, Gordon
Hearn1 used the open system as a model for develOping a
conception of the role of social worker. He evolved the
rationale for treating the social work process as a
system. Basically, it was a similar transactive idea
upon which John Dewey built his theory of experience.

Hearn, influenced by the work of general systems

2 assumed

theorists, particularly that of James Miller,
that human behavior is always the result of the inter-
action between the biological organism (system) and its
environment.3

Griffiths has used the open systems model to in-
vestigate the problems of change in organizations and to
demonstrate how models can be used to generate new ad-

ministrative theory.4

 

1Gordon Hearn, Theory Building In Social Work
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1958).

2James G. Miller, "Toward a General Theory for
the Behavioral Sciences," The American Psychologist,
Vol. X (1955).

3Hearn, TheoryyBuilding in Social Work, p. 36.

4Daniel E. Griffiths (ed.), "Behavioral Science
and Administration," The Sixty-Third Yearbook of the
National Society for the Stugy of Education, Part II
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 116.

77

The process of change in the dynamics of the open
systems is accounted for in the ongoing necessity for the
system to interact with its environment in order for the
system to maintain itself or grow. Because systemic
existence is dependent on processes of change, it is a

fundamental aSpect of all open systems.

The Feedback Process

 

Recent attention on the part of curriculum experts
has been directed toward examining the function of feed-
back as it controls the consequences of curricular pro-
cesses. The growing realization of the systemic character
of the curriculum and the importance of the feedback pro-
cess as evaluation and guide was of major concern in a
recent publication of the Association for Supervision and
1

Curriculum DevelOpment.

The_process of ordering one's future behavior on

 

the basis ofypast performances is called feedback. Input

 

energy in a system results in consequences or outputs of
the system. It is the return of some of the output energy,

as it is sensed and evaluated, that guides what must occur

 

1Fred T. Wilhelms (ed.), Evaluation as Feedback
and Guide (Washington, D. C.: Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development, 1967).

 

 

78

in the input stage of the system in order to achieve fur-
ther consequences.

The conception of feedback is an interesting
example of the application of human models to the design
of machines. From this application, it was possible to
understand feedback more clearly. What is now occurring
is the application of the clarified concepts to their
original source--human systems.

The idea of eXperience mediating further eXperience
in terms Of its directions and possibilities for further
.growth was clearly elaborated and developed in the works
of John Dewey. Although Dewey's work is relatively un-
mentioned in the literature of systems theorists,_both
Dewey and they started with an Open organic systems model.
His ideas still remain as a rich resource by which the
more recent systems theory can be related to a new con-
ceptual basis for curriculum theory. .

A person undergoing an eXperience makes sense of
it in terms of what is now happening, what has happened
and what is going to happen. He makes judgments, decisions
and takes further actions (means) as they are necessary and
desirable to achieve anticipated purposes (ends). In this
context, the concepts of the theory of experience and the
work of the systems theorist furnish isomorphic concepts

for a theory of change based upon a theory of experience.

79

Feedback can be used as a means of enhancing the
range of personal and shared meanings by adjusting systemic
inputs. For example, if feedback is reported in terms of
.grades meant to indicate how well or how poorly a Student
has performed, the feedback functions to block further
learning or at best stimulate further effort. If on the
other hand, feedback provides the necessary information
to provide modification of the systems input in terms of
what must be done to facilitate the effective achievement
of further growth, then feedback is related meaningfully

to the learning process. In this sense, the feedback

 

process as it is defined and allowed to function in a

 

System determines what can happen to order and structure

 

the "process of becoming? in the system. AS Norbert

 

Wiener, the cybernetician suggests, if the feedback pro-
cesses are used only to criticize and control the process,
it is the simple feedback of the control engineer. How-
ever, if the pattern and method of performance is changed
as a result of feedback, we have a process that might be
called learning.1

Value orientations play an important role in the

determination of what is admissible as feedback. ‘Further,

 

1Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings:
Cybernetics and Sociepy, Anchor Books 2nd rev. ed., 1954
(New York: Dofibieday 8 Company, Inc., 1950), p. 61.

 

 

80.

they serve to mediate the kind of reaction to feedback

that might occur in a human system.
The Social System

It will be recalled that a system has been ex-
plained as a collection of elements with their intercon-
nections existent in a spatio—temporal construct. The

social system is defined as consisting of the generic

 

elements of personS, processes and properties with their

 

interconnections viewed over a period of time.

 

The definitions of the social system and its
selected aspects will serve as the foundation for es-
tablishing curriculum as a social system in Chapter IV.
Further, they furnish the source from which models of
the system can be derived.

The term persons as it is used here, is considered
to be the individuals and collectivities of people in-
volved in a system. Process refers to a series of inter-
dependent steps established for the purpose of attaining

a particular goal or end. Properties are ideas or things,

 

e.g., the contents of a course, or the room in which a
class is held. In this context, a teacher (person) plans
with (process) other teachers, administrators and students
(persons) to develop (process) a plan (property).

Within the framework of systems theory, the selected

81

aspects of the social system that are developed in this
chapter include: (1) value-orientations, (2) telos
(purposive functions), (3) normative Structure, and

(4) role eXpectations. They are considered to be struc-
tural sub-units of the persons, processes and prOperties
and form in part the source from which change and sys-

temic activity are generated.

Value-Orientations

 

The term valuing, as employed here, refers to
the methodological approach of means-ends-relationships

as developed by Dewey.1 Value—orientatiOn as used here

 

is defined as

. .‘A generalized and organized conception,
influencing behavior, of nature, of man's
place in it) of man‘s relation to man, and
of the desirable and nondesirable as they_
relate to man-environment and interhuman re-

lations.‘

 

 

 

 

In the above sense, valuing is a process and value-
orientations are properties held as symbolic meanings

by persons.

 

1John Dewey, "Theory of Valuation," International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. II, Number 4,
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939).

 

 

2Clyde Kluckhorn et al., "Values and Value-Orienta-
tions in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition
and Classification," Toward a General Theory of Action,
Talcott Parsons and Edward Shills (eds.), HarperiTorchbooks
(New York: Harper 8 Row, 1962), p. 410-

 

82

PeOple behave differently because they believe
different things and see the world uniquely. In education,
human needs are used as a rationale for just about every
kind of program. Even if the programs are the opposite
in projected consequences, the same set of needs is used
to argue in their behalf. Thus, ". . . beliefs about
'what is' are often disguised assumptions of what ought
to be."1

When an adult believes he is planning according
to student needs, he may wittingly or unwittingly mean
adult purposes and value-orientations. This is not to
deny the existence of human needs. In a psychological
sense, the foundations for.valuing and human purposing
may rest on needs theory. However, in order to avoid
dishonest ontological interpretations and confusion, it
is useful to consider the curricular system as one that
is constructed on the basis of value-orientations and
purposive functions.

Human systems are affairs that involve making
choices that are translated into behaviors which are re-
Sponsible factors in generating results or consequences.
Since all human systems involve the making of choices,

change and action in the system is strongly related to

 

11bid.

83

value-orientations. If curriculum is conceived of as a
subsystem of human systems, it is also a system struc-
tured from and oriented toward values.

When we seek to operationalize something whether
it be individualized instruction, democratic climate or
mechanical efficiency, we do so on the basis of our
value-orientations. The nature of the curricular ex-
perience is both constrained and expanded by the value-
orientations prevailing in the person and the group or
larger suprasystem. Experiences are guided not only by
what we do in a given Situation but also by what we have
failed to do.

Failure to recognize the systemic character of
experience has literally wreaked havoc with our educa-
tional institutions producing, at times, unrealistic
pressures upon youth and serious unbalance in the curri-
culum. The effect of value-orientations and the conflict
of normative structures in the realm of fostering scien-
tific creativity is particularly illuminating.

Creativity in an individual, group or society is
closely related to the ability, freedom, and support to
conceive new forms, frames of reference or concepts. It
is intensively systemic in origin and implication.
Bertalanffy believes that we created the climate by which

the very values sought are subverted. He asserts that we

84

can never produce "Einsteins" by expediently pouring money
into basic research,bright young scientists, scientific
hardware and large research buildings.1 In Bertalanffy's
view, there is basically no place in American institutions
for creative individuals, unless the brand Of creativity
is stamped with the official and approved brand.

That this is true in an area in which we as a
nation are eXpending vast amounts of effort is attested
to by Bertalanffy's assertion that freedom to choose and
carry out individually valued purposes is strictly limited
in American science. He further describes the direction
of both applied and basic research in terms of its control
by fashion and_grantegiving agencies that circumscribe
freedom of choice.2

The situation is directly parallel to the prevail-
ing conditions in education. That which is valued is
emphasized and that which is believed to be trivial, no
matter how meaningful or relevant it may be to the in-

dividual, is minimized or omitted. Ironically, that which

is held to be valuable is often trivialized because the

 

1Ludwig von Bertalanffy,_"The World of Science and
the World of Value," Problems and Issues in Contempprapy
Education: An Anthology from the Harvard Education Review
and The Teachers COllegelRecOrd (New York: Scott Foresman
and COmpany, 1968}, p. 249.

 

 

2Ibid., p. 251.

85

persons involved may find it to be a major deterrent to
developing a desire for continued learning.

With a knowledge of the goals and

values important to a subject [person]
, we are in a position to make much more

accurate inferences regarding the ways

in which he is likely to perceive a
_given event.

The meanings that are held by a person or a group
tgovern his choices of alternative behaviors and set the
stage for actions in the context of particular situations.

Caution must be exercised in moving from an under-
standing of values and the eXpectancy of action that fol-
low. A man may indeed do that which he is opposed to
doing for still other value-orientations. When conflicts
occur in value orientations, as they inevitably do, under-
standing that someone haS a set of values different from
one's own or that one's own values are in conflict does
not necessarily diminish the conflict. Ultimately, if
action proceeds from a rationale point of view, it does
so from a choice of alternatives that generate consequences.
In a sense, it is the choosing of preferred consequences
in a situational context that serves to act as the select-

ive mechanism in the choice of one set of actions as op-

posed to another.

 

1Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual
Behavior: A Perceptual Approach to BehaviOr, rev. ed.,
1959 (New York: Harper E Row, Publishers, 1949), p. 449.

 

86

From this point of view, one of the ongoing ab-
surdities in education is endleSs talk abOut the objec-
tivityof value-free evaluation. To select that which
is labelled "value-free" iS‘a choice between that which
is value-free and that which is value-bound. The choosing
thus in itself is an act of valuing. In addition, to
focus an educational program on that which one is evalu-
ating or to select that which is to be evaluated are acts
of valuing that Shape the opportunities for eXperiencing.

In the context of systemic relationships, value-
orientations form a basis from which the persons in a

system define and achieve human purposes.

Purposive Functions

 

Systems are characterized by an underlying "telos."
They are formed and take on their shape and structure
from their purposive functions. "To have a goal, Objec-
tive or purpose is to have something that takes the place
of the future."1 This end-in-view as a purposive affair
is a representation of the events to be achieved. They
are, as Champlin has argued, symbolic affairs where a non-
present (the future) through its representatives (symbols)

operate in the present in a directive capacity.2

 

1Champlin, "Methodological Inquiry and Educational
Research," p. 313.

21bid.

87

In order to develop the basis for understanding
and diagnosing human systems, it is necessary to formu-
late a conception of teleological functions and struc-
tures that is capable of defining systems in human terms.
Churchman and Ackoff provide a model of teleogical func-
tions and purposes to serve in the analysis of differences
between cybernetic and social systems. The distinctions
they have drawn are seen as providing the resources for
models that can be useful in interpreting purposes and
consequences in social systems.

The functions as defined by Churchman and Ackoff1
include: (1) extensive function, (2) intensive function,

and (3) purposive function. The extensive function is a

 

category in which objectives are achieved by relatively
invarient behavior in a wide range of environments. A
clock, an electric light switch are examples of objects
having no function of their own that is derived from a
selection-process.‘ Their purposes are fulfilled by un-
changing behavior under a variety of conditions.

The intensive function is a category in which

 

objectives are achieved by different behavior in differ-
ent environments where the behavior is usually character—

ized by one type of behavior in any given environment.

 

1Churchman and Ackoff, "Purposive Behavior and
Cybernetics," pp. 33-38.

88

Examples are to be found in such devices as thermostats,.
missile systems and circuit breakers. They are dis-
tinguished from extensive functions in that they have
functions of their own which require a predetermined
selective differential behavior for given environments.

The pgrposive function is a category in which

 

Objectives are achieved by alternative behaviors even in

the same environment.. Human Systems are characterized Sy

 

purposive selection processes in which the variability of

 

human choices is a guiding factor.

 

Systems that exhibit purposive functions are
characterized by: (1) Conditions in which the system
and its environment are not rigidly specified. They are
not deterministic in the framework of a mechanistic view
of the world. (2) A causal nexus of consequences that
result from human choices. The persons in a human system
make choices by means of selection processes. (3) Sym-
bolic interaction. (4) The selection of alternatives.
(5) Capacity to be affected by the variability of human
perception. (6) The involvement of the role eXpectationS
of persons. (7) The capacity to be affected by normative
structures. (8) The capacity to be affected by value
orientations. (9) Behavior that takes place in a Spatio-

temporal framework. Since purpose involves action and

89

change in behavior and/or conditions, locations and time
intervals are essential characteristics of the system.
(10) Plasticity, in that a particular goal can be reached
by a variety of routes.1

Purposive behavior in a human system involves:

persons, actions (processes) to achieve results (purposes)

 

that are reflected in properties (things and ideas).

 

From this point of view, to be human involves operating
in a world of alternatives which is mediated into meaning
by symbolic processes and then selected or chosen from

the alternative means to achieve human ends.

Normative Structure

 

The normative orientations refers to the system

 

of beliefs and actions that usually obtain in a given

 

situation. They become a guide for action as they are

 

cast in terms of values and purposes that set the con-
ditions for what should be done or what persons are ex-

pected to do. Normative structures are formed in the

 

leendolyn Andrew,_"Criteria for Systems ModeIS'
and Their Application to a Sociological Theory of Organi-
zations," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1961). In her study of the application of
systems theory to understanding of social organizations,
Gwendolyn Andrew identified plasticity as the distinctive
criterion of teleological eXplanations.

 

90

complex nexus of social interaction. They are understood
by means of Shared meanings that take the form of con-
sensual agreements, usual procedures and commonly held
interpretations of experience.

What is possible in a social system is governed
to a large extent by reference to a pervasive set of
norms. The individuality of a person or the distinctness
of a group_growsout of the relationships between peOple
and the normative structure.

It is precisely in the realm of normative struc-
tures that the curriculum worker.can observe the limita-
tions or boundaries that are established for what can be
learned as well as the methodology of instruction. Nor-
mative structures are involved in the shaping of values
and purposes. They are both shaped by them and form the
foil against which we test, conform, and deviate.

When rules, laws or norms are isomorphic to the
values held by a person or collectivity of persons, they
tend to become the referential base from which purposes
are translated into action. If the actions required by
the normative structure are held to be in contrastwith
the value system,_tension is generated in the system in
the form of resistance and value-conflict.

When two groups are in conflict the definitions

of their purposivefgoal seeking behavior is defined in

91

terms of differing sets of normative structure. In order
to have change take on the character of mutual purposive
action, commonly held values must serve as an Opening
wedge.

For example, in order to COpe with the widening
.gap between the races, which simultaneously has called
for both segregation and desegregation on thepart of
both "blacks and whites," consensus must be sought in
areas of possible agreement where alternatives are de—
velOped on the basis Of commonly held values. This is
often not work toward the changing of differences, but
rather the search for a common ground.

The process of change is interrelated with the
normative structure shared by the group. The moving
from a norm to.a new norm is more complicated than the
simple substitution of one idea for another. It involves
a change in the frame of reference within which a par-
ticular area of behavior or thinking is perceived by
linkage to other shared values which are strongly held.1

The normative structure, in this context, becomes

a model against which a prOposed change must be found

 

1Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, PerSOnal In-
fluence: The Part Plgyed by People in the Flow of Mass
COmmufiications, a Free Press Paperback (New York? The
Free Press Corporation of the Macmillan Co., 1964), p. 79.

 

 

 

92

isomorphic to other important valuesin order for change
to occur. Thus, it becomes necesSary for the curriculum
worker to become familiar with the Structures which are
change reSistant and change facilitating as they evolve
and change in time.

Becoming a part of a group or belonging to a
_group involves the Sharing of the opinions, attitudes,
and values that constitute the nOrmative orientations of
that group.1 Our perceptions of "reality" are defined
in the normative structure. Thus, what we define as
"reality" is a function of the norms of the groups to
which we prefer to belong.

Social norms are created as we interact with
others in such a way as to build the basis for reSponding
to and directing the forces of change.’ Being a member
of a family and being a member of peer_grOUpS involves
eachyoung person in an ongoing teSting of norms as de-
cisions are weighted in favor of one group or the other.

In the Cass-Willis (1940) gang of Detroit adoles-
cents, membership in the group required that each person
demonstrate that he could effectively "roll a drunk."
Nowhere in the family ethos could there be found sup-

portive norms. Behavior running counter to the value

 

1Ibid., p. 53.

93

orientations and normative structure of the family de-
pended upon a desire to be a part of the group. 'The gap
of understanding and control of children in bOth home and
school in part was dependent on the shared norms emanating

from available and then desired interpersonal interactions.

 

Perhaps one Of the most strategic Sites for educational
change then would appear to lie outside of the school.
Thus, the arena from which a person derives his norma-
tive orientations, perceptions, and values is a potent
force in Shaping the accessibility.and direction of ex-

periencing.

Role Expectations

 

Generally Speaking, role expeCtations refer to
the anticipated behaviors related to the position or
status one person occupies in relation to another and
to the normative structure against which those behaviors
are judged. In actual situations, more or less leeway
in role performance is tolerated depending upon a person's
acceptance by a given group. Thus, no matter how well an
educator may learn his professional roles in a given
educational setting such as the university, he must tune-
iJit0the Specifics of expectations as they evolve and

change with reSpect to himself and others.

94

The concept of role is not monolithically lodged
in a position or in an organization or group. Role ex-
pectations are fluid and require continuous reinterpreta-
tion as mutually expected behaviors change in relation to
new conditions. As the participants, their perceptions
and the Situations change so must the adaptive or non-
adaptive character of behavior become apparent.

AS roles become formalized into patterned in-
stitutional expectations, they become a social frame of
reference. Normal behavior as contrasted with pathologi-
cal behavior is identified in terms of greater access to
a wide variety of social norms as well as superior Skills

1 Each role,

to function within conditions of change.
even if it is highly specified in a formal sense, has

the necessity of response to ongoing processes of change
in the system.

Role expectations combine with value orientations
of self and others, purposive functions, and normative
structures to form a kind of perceptual filter. This in-
fluences what a person perceives and furnishes the basis

2

of his behavior in relation to others. Because of their

 

1Norman Cameron, "Role Concepts in Behavior
Pathology," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55
(March 1950), pp. 464-67.

 

2Muzafer Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology
(New York: Harpers, 1948).

 

95

variety and complexity every role has personal and shared
aspects of meaning that are defined variently in the pro-
cess of social interaction. If a role is idiosyncratic,‘
it is so because it is defined in terms of personal de-
viation from expectations that are normatively oriented.
Because the concept of role includes the be?
havioral patterns expected from individuals in a social
setting, it is a particularly useful way in which to in-
terrelate ideas from the psychology of the individual
and the sociology ofrgroups.1
The recent research led by James Coleman suggests
that achievement in school is strongly influenced by the
expectations a child has of his chances to succeed and by
our means of institutionalizing his chances.2
In the earlier work of Robert Rosenthal, in order
to demonstrate the "error-bias" of eXperimenters, it was
demonstrated that rats when labelled bright or dull per-

formed according to their labels when tests were adminis-

tered by researchers who had prior knowledge of the label.3

 

1Warren G. Bennis et al. (eds), The Planning of
Change: ReadingS in Applied Behavioral SEiences (Newaork:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 349.

 

 

2James 8. Coleman et al., Equality of Educational
Opportunity (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educa-
tional Statistics Of the U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare, OE-38001, 1968).

3Robert Rosenthal, S§perimenter Effects in Be-
havioral Research (New York: Appleton Century Crafts, Inc.,
1966). ‘

 

 

 

96

The research reported in the much publicized

 

Pygmalion in the Claserom is an extension of this earlier
brand of eXperiment that has been designed to demonstrate
that teachers' expectancy affects pupil achievement.1
Normative performance, that is the conduct of
roles that acquire identifiable characteristics, stems
from an elaboration of values into shared meaning. When
value preferences arecommonly held they form a normative
structure that serves as a model. This tends to keep de-
viations from the model confined to an acceptable range.
The range of tolerable behaviors within a given role be-
comes the normative Orientation within which a role can
be performed with acceptance in any specific situation.
Because of the wide variety of individual differences,,
the unevenness of the process of socialization, and the
uncertainties of social interaction, roles in general
have a degree of flexibility rather than exact limitations.
The model Operating in a social structure sets the
stage for the range and character of acceptable continui-
ties and change. In addition, it suggests the Sites and
strategies where new energies and efforts can be applied

to guide the processes of curriculum change.

 

1Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion
in the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart G WifiSton, Inc.,
‘1968). '

 

 

97

Summary

The salient features of General Systems Theory
were formulated and related to selected aSpects of the
social system. Emphasis was placed on develOping a
conceptual foundation for viewing the social system in
terms of value-orientation, purposive functions, norma-
tive structure and role expectations.

In Chapter IV the basis for considering cur-
riculum as a social system will be develOped along with
the foundations of a conceptual framework necessary to

derive models for application to curriculum problems.

CHAPTER IV

CURRICULUM AS A SOCIAL SYSTEM

A New Model for Curriculum

 

The need and methodology for reconceptualizing
curriculum in terms of systems theory have been formu-
lated in the first three chapters. In the context of
past history and current practice, two definitions of
curriculum are commonly used: (1) curriculum is de-
fined as a course of study or the content of a course;
(2) curriculum is defined as all the experiences of a
student under the direction of the school.

In spite of the conceptual inadequacies of the
first definition, it remains the dominant view of
practitioners. Some educators, particularly subject-
oriented ones, Operate so firmly from this position
that even a textbook is sometimes referred to as "the
curriculum."

The second definition, dealing with all the
experiences of a student, has been praised for its
flexibility and criticized for its generality and
vagueness. This conception of curriculum utilized the

idea of the ”whole child" and was formulated upon an

98

99

Open organic model with extensive theoretical founda-
tions based on the nature of experience.

The usage of the term "whole child" has deteri-
orated into a vague cliché poorly understood in relation
to the experiential context in which it was originally
framed. In its clearly articulated usage, it is sys-
temic in character and intent and the theory of experi-
ence retains a vital role in curricular decision-making.

That some curriculum personnel have recognized
the systemic character of their tasks is evidenced by
the importance attached to the involvement of people in
curriculum improvement and develOpment. However, in the
field of education, curriculum is not usually considered
from a systemic point of view. In order to facilitate a
revitalized orientation toward curriculum, it is neces-
sary to reformulate the conceptual frameworks of curri-
culum in terms of its systemic character.

Since a social system has been defined as being
composed of the_generic elements of persons, processes
and prOpertieS and their interconnections viewed over
time, and curriculum is isomorphic to this model of the
social system, curriculum can be considered to be a
social system.

Because a distinction must be drawn between

curriculum as a social system and other social systems,

100

it is useful to include educative experience as the
differential feature.

Having defined a set, the isomorphic basis of
models, general systems, social systems and the major
elements of curriculum as a social system along with
its distinguishing characteristics, a definition of
curriculum can be constructed to serve as a model for
a new conception of curriculum.

Synthesizing selected elements of the above
components of systems and curriculum to serve as a
model set isomorphic to the set constructed here, gur-

riculum is defined as a social system which is composed

 

of the interactive elements Of_persons, processes and

 

properties and organized for the purpose of providipg

 

the conditions necessary for continuing educative ex-

 

periences.

 

The purposive function of the curriculum system
is centered in achieving various states within the sys-
tem which are facilitative of the kinds of experiences
that lead to growth on the part of the perSons and ele-
ments of the system. In this context, while the focus
may be centered on students in the school, educative
experiences may be necessary in other parts of the sys-
tem in order to affect the experiencing of youth. Thus,

to the extent that the larger social system affects the

101

educative experiences available to its constituents, the
solutions and conditions that must be changed may lie
outside of the immediate doors of the schools. In this
sense, some of the sites for change are to be located in
the elements of the suprasystem and their relationship
to the curricular subsystem. To have impact on social
problems where, for example, the difficulty is related
to the value-orientation of persons and their set of

processes, properties and their interrelations, it is

 

clear that change strategy cannot be directed wholly to
the school pOpulation.

Educational leadership has been adept at deal-
ing with the larger community or suprasystem by means
of public relations processes. This has been partich
larly true in the continual search for funds in local
millage elections. When the problem is restated so
that curriculum as a social system functions in terms
of providing the conditions for a continuing educative
experience for all,_the public relations approach be-
comes superficial and inadequate to the demands Of the
task.

When curriculum is considered to be a social
system, it is uniquely different than the common con-
ception of curriculum defined as a course of study or

as all the experiences of a student under the direction

102

of the school. In redefining curriculum, the focus
shifts to the relatedness of persons and to what happens
in a system as well as to what can happen as a result of
changes in the relationships of all of a system's ele-
ments.

While the_persons, processes and prOperties of a

 

 

 

system are Separable for reasons of analysis, they con-
stitute a whole interactive complex in which persons
play a vital role. In this sense, the properties of a
curriculum system can be considered to be products of
human interactive processes. Thus buying a book, read-
ing a book or adOpting a textbook in the curriculum
system are decisions that have been influenced in our
interactive relationships.

Personal and Shared Meaning:
Their Interrelationships

 

 

Since the energies that mobilize systemic ac-
tivity are mediated into meaning by persons, personal
and shared meanings offer insight into the nature of the
curricular system.

The functional theory of mind and self as de-

velOped by George H. Mead,1 John Dewey, and Norman

 

1George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Sociepy
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934)}

 

103

Cameron1 is particularly helpful in establishing a basis
for overcoming the numerous dualisms related to the con-
cept of self and others.

To be a self is to participate in a human set—
ting in which the uniqueness of self can emerge. Thus
"selfness" is an emergent quality which is formed and
developed in relation to interaction with others. Con-
versely, others (persons) form their "uniqueness of
self" through the medium of interaction with unique
persons. The emergence of self is in essence a social
affair.

Because "selfness" is a social affair, the
treatment of individual difference apart from the social
system in which it is nurtured is a myth. If we have
no common basis for shared meaning because we perceive
things differently, as indicated by Earl Kelley,2 then
uniqueness of a self which achieves personal meaning
is an impossibility. The self which achieves personal
meaning does so in a complex of human interaction.

Where this is not true, for example, in the development

 

1Norman Cameron, The Psychology of Behavior Dis-
orders (New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1947).

2Earl C. Kelley, Education for What is Real (New
York: Harper Bros., Inc., l947).

104

of the human neonate either pathology or death results.
In Mead's terms, the social process of experience is to
be considered as prior to the existence of mind in
order to eXplain its emergence as self.1 Thus the
emergence of that "uniqueness" that we call self stems
from and is forged in the processes of Shared meanings.
It is out of the common fabric of Shared experi-
ence—-its limitless variety, its infinite capacity for
differential interpretations--that the uniqueness of
self emerges. That we are unique does not imply that we
have no common basis in being, but rather that we share
the basis from which our personal identities can emerge.
The processes of continuing to be and becoming
are essentially biosocial affairs. As explained by
Philip Phenix:
To be is to be in relation. There is no such
thing as absolute solitary existence. The
very concept of isolation has significance
only against a background of others from

whom one is se arated. Separateness is rela-
tive nonbeing.

Meanings are in People

 

The "bucket" theory holds that communication

 

1Mead, p. 50.

2Philip H. Phenix, The Realms of Meaning: A
ESiIOSOphy of the Curriculumifor General Education (New
York: McGiaw-Hill Book Company, 1964), pp. 195-196.

 

105

exists when there is a transmission of ideas (symbols)
from one individual to another. It assumes that the'
meaning is lodged in the symbol and that the most im-
portant aSpect is sending clear meSsageS. David Berlo,
in rejecting this position, explains that communication
theory does not accept the idea that reality is either

discoverable or external to human perception.1

". . . The human being is an active participant in the
processes that create meaning or conStruct reality."2
Meanings, in this frame of reference, cannot be said to
be found in symbols, but rather are to be located in the
mediation of the symbols into meaning. Thus, there are
no right meanings for a symbol; there are only the
meanings that people formulate on the basis of the way
in which they perceive the world and process these per-
ceptions into meaning.

The process of attending to and deriving meaning
from an experience differs substantially from individual
to individual. It is illuminating to realize that a

point that one wishes to make is not, in effect, the’

same point to each listener, reader or student. Yet, to

 

1David K. Berlo, "Communication Theory and
Audiovisual Education," Audiovisual Instruction,
Vol. VIII (June 1963), p. 376.

 

2Ibid.

 

106

ignore this aspect of human difference is to practice

a folly of uniformity. ‘In its extreme form, to in-
stitutionalize and grade the learner in relation to our
own insensitivity to his individuality may be to doom
him to failure in a system that values the tokens of
accomplishment more than the facilitation of growth.

On the other hand, to ignore the Similarities in the
interactive processes from which the "uniqueness of
individuality" emerges is to close the door on building
a common bond from which our humanneSS develops. Thus
the problem of attending to individual differences must
involve a unified conception of personal and shared
meanings.

Cultural norms are not eternal givens. Although
they may have the appearance of permanency, they emerge
and are transformed in the context of social experience.
When shared meaning extends to a collectivity of persons
and the meanings are held in common as values, a cul-
tural norm is established.

If the normative structure of an institution
operates in such a way as to restrict the requirements
of an educational task to a range of personal meaning
styles that do not match a particular student, then his
possibilities for self-actualization are restricted.

The opportunity for limited achievement of personal

107

meaning may indeed truncate the development of shared
meanings between student and institution. This in
turn becomes the ground upon which value conflict and

alienation are fostered.

Differential Symbolic Orientations

 

Attention increasingly given to the personaliza-
tion of instruction, particularly as the focus of cur-
rent innovative attempts, atteSts to the recognition
of its importance as a curricular problem. Herbert A.
Thelen aptly describes the notion of differing routes

to meaning in his discussion of reading by concluding

. . . that the good teacher tailors the approach to
each child."1 -Giving further insight into the Specifics
of this variety, he explains:

For one child, the key seems to be phonics;
for another, word study. I suspect the same
thing would be found with other skills, such
as Writing proper sentences. It is possible
that grammar is actually useful to some stu-
dents, but it is most certainly a hindrance
to others who learn to write prose the way a
"natural" composer writes music--through hav-
ing something to say and a sensitive ear that
tells him when he has said it correctly.

 

1Herbert A. Thelen, Education and the Human Quest
(New York: Harper 8 Row, PubliShers, 1960), p. 82.

2Ibid.

 

108

In his exploration of creative thought processes,
Jacques Hadamard notes a curious divergence of Opinion
about whether or not it is possible to think without
words. Max Muller, the famous philologist and oriental-
ist, asserted that thought was impossible withOut words,
but the phiIOSOpher George Berkeley was convinced that
words were a great impediment to thought. Francis
Galton, geneticist, maintained that his thoughts were
never accompanied by words until he went through a pro-
cess of translation which he found difficult. Heinrich
Hertzler, physicist, denied the possibility of thinking
without words, and Albert Einstein described a decidedly
different vieWpoint.1

In the study conducted by Hadamard, Einstein
responded to a questionnaire concerning the nature of
his thought processes. Einstein's reply by letter in-
dicated that words as they are spoken or written did
not seem to play any role in the creative aspects of
his thought process. He explained that "the psychical

entities which seem to serve as elements of thought are

 

1Jacques Hadamard, The Psychology of Invention
in the Mathematical Field, Dover Edition, 1954 (New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1945), pp. 67-70.

 

 

109

certain signs and more less clear images which can be
voluntarily reproduced and combined . ."1

He indicated the elements were of visual and
muscular type. When words intervened at a seCondary
stage they were auditive and had to be sought for
laboriously.2

It becomes clear that men do indeed think by
different means.' Also it is evident that men who are
dominated by verbal patterns of thought find it diffi-
cult to believe or conceive of differences in other
peOples methOds of mediating symbols into meaning.

The problem of enhancing personal meaning and
broadening the base of shared meaning is not only one
of acquiring information, but more essentially that of

develOping the means to make use of an increased range

of qualitatively different symbolic modalities.

Curriculum and Meaning

 

Men live in and are part of social systems.
The process of becoming is a matter of achieving per-

sonal meaning by means of experiencing in an existential

 

11bid., Appendix II, pp. 142-143.
21bid., p. 143.

110

social reality. 'The curriculum vieWed as a social sys-
tem exists in order to provide the conditions that fa-
cilitate.the continuing educative eXperiences of the
persons it is structured to serve.

In order to carry out the above purpose, it is
necessary for individuals to have symbolic skills and
capacities that are commonly held. "Even the most ele-
mentary communication is not possible without some de-
‘gree of conformity to the conventions of the symbolic

"1 In this sense, shared meaning is a normative

system.
orientation to a shared symbOlic system which functions
in human interaction. On the other hand, personal
meanings are the source of the uniqueness of self and a
potential resource for the personal meanings of others.
To achieve some degree of shared meaning, an

isomorphism of personal meanings and the social inter-
section of value orientations, purposive functions,
normative orientations and role eXpeCtations are neces-
sary. In this sense both the achievement of eXpanded

personal meaning and Shared meaning are linked to curri-

culum viewed as a social system.

 

1Talcott Parsons, The SOCial System, Free Press
Paperback Edition, 1964 (Toronto, Ontario: Collier-
Macmillan,_Ltd., 1951), p. 11.

 

111

 

A Model of SymbOlic DiStance

As it has been noted, meanings are in people
and they exist in two basic forms: (1) personal and
(2) Shared. The curriculum system, as considered here,
exists to provide for continuing educative experiences
as they are variently defined by individuals and the
collectivities of persons who form a basic part of the
system.

Where there is failure to create the conditions
necessary to achieve continuing educative eXperiences,

a condition of symbolic diStance can be said to exist.

 

For example, if the symbolic modalities being employed
to provide experiences for students are significantly
different from the personal style of deriving meaning
on the part Of the student, a condition of symbolic
distance can be considered to exist. The greater the
symbolic distance, the less a student can be expected

to derive meaning from a given curricular event.

A B A

 

Figure 6.--Model of Symbolic Distance

112

In terms of set theOry, if "A" represents the
student's personal meaning style and "B" represents the
style employed by the teacher or the discipline in a
.given curricular event, then the area of shared meaning
"C" defines symbolic distance in terms of increasing or
decreasing possibilities for experiencing. As the area
of "C" increases, the shared meaning increases and the

symbolic distance deereases in relation to its preVious

state.

A' represents the set
of expanded meanings of
the pupil; B' repre-
sents the eXpanded set
of the teacher; and C'
represents the expanded
set of shared meanings,
or the set containing
A', B' and C. '

 

Figure 7.--A Model for the Expansion of Shared Meaning.

It can be seen by simple inspection that the problem of
enhancing shared meaning depends on mutually held per-
sonal meanings. To enhance personal meaning, the utili-
zation of shared meanings must be extended. The greater
the range of personal meanings, the more likely an in-
terSection of sets will take place. The intersection of
sets of personal meaning indicate the extent of shared

meanings.

113

A model of symbolic distance can be.established
for all of the various interactive perSons involved in
a given curriculum system. For eXample, to facilitate
the Operation of a system toward self-renewal, it might
be useful to consider the reduction of symbolic dis-
tance among various members of a staff. After diag-
nosis, inservice education for a staff might be planned
in terms of reducing symbolic distance and enhancing
Shared meanings.' The reduction of symbolic distance,
in this sense, beCOmes a change strategy deSigned to
move the system toward improvement.

As the stage is set for improved participation
and communication, the conditions for develOping per-
sonal meanings are fostered. ‘ExposUre to new ideas and

the expgriencing of them provide the basis for oppor-

 

tunities to expand the range of personal meaning. In
addition it beComes the base from which the potential
range of shared meanings can be enlarged. AS the
variety of shared meaning is extended to greater num-
bers of persons in a social system, the potentials for
the acceptance of new alternatives to the normative

structure are formed.

Change’and'the”ConsequenceS‘of’Chapge

 

Much time has been spent in prOpheCy, looking

114

into the future and extrapolating current trends has
become a pOpular pastime in both educational and non-
educational circles. Given a trend, the typical ap-
proach is to extend it and assume that this is the
shape of things to come. The problem is not only that
the predictions might be wrong, but rather that they
may be right. Planning on the basis of a conceived
but unknowable future has the uncomfortable feature

of not rallying our efforts toward deSirable alterna-
tive ends.

To ask how the world will change and to address
ourselves tO'a curriculum based on our answers is to
act with.foresight while foregoing choice. The begin-
ning of progress is the recognition of problems and the
selection of alternative answers that match our con-
ception of improving the quality of being and becoming.
The important question is not what will the world be
like in the future, but rather what do we want the
world to become and what must be done to bring it into
being.

Since we are always a part of and taking part
in a social system, to act with intelligence in terms
of that system is to order the means-ends relationships

of the system so as to secure anticipated consequences.

115

To act in terms of a democratic value-orientation is to
be concerned withthe dignity and worth of each in-
dividual. This concern shOuld manifeSt itself by the
involvement of persons in the deCision-making process,
particularly where the consequences of decisions are
capable of affecting the individual.

Systems approaches are value4neutral in the
sense that they will Operate from any value-orientation,
hence it is important that clear conceptions of value-
orientations are formulated so that normatively demo-
cratic practices and their accompanying role expecta-
tions can function in the purposive structure of the
system. In terms of the above deScription, in order to
act with intelligence in a social system, it is neces-
sary to think systemically. To think in this fashion
is to work with the systemic elements and their inter-
relationship so as to be productive of anticipated con-
sequences.

Human purpose and choice direct the output of a
system (its consequences). Thus, to err or not to err
and to correct errors are all natural to the function-
ing of human systems. It is possible to choose to do
all of the "wrong things" with a high degree of ef-
ficiency. Hence, the efficient error is a matter of

human chOice.

116

It is important to note that the major teleo—
logical thrust of the curricular social system is not
efficiency. It is defined in terms of seeking to fa-
cilitate human_growth by means of educative experiences.
Efficiency is valued only as it contributes to this end.
As efficiency functions aS'a value for its own sake or
for conformity to a mechanical ideal, it beComes a
threat to humanly oriented purposive functions.

Given sets of relationships in a system yield
characteristic consequences. ‘For eXample, if a dropout
is induced to come back to schOOl and the same systemic
relationships that contributed to his leaving remain,

a series of possible consequences are generated. Among
the possible consequences are apathy, alienation, hOs-
tility, revolt, submission, the attempt to change him-
self and drOpping out again. As the systemic relation-
ships are altered to facilitate the growth of the in-
dividual in both personal and shared dimensions of
meaning,a new series of possible consequences are
_generated. As we seek answers in the systemic con-
ditions that foster the consequences that form our pur-
posive structure, we must reconstruct the social system
called curriculum.

In this sense, the curriculum is never a com-

pleted object, but rather a system in a state of change

117

where the focus of change is intended to facilitate
educative experiences for the clients of the system.

A model of change can be developed from the
aspects.of the social system that affeCt the kinds of
consequences that a system can generate. AS used here,
a consequenCe is any result or output of a curriCular
system. In this sense everything that happens in a
system is a consequence of the system. Thus, an action,
decision, event, or results are types of consequences.

In the curriculum vieWed aS‘a social system,,
the interactive elements of persons, processes and
prOpertieS_generate consequences. This occurs as they
are mediated by the personal and shared meanings Oper-
ating in the system. Value-Orientations (V), role
expectations (R), purposive functions (T), and norma-
tive structure (N) furnish a resource and act aS‘a
core from which personal and shared meanings emerge in
the system.

The utilization of value-orientations (V) to
anticipate behavior has been recognized by the psy-
chologists focusing on the individual.

Very early we recognize the crucial

character of values affecting a person's

behavior. This provides us with the guide
lines to the behavior of others and makes

118

possible a degree of prediction of what
they will do.

In the context of systemic thinking, V, T,,R and N are
always found together as they function in a social sys-
tem. Because of the complexity of the social system,
exact prediction is uncertain and thus requires termi-
nology apprOpriate to the task. For these reasons the
potential consequences of change are of two types:

(I) anticipated and (2) unanticipated.

'A curricular event iS‘a happening Or occurrence

 

in a curriculum system. In this sense, it arises out of

 

interactive elements of persons, processes, and prOper-
tieg of curriculum considered aS’a social system. It
will be recalled that a process was defined as a series
of interdependent steps established for the purpose of
obtaining a goal or end. In this context, the conse-
quences of change (curricular events) are determined by
other curricular events serving as systemic inputs of
the system. As an event becomes feedback it is capable
of altering the purposive structure in the shaping of

further events.

 

1Arthur Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual
Behavior: A New Frame of Reference for Psychology_(New
York: Harper Bros.,_Inc., 1949), p. 105.

 

119

 

ACTION . UNANNIPA Eb
9Ian/isms) l———> cousaoveJccs

“fl

 

 

TMtccPATeu -
Lgouseouences

Jr 4/

imam“ couscqueucts j

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EVALUA‘HON e

perSonal meaning
~value orientations
;normative structure

,shared meaning
purposive functions
~role expectations

Z<1."U
II II II
WHICH
II II II

Figure 8.--An Analog Model of the Change Process
in Curriculum Viewed as a Social System

When consequences are generated in a system,
they in turn continue to generate consequences. Some
of the consequences are unevaluated, however, when the
focus is on intelligent ordering of means to achieve
ends, consequences become feedback for evaluation and

thus influence the systemic input for new action. In

 

120

this sense, Since purposive functions in relationship
to V, N and R guide the choices in a curricular system,
events to a large degree are created. Because a result
of consequence of a curricular event can be created, it
is a systemic affair to which the methods of intelli-
_gence can apply.
Polanyi sees in the basis of shared meaning the

ethical foundation of truths.

Human responsibility is subject to . . .

intrinsic limitation; it can only Operate

if embodied in human beings who are liable

to failure. For no responsibility is

taken where no hazard is met,_and a hazard

is a liability to failure.1
The human mind is an emergent in social interaction. It
exists only within an articulate cultural framework of
society. Since access to the totality of meanings and
truths are limited for each person, he must trust others
for the rest. In this context the process of reliance
and mutual respect is fundamental to the functioning of
society.2

However, if we leave it solely at the level of

mutual trust we have a necessary rather than a sufficient

condition for establishing shared meanings. BeCause men

 

1Michael Polanyi, TheStudygof‘Man, PhOenix Books
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 67.

 

2ibid., pp. 67-68.

121

do deceive one another and themselves, and because con-
flicting opinions, values and theories are held, the
foundations of shared meaning emerge in response to
anticipated and experienced consequences in addition

to mutual trust.

The Qualitative Control of Consequences
in the Curricular System

 

The arts offer a rich resource for mediating
the consequences of curriculum events. To the extent
that the anticipated consequences sought are qualita-
tive in character, we are engaged in utilizing the
methodology of art.

The artist, as he paints a picture, is thinking
in terms of systems. He does so by exploring the re-
lationships of colors and forms to that which preceded
and to that which must follow in order to actualize an
artistic event. Each new color and form alters the re-
lationships in such a manner as to affect the total.
This in turn calls for continued responsiveness and
sensitivity of parts to parts and parts to the whole.

An artist's work like a curricular event is not
only a singular event, but also a part of an ongoing
series of steps or flow of development. The art of the

educator is infinitely more difficult in that people

122

function as an active element in the system with pur-
poses and perceptions of their own.

To choose one set of alternatives rather than
another is to institute a series of consequences. To
act with purposive function is to make choices that
move in the direction of anticipated ends. Where the
ends sought are qualitative in character a situation
exists in which the control of consequences in the
curriculum system can be said to depend on the "educa-
tional arts." Since all human interactions generate
qualitative outcomes, curriculum can be said to be a
matter of the arts.

Widespread confusion about the meaning of art
has led even careful thinkers into misconceptions about
the nature of their own fields. Often the false dual-
isms that separate feeling and thinking are invoked.
It is implied that when we know, we are applying
science; and when we are dealing with the unknown, we
are dealing with art. If a given writer believes that
we can never know certain aspects of human behavior,
he tends to believe this to be the locus of art.

Daniel E. Griffiths falls readily into the trap
of his own misconceptions:

The administrator is an applier of science.

. . . There will always be some art in
administration, as there is in engineering

123

or medicine; but the amount of art will
decrease as the amount of available
scientific information replaces adminis-
trative folklore.1

As the systemic treatment of this study indi-
cates, education can be considered to be comprised of
applied sciences. This, however, does not create a
situation in which the arts of the same system are ex-
cluded.

The idea of the qualitative symbol is derived
by the triadic formulations of the meaning of symbols
by Charles Peirce and the conceptions of the qualita-
tive ordering of ends by John Dewey. The meaning of a
Sign or representamen in Peircian terms "is a First
(symbol) which stands in genuine triadic relation to a
Second called its Object, so as to be capable of deter-
mining a Third called its interpretant."2

A quality, if it is to be considered a symbol,
must have a relationship that refers to something other

than itself; yet a qualitative symbol as it is defined

is a symbol that presents and represents that which it

 

1Daniel E. Griffiths, Administrative Theory (New
York: Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc., 1959), p. 24.

 

2Charles S. Peirce, The Collected Papers of
Charles Sanders Peirce, ed. Charles HartshOrne and Paul
Weiss (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932),
Vol. II, p. 274. C

 

 

124

is. In establishing the foundations for considering a
quality a symbol, Nathaniel Champlin explains, "A spe-
cific quality is the result or product of a relation-
ship of qualities, one of which is itself."1 The re-
lationship is triadic and meets the conditions for
being a symbol by being: (1) a Specific quality;‘

(2) the product of a discrimination (something other
than itself), and by (3) standing for or representing
the relations in which it is presented.

John Dewey recognized the methodological im-
portance of the qualitative ordering of events when he
said:

The doing and doing and making is artistic
when the perceived result is of such a
nature that its qualities as perceived have
controlled the question of production.2

Each educational task has its own unique sym-
bolic requirements. Each individual has his own per-
sonal style for mediating symbols into meaning. When

the requirements for learning a given discipline or

subject matter are at odds with an individual's way of

 

1Nathaniel L. Champlin, "Methodological and
Educational Research," p. 318. '

2John Dewey, Art as EXperience(New York:
Minton Balch and Company, 1934), p. 48.

 

125

deriving meaning, the chances of success are greatly
reduced or even impossible. Modifications in the ap-
proach to a discipline can be altered to facilitate
learning. In this sense, new math or old math are
neither better or worse as approaches, but rather dif-
ferentially accessible for the derivation of meaning
according to the learner.

Two major symbolic forms exist: (1) the theo-
retical, (2) the qualitative. The theoretical symbol
stands for something other than itself; i.e., the word
car stands for the object car. The qualitative symbol
presents and then represents itself. In the main, edu-
cational experiences have been designed around theoreti-
cal symbols as if the qualitative dimensions of meaning
did not exist. This can be observed even in music
classes which are predominately qualitative in charac-
ter, particularly where the child who wants to play by
"ear" is discouraged. To the extent that there is a
dysfunction in the symbolic orientation of the person
and the task, a condition of symbolic distance can be

said to exist.

A Model of Symbolic Orientation

 

The symbolic conditions of an educational task

126

can be modelled in terms of the symbolic relationships
as develOped by Francis T. Villemain and modified by
Nathaniel Champlin. The four relationships are:

(l) 'TheOretical predominance, a situation in

 

which the individual or group is mainly presented with
or influenced by theoretical symbols. The study of
philosophy or math are predominately theoretical. As
Champlin points out, theorizing takes place in a quali—
tative setting such as a room, laboratory or collection
of attitudes. In this context, qualities can be con-
trolled to facilitate qualitative states desirable for
achieving theoretical predominance. For instance, a
room conducive to setting and an atmOSphere that fa-
cilitates attentiveness is helpful for the lecture;
while an informal setting in which the furniture can

be rearranged is desirable for group discussion.

(2) Qualitative Predominance is a situation in

 

which the individual or group is oriented toward meaning
largely by means of the qualitative symbolic with oc—
casional references to theoretical symbols. Drama is a
case in point. Theoretical symbols in this context are
useful as they help to achieve qualitative states.

(3) Reciprocigy is a condition or situation in

 

which an individual utilizes the qualitative or theoreti-

cal symbol with approximately equal ease. The Group

127

Process or WorkShOp Ways of Learning are examples where
both the ordering of qualities such as informality and
COOperation are as important as the words exchanged.

(4) Qualitative IndependenCe is a Situation in

 

which an individual or group are oriented toward meaning
by means of qualitative symbols only. Examples are to
be found in painting, sculpture, music and the dance as
well as the general atmosphere in a classroom. Although
there are theoretical symbolic systems for achieving
qualitative ends, qualitative independence exists when
qualities alone are used to achieve further qualities.
The spontaneous response of a jazz musician to the
sounds of another band member is an example of qualita-
tive independence.1
In order to set the stage for facilitating
learning, the symbolic distance generated by a differ-
ence in the symbolic modalities of the task requirement
in a curricular event and personal meaning style must
be reduced. The four methods or symbolic conditions
can be used to define the educational tasks in terms of

the learner's current symbolic orientation. In this

 

1The model forwarded here is indebted to the
works of Nathaniel Champlin,particular1y in "Method-
ological Inquiry and Educational Research," pp. 320-322.

128

context, the human being and his way of achieving mean-
ing become the starting point of an educative experi-

ence rather than the structure of the discipline.

The Concern Matrix

 

Since process is considered to be a series of
interdependent steps established in order to obtain a
_goal or an end, the curricular system is a system of
action or a process system. In this sense, the system
can be modeled to represent curriculum events as the
outcome or interaction of sets of persons and properties
systemically interactive in a process system. It is
readily seen that interactive complexity of the system
forms a total. This "wholeness," while it can be
separated for purposes of analysis, remains interactive-
ly complete in reality. For example, when water is
separated into its component parts of hydrogen and oxy-
.gen, the water which is the resultant of the systemic
interaction of these two elements is nonexistent. This
does not negate the value of analysis, because it is a
major source of understandings and control of future
synthesis.

For the purposes of exploring curriculum as a

social system a concern matrix (system analysis model)

129

of the system can be constructed in terms of the inter-
active elements Of persons, processes and properties.
To relate systemic action to anticipated consequences,
the elements can be scored on an eleven point scale

from 0 to 10 designed to represent the concern shown

 

for the persons, properties and processes in a given

curriculum event.

. vRocess es
rm

 

 

lg " I
PROPEIII'IES '°
‘PERSONS

Figure 9.--A Concern Matrix for Curriculum
as a Social System.

1

'0‘

 

130

Since the elements of any system and their
interrelationships are capable of affecting everything
in a system, this characteristic of systems is iso-
morphic to curriculum considered aS‘a social system.
Change in curriculum viewed as a social system is in
this sense, change in the relationships of concern for

the persons, processes and properties of the system and

 

their interrelations.

Concern in the persons element of a system is
defined in terms of who is involved in the facilitation
of growth in terms of personal and Shared meanings re-
sulting in the formulation of purposive functions and
their implementation. The persons element consists of
students, teachers, parents, administrators, community
~governmental bodies (board of education, local, state,
national and international) and professional organiza-
tions. Concern for persons is defined in terms of the
persons in the set judged necessary for the successful
achievement of a given curriculum event. Failure to
exercise appropriate judgment in relation to appropriate
inclusion or exclusion will affect scoring on the con-
cern for persons element.

Since the act of scoring is the arbitrary

assignment of a number to an attribute, quality or act,

131

the prOCGSS'Of human judgment is exercised in terms of
empirical mapping. It will be recalled that empirical
mapping proceeds on a makes sense-does not make sense
basis.

Concern with the processes elements of the

 

curriculum system is defined in terms of various me-
thodological processes such as participation, communica-
tion, planning, decision-making and implementation of
actions necessary to facilitate the achievement of sys-
temic purposes. The methodological processes are re-
lated to the functional processes of instruction, opera-
tions, evaluation, educational services, curriculum de-
velopment, and research. Process as it is focused on
personal and shared meaning is basically a concern for
persons. To show concern for process without concern
with persons is to stress the methOds of interaction
without attending to the teleological forces as they

are embodied in the personal and shared meanings of the
participants. Thus a high concern for process and a
low concern for persons is probably generated from an
authoritarian vieWpoint. An extreme example of this is
to be found in an actual case where a psychology pro-
fessor had students vote on two alternative methods of

grading: (l) "blanket B," (2) sliding scale "A to E."

132

When the class voted for "A to E" grading, the vote was
repeated three times until the professor's choice'
"blanket B" grading method was approved by the class.
The process of democratic selection was misunderstood
and abused, having little connection or concern for
persons. Frequently, in such situations the insistence
on process is done in terms of the belief that it is
based on concern for person .' Judgments in each case
must utilize empirical referents based upon the personal
and shared meanings of persons. In the case mentioned
above, the students believed the behavior of the in-
structor to be hypocritical or misguided ritual rather
than concern for their feelings or Opinions and was from
their perSpective a low concern for persons and a high
concern for proces .

The stated intent of the "blanket B" grading
method was to remove the threat of grading and so in-
duce self-motivated interest in subject matter. Since
little was done to establish anything but this as a
condition for facilitating educative experience, there

was in subsequent events a low concern for processes.

 

To show concern for properties is to consider

 

the ideas or content and the facilitating artifacts

such as book, classroom, buildings, tapes, film,_

133

computers, etc. For example, to install computerS‘
withOut accOmpanying concern for perSons and processes
is to focus on properties. "White elephants" in terms
of unused equipment are in abundance where money facili-
tated purchase without neCessary attention to other
systemic elements.
Another eXample of the focus on properties is
to be found in curriculum meetings where the total time
is Spent in the listing of books to be used by students.
Since in reality, an analysis tends to separate
that which is found in a qualitative State of "whole-
ness" it is important to note the persons, processes

and properties elements are always interactive.

A Model of Systemic Disorders

 

Because the Concern Matrix can be used to diag-
nose a complete range of systemic conditions, it is
possible to generate a model isomorphic to conditions
that could be regarded as systemically dysfunctional.
Since concern can be scored from "0 to 11" on the Con-
cern Matrix, a range of possible conditions can be de-
fined as dysfunctional.

Where the scoring of emphasis on the Concern
Matrix is accorded "six" or below, a systemic dysfunction

is considered to have been identified. The state of a

134

system as analyzed by the Concern Matrix for purposes

of identifying disorders are defined as consisting Of

eight conditions:

1. Insufficient Emphasis

2. Insufficient Emphasis

3. Insufficient Emphasis

4. Insufficient Emphasis
cesses Elements.

5. Insufficient Emphasis
ties Elements.

6. Insufficient Emphasis

of
of

of
of

of

of

Properties Elements.

the
the
the

the

the

the

7. Insufficient Emphasis of the

and Properties Elements.

Persons Elements.
Processes Elements.
PrOperties Elements.
Persons and Pro-
Persons and Proper-

Processes and

Persons, Processes

8. No Distortion of Emphasis (a score of seven or

better in each of the interactive elements).

The exact nature of each consequence emanating

from a curricular disorder as analyzed by matrix diag-

nosis can only be stated in terms of potential conse-

quences. However, the source of systemic difficulty and

recommendations for change can be readily handled by

these diagnostic tools.

While the complete exploration of the systems

analysis potential of the Concern Matrix is a study in

13S

itself, certain consequences are clear when examined in
light of its structure.

For example, when there is an Insufficient Em-
phasis of the Persons Element, consequences are_gener-
ated for which other consequences should flow. One
certain consequence is the failure to develop personal
and shared meanings. From this lack, several further
potential consequences can occur: (1) apathy; (2) no
role expectations that are mutually shared and under-
stood; (3) lack of commitment;.(4) alienation; (5) hos-
tility; (6) no normative structure to serve as a base
for organizational unity of purpose;_(7) value-conflict;
(8) unclear or rejected purposive base.

It is important to note that since it is possible
to have similar consequences (symptoms) it is essential
that diagnosis proceed by using the consequences as
clues only where the more exact determinates are not to
be found in the systemic relationships. If prescriptive
action for apathy, for example, follows, we shall be
treating a psychological consequence or symptom while
leaving the systemic disorder untouched. If a condition
of apathy follows from a matrix analysis of 0, 7, 8

(persons, processes, andprOperties) it becomes a matter

 

 

of selecting appropriate strategies to bring concern for

persons into the system in order to rectify its disorder.

136

The Concern Matrix can serve as a diagnostic
tool to analyze the relationships of the basic curricu-
lum elements. With the addition of the Model of Sys-
temic Disorders, it is possible to analyze systemic
dysfunctions and generate means for their correction.
Thus in terms of the model constructed here, it is
possible to act in terms of anticipated consequences

of change in curriculum viewed as a social system.

Summary

The various strands that form the foundations
of curriculum viewed as a social system have been
brought together to formulate a new conceptual model
of curriculum. Using the concepts of set, isomorphism,
model, systems and social system, new models were
.generated from the curricular model that are capable
of providing educators with new insights for the
analysis, planning, development and the implementation
of improved curricular practice.

Chapter V will deal with a summary of the study
in terms of (1) an overview, (2) implications, and

(3) recommendations for further study.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overview

To build a system is to search for meaning and
order in the flux of ongoing experience. The first
four chapters of this study have been devoted to a de-
lineation of the ingredients of a new conception of
curriculum based on a systems approach. In a deliberate
manner, the study was constructed so that it could
serve as a model and a resource for future efforts in
model and systems building in addition to furnishing
new material for the construction of curriculum theory.

Because of the intrinsic complexity of human
systems, the attempt toward the reconceptualization of
curriculum as social system must be considered a be-
.ginning. There is so much that man cannot see because
he is blinded by his own preconceptions. Also, there
is much that is seen that does not make sense because
of a lack of a conceptual framework to provide a way
toward understanding. In response to the inherent

difficulties of the task, this study has attempted to

137

 

138

furnish the bases from which some of the complexity can
be unraveled and new perceptions achieved.

The treatment of this study and its conclusions
are in much the same Spirit intended by George Kelly in
his treatment of theory.

The world is not an abandoned monument. It
is an event of tremendous proportions, the
conclusion of which is not yet apparent.
The truths the theories attempt to fix are
successive approximations to the larger
scheme of things which slowly they help to
unfold.1

In this context, the raw material for the con-
struction of curriculum theories is a movement toward,
rather than a completed journey.

The major purpose of the study was to consider
curriculum as a social system in order to formulate a
conceptual viewpoint practitioners can apply to the
problems of curriculum change. A secondary purpose was
to develOp the basis by which curriculum change could
be assessed for decision-making in terms of the po-
tential consequences emanating from change.

A universe of discourse was develOped from con-

cepts derived from a variety Of disciplines. The

 

1George A. Kelly, A Theory_of Personality: The
Egychology of Personal Constructs, Norton Library, 1963
(New York: W. W. NOrton 8 Company, Inc., 1955), p. 19.

 

139

concepts were synthesized to furnish the foundation for
the construction of the system. Models were then de-
rived to illustrate how models could be generated from
the new conception of curriculum. The models were de-
rived to serve as analytic tools in the decision-making
process and in the guidance of change in terms of po-
tential consequences.

The universe of discourse consisted of concepts
derived from (1) set theory, (2) model theory, (3) gen-
eral systems theory, (4) social systems theory,

(5) philosophy and various behavioral sciences. Using
the concepts of "set," "isomorphism," and "system," a
model of curriculum viewed as a social system was con-
structed. The model was considered to be isomorphic

to the empirical referents of the concepts in the "model
set" derived from the above listed sources.

The theory of models is considered to be crucial
to any scientific foundation for the development of
theory. Because of the importance of the concept of
models, a theory of models was constructed to reduce
the conflicting and bewildering usage encountered in
this field.

To facilitate the use of logical constructs in

humanly oriented systems the following steps were

fiw ‘

140

taken: (1) a topology of models was constructed; (2) a
model of isomorphic relationships based on "limit the-
ory" in calculus was established; and (3) the concept
of empirical mapping was explicated.

The process of developing a conceptual frame-
work for curriculum requires the extensive picking
apart (analysis) of selected aspects (abstraction) and
putting together (synthesizing) of complex variables
derived from general systems theory and social systems
theory. The above tasks were undertaken as the next
stage to establish further resources from which a sys-
temic viewpoint of curriculum could be constructed.

The concepts derived from general systems theory in-
cluded: (l) the relationships of interactive elements,
(2) systemic levels, (3) systemic boundaries, (4) open
and closed systems, and (5) feedback.

Using the concept of systems, a social system
was defined as consisting of the_generic elements pep;

sons, processes and prOpertieS with their interconnec-

 

 

 

tions viewed over a period of time. Selected aSpects
of the social system were derived from philosophy
operations research, cybernetics and social theory.
They included: (1) value-orientations, (2) teleologi-

cal functions (purpose), (3) normative structure, and

141

(4) role eXpectationS. These aspects were regarded as
a filter or referential core from which decisions and
behaviors in a social system are generated.
The notion of personal and Shared meanings

was added to complete the necessary ingredients from
which curriculum viewed as a social system could be a
useful concept. The various conceptions of curriculum
were explained and a new model of curriculum viewed as
a social system was constructed. The model, derived
from the previously established conceptual frameworks,

was defined as: Curriculum iS'a social system which is

 

comprised of the interactive elements of personS,gpro-

 

cesses and properties organized for the purpose of pro-

 

viding the conditions necessary for continuing educative

 

experiences.

 

Using the new model of curriculum, as a Starting
point several models were derived that can serve as use-
ful tools in the processes of analysis, decision-making,
planning, curriculum improvement and develOpment. The
models will be reviewed in part as the implications of

the study are considered.
Implications of the Study

The use of systemic thinking on the part of the

educator is rarely encountered. Little attention has

142

been paid to the interactive elements Operative in the
social system in terms of deliberate systemic ap-

proaches. Planning and decision-making have depended
on a certain sensitivity to the normative structure or
response to pressure brought to bear upon the schools.

Some systemic planning has entered school sys-
tems, particularly in the form of financial decision-
making processes. These forms of planning, while valu-
able, are potentially dangerous unless mediated by
humanly oriented systemic approaches. Unless real
headway is made, we are in danger of letting the wrong
things be the first considerations.

Some awareness of systemic thinking in an in-
formal sense is emergent particularly where educators
have tackled some of the difficult educational problems
of our time. When faced with problems such as equaliza-
tion of educational Opportunity or doing something about
the educationally deprived, a sense of system emerges.
The systemic approach to curriculum offers fresh per-
ception of curricular problems from a new frame of
reference.

A Universe of Discourse as the BasiS‘
ofTProfessional Effort and DevelOpment

 

A common language was develOped to serve as the

143

basis for joint understandings which can permit a
strength of diversity and COOperative effort in any
academic discipline, or derivative (applied) field of
endeavor.

Different training and a variety of resultant
vocabularies are prevalent in the field of education.
The training of an educational psychologist leans
heavily on material and language drawn from psychology.
Rather than addressing themselves to the develOpment of
a universe of discourse for education, which has broad
applicability across departmental lines, educators have
succeeded in enhancing communication in the so-called
disciplines while ignoring the development of education
as a derivative field in its own right. Further, with-
out a communication structure of shared meanings, edu-
cation as an applied (derivative) field is a noncohesive
patchwork of ideas borrowed piecemeal from the academic
disciplines. The establishment of a universe of dis-
course for education depends upon the development of a
conceptual frame of reference that enables educators to
build the foundations and structure of their field.
Once this is accomplished, other disciplines using the
universe of discourse of education can make contribu-

tions to the field in the language of the educator. In

144

addition to this accomplishment we may even arrive at a

point where the educational aspeCts of all disciplines

 

will impel the "so-called" academician non-educator to
seek information from the professional educator as to
how the process of education might best be employed in
his particular area of specialization.

An advantage in establishing a universe of dis-
course is lodged in the conception of what it means to
be professional. In every field, other than education,_
professionalism connotes among other things, having a
conceptual framework of the specialization and a vo-
cabulary appropriate to its endeavors. A Specialized
vocabulary is for the most part an outgrowth of a
field's or discipline's unique undertakings, and the
desire of its practitioners to develop a degree of
precision in internal communications.

The role of a professional becomes clarified
in relation to lay public functions as we distinguish
between education as something that requires profession-
al training in contrast to that which everyone is quali-
fied to Speak about with authority. The establishment
of a universe of discourse for the applied or deriva-
tive field of education is thus a fundamental step to-

ward building a profession. Toward the above ends, the

145

universe of discourse Of this study, based upon systems
and model theory has been develOped so that it can be
widely used in curriculum and related disciplines.
Systems Theory as a Means of
Reconceptualizihg Curriculum

Educators have long recognized the contribution
to be made from a wide variety of disciplines. Each
college of education has a sampling of approximately
the same set of disciplines, such as psychology, philo-
SOphy, and sociology. Each of these fields is expand-
ing so rapidly that no one person is expected to know
it completely. In addition, each discipline has its
own universe of discourse, which more often than not
has only passing connection with other fields.

Systems approaches provide the means by which
a diversity of elements and their interrelationships
extracted from a variety of disciplines can be brought
together into a unified comprehensive whole. As sys-
temic approaches are applied to educational problems,
the power of curriculum as a substantive discipline in
its own right can emerge.

When curriculum is viewed as a social system,
the processes of planning, decision-making, diagnosis

and explaining are to be sought in terms of the systems

146

elements and their interconnections. From this frame
of reference, it is possible to view curricular prob-
lems in the context of their realistic complexity and
to devise means to c0pe with that complexity. To con-
sider curriculum as a course of study is to escape

the social reality in which a "subject" is learned. To
consider curriculum as all the eXperiences of a student
under the direction of a school is to proceed toward an
idea without a conception of what are the means of its
realization.

Curriculum Change as
Change in a SOCiElISyStem

 

 

It is Odd that although we recognize the vari-
ability of rates of maturation, differences of ability
and understanding in the development of skills in chil-
dren, we fail to apply these significant ideas to under-
standing how the adult teacher or administrator functions
in relation to the initiation of change and personal
‘growth (systemic).

Hollis L. Caswell points out that a curriculum
should be developed rather than installed in mass. His
approach does much to recognize individual differences
in relation to the development of curriculum improve-
ment on a basis that has growth potentials for the

teacher and administrative participants. Caswell states:

147

. . . Modifications in practice have small

beginnings with a few teachers taking the

lead in the difficult process of teSting

new ideas. As new practices are demonStrated

to be flexible, more teachers take over their

use. Thus, change in the actual curriculum

is represented by a jagged line of emerging

practice in response to new ideas and needs.

Curriculum improvement is fostered by en-

couraging and aiding teachers to develop in-

novating practices and then by facilitating

the spread of those found desirable.1

One of the fundamental values that characterize
the "American Dream" is embodied in the belief of man's
prefectability. The American seems to believe that al-
though things are not as good as they might be, they
are better here than elsewhere. He further believes
that whatever the situation is now, man can improve it.
As various groups in our society have become

aware of their own condition, pressure is mounted to
close the gap. Feeling powerless to effect change
individually, the power of groups is utilized to drama-
tize and set the stage for change. The schools and
"their curriculum" are turned to both in blame and
hope.

Perhaps the most salient features to be noted

about the current approaches to curriculum development

 

1Hollis L. Caswell et al., Curriculum Improvement
in Public School ’Systems (New York: Bureau ofiPublica-
tions, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1950),
pp. 51- 52.

 

 

148

are: (1) an almost frantic search for new ways; (2) a
wide variety of approaches to small segments of the
problems are being formulated and tested; (3) pressures
upon the educational institutions are continuing with
the eXpectations that what occurs in education will
either ameliorate the social problems of our lives or
the belief that education is the cause of them; (4) lit-
tle effort is being made to develOp comprehensive sys-
tems that integrate various findings into a common uni-
verse of discourse; (5) little impact can be said to
have been made to date with the fragmented approaches
in current vogue.

As we begin to apply the idea that change in
one part of a system can affect another part in analyz-
able ways, change can be planned for as an alteration

of the interactive elements in a social system.

Systems Analysis and Creativigy

 

Much literature and research has been devoted
to creativity which is usually centered around the
individual. Further research is rapidly developing
around the notion of the diffusion of innovation.

A new approach that is implicit in the struc-

ture of a humanly oriented systems approaches sets the

149

stage for the develOpment of a conception of institu-
tional and organizational as well as individual cre-
ativity.

The use of systems analysis and model theory
by this study furnishes the means of bringing together
of a diversity of disciplines into a cohesive frame-
work. The wedding of elements and their fresh re-
lationship are conducive to the promotion of new in-
sights and heuristic effects.' The continuing habit of
taking a new look at a phenomenon iS‘a fundamental as-
pect of systems analysis methodology. It implies the
establishment of conditions by which a certain amount
of institutional and individual creativity are a neces-
sary part of the operation.

When man conceives of the social system not aszu1
immutable_given, but rather as something that can be
improved, a positive step is taken toward the restruct-
ing of the social system. Some ideas to stimulate sys-
temic creativity implied by the model and systems theory
are: (1) change the model to alter the system, (2) sys-
temic flexibility, (3) systemic eXpansion.

If men live in systems, are a part of them, and
understand the system by means of models,then redefining

the model should be a productive step in the change

150

process. In terms of the system presented here, change
in personal and Shared meanings as they affect and are
affected by value-orientations, purposive functions,
normative structure, and role eXpeCtations are the core
or site from which alteration of the relationships of

the persons, proCesses and properties can proceed. In

 

 

simpler terms, a redefining to make sense in systemic
terms is not something that is written on paper as in
this study. It must be’a change in the relationships
of elements of the system. In this sense, words on

paper are properties and not yet meanings.

 

Systemic flexibility is roughly analogous to
the psychologist's idea of "openness." It suggests
the willingness or ability to admit diversity into the
model. New meanings (systemic expansion) as they be-
come a part of the persons element of the system are
capable of generating change in all the elements of
the system.

Strategies for systemic expansion can be
understood in terms of the Model for the Expansion of
Shared Meanings. The working toward mutually held
personal meanings suggests that at least some of the
inservice education of the persons element of the sys-

tem must be undertaken as a group. Enlarged personal

151

sets of meaning have the potential of enhanced Shared

meanings in the system.

Curriculum and the Individual

 

Much has been written in American education
about the necessity to individualize instruction. One
very basic idea that educators claim is that the pur-
pose of education is to help each individual develop
his own maximum potential.

Kelley,1 Combs and Snygg2 make a strong case
for explaining the uniqueness of each individual.
Educators have been exposed to the idea of importance
of recognizing individual differences for a long time,
yet, at the classroom level the individual continues
to be treated as a member of a group. Jules Henry
paints a pessimistic picture of the insidious process
of conformity building that he finds in the major

thrust of classroom practice.3

 

1Kelley, Education for What is Real, 1947.

 

2Combs and Snygg, Individual Behavior:‘ A New
Frame of Reference for Psychology, 1949.

 

3Jules Henry, Culture Against Man (New York:
Random House Publishing Inc., 1963).

 

152

John Goodlad does a remarkable job of building
a case for the failure of graded plans. ‘The Spread in
achievement, according to Goodlad, is more than three
years in a third grade class, and four in a fourth grade
class. In the seventh grade the Spread in achievement
ranges from the third to the eleventhgrade.1

In the context of this study, it is evident
that recognizing individual differences and implement-
ing plans for the personalization of instruction hap-
pens in a social system. Thus, the problem of meaning-
ful improvement is illuminated as requiring change in
the system. The enhancement of personal meaning in a

systemic sense depends upon the shared meanings in-

stituted in the relationship of persons, processes and

 

 

properties and their interconnections.

 

That each area of study has characteristic
structures in essence cannot be easily denied. But the
manner in which meanings typical of a subject matter
are to be mediated into meaning by individual persons
who perceive the world in personal styles that are

unique is ignored by the structure of the disciplines

 

1John Goodlad, School Curriculum and the In-
dividual (Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing, 1966),

pp- 5-7-

153

approach. Unless this aspect of curriculum develop-
ment is seriously attended to, it can be anticipated
the worthy efforts of educators to update the proper-
ties component of the curricular system will be funda-
mentally short-circuited.

The discovery of self is a deeply per-

sonal matter that does not come about in
blanket ways. . . . The full discovery of
self as a unique individual of dignity,
value and worth can only be found in an
atmOSphere where uniqueneis is encouraged
and difference is valued.

Both.changes and practice in current curricular
systems tends to militate against the personalization
of instruction by failing to conceive of interactive
aspects of the totality of the basic elements of which
the system is comprised. Thus, the list of what might
be termed "new looks" in education, such as team teach-
ing, flexible scheduling and self actualizing techniques
could all become integral parts of a system which might
contribute to the personalization of instruction. Taken

separately, however, i.e., not in the systems context,

they are just as likely to create a series of other

 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Perceiving,_Behaving, Becoming: A New
Focus for Education, The 1962 Yearhook(Washington,
D. C.: The Association, 1962), p. 105. '

 

154

problems as well as contributing answers to the
originally defined problem.

Promising approaches that move toward the solu—
tion of the problem of curriculum construction and
development must include such aspects as analyses Of
the system, diagnoses of a variety of ways of indi-
viduals' experiencing, and suggestions for implement-
ing programs of action based on the results of these
analyses and diagnoses.

While all the models generated by this study
are important to the personalization of instruction,.
Symbolic Orientation and Symbolic Distance are par-
ticularly relevant. A diagnosis of the symbolic
orientations of the learner, teacher and tasks can be
made so that tasks can be defined in terms of some con-
structed possibilities for achieving personal and shared
meanings. In this manner, reductions of symbolic dis-
tance and enhancement of personal meaning can be
achieved.

The Curriculum Generalist
and the Systems Approach

 

 

The introduction of a systemic approach in the
field of curriculum suggests a new importance for the

role of the curriculum generalist. In the context of

155

considering curriculum to be a course of study in need
of updating, the subject-matter Specialist becomes the
central figure in curriculum reform.

From the frame of reference of curriculum
viewed as a social system, the specialist has been

attending largely to the prOpertieS element of the sys-

 

tem. Without the orientation of a systemic approach or
the leadership of a curriculum generalist, the Special-
ist's efforts, in terms of this study, will serve to
generate systemic disorder.

Concern for persons and processes is essential

 

for systemic well-being. The emergent role of the
.generalist requires guidance of change in terms of
anticipated consequences from a systemic frame of ref-
erence. Leadership in curriculum will require men who
have awareness of the completeness and complexity of

Situations in which they function.

The Arts of Curriculum

The idea of qualitative thought, while not new
to the field of education, has largely been ignored.
The few exceptions to this statement are largely to be

found among specialists whose fields of interest are

156

largely qualitative in character or in the works of
relatively few philosophers.

School practice reveals a rather curious di-
chotomy of values by confining deliberate qualitative
education to the conventional art fields and then
allowing accessibility on the basis of talent in art
or nontalent in the "so-called academics" as criteria
for participation.

The mistake of considering qualitative thought
as something that is confined to a special class is
both unfortunate and pervasive. In Dewey's analysis:

The world in which we immediately live . . .
is pre-eminently qualitative. . . . The
world forms the field of characteristic
modes of thinking, characteristic in that
thought is definitely regulated by quali-
tative considerations.

Since events can be controlled in terms of con-
sequences by using qualities to achieve pervasive
qualities, curriculum events are wittingly or unwitting-
ly achieved by the control and manipulation Of quali-
ties. To the extent that this is true, curriculum it-
self becomes an art. Because the achievement of quali-

ties in a system involves the interactive elements of

the system in a rather wide range of qualitatively

 

1John Dewey, Philosophy and Civilization.

 

 

157

different effects, several arts of curriculum are im-
plied and could be defined.
Each individual relationship of the interactive

elements of persons, processes, and properties yields

 

 

 

a curricular event characterized by pervasive qualities.

It is these pervasive qualities which can be utilized

by educators to serve as models for the control and

change of the conditions which facilitate educative #

experiences.

Systemic Diagnosis and Change

The characteristics of curricular events are an
outcome of the interactive relationships that obtain
between the elements of a system. The Concern Matrix
Offers a method for examining the state or condition
of systems in terms of the relationships that are in
process in the system. Since a system's present con-
dition and its future condition (change) are effected
by the system's elements and their interconnections,
it is possible to make use of the Concern Matrix to
assess the present state and_guide its direction of
becoming.

The Model for Systemic Disorders provides the

means to distinguish between conditions of well-being

158

and conditions of dysfunction in a system. Using this
model it is possible to make further discrimination in
terms of specifying the problem according to the nature
of relationships of its interactive elements. While
the task of correcting systemic dysfunction must await
further developments, suggestions for strategies of
change are implied in restructing of relationships of

the systems elements and their interconnections.

Recommendations

Because of the nature of the role of curriculum
personnel and their strong conviction that the involve-
ment of peOple is a necessary part of curriculum change,
the systemic approach has a strong kinship with emer-

(gent practice. In this study an explicit formulation

 

of the basis for a systemic approach to curriculum has
been developed, but much remains to be done.

The process of reconceptualizing curriculum in
terms of a systems approach opens up a wide variety of
possibilities for further study and development. Con-
ceptual frameworks stand as a beginning from which ef-
forts toward theory building and applications in prac-
tice can proceed.

The recommendations resulting from this study

159

are examples of ideas and ways in which it may be
valuable to further explore a system theory approach
to curriculum. The order of presentation is not in-
tended to indicate any particular priority or level of
importance.

Recommendation #1. General systems theory and

 

model theory are rich resources for the develOpment of
fresh perceptions in the field of curriculum. Further
investigation of these resources should be made to
assess their possible contribution to a refined and en-
larged set of conceptual frameworks for curriculum.

Recommendation #2. Since a theory or a con-

 

ceptual framework must be translated to apply to Spe-
cific problems, it is recommended that specific problems
be diagnosed and remediated from a systemic approach.
This Should yield a background of case materials and
empirical testing of the significance of this approach.
Application of conceptual frameworks to practice can
serve some important functions: (1) the enrichment of
practice by the addition of new perceptions; (2) the
refinement of modifications of the model being used;

and (3) serve as a source for theory building.

Recommendation #3. The processes of decision-

 

making involve the organization of systemic energies.

They include, among other things, the social processes

160

of power, authority and legitimation. The value of
considering curriculum as a social system is related
to the achievement of outputs (consequences) by means
of organizing the interactive elements of persons,.

processes and properties. In this context, the means

 

 

become the energy inputs of the system.

Information from the various fields of social
science, administration and supervision can serve as
resources for the further study of social processes as
they function in the curricular system. In order to
enhance our understanding of the systemic character of
curriculum, it is important to learn more about the
ways in which curriculum events occur. Therefore, it
is recommended that studies that focus on the social
processes affecting decision-making be examined for
their relevance for curriculum viewed as a social system.

Recommendation #4. The qualitative ordering of

 

curricular events suggests the possibility of establish-
ing a foundation for several "curricular arts." It is
recommended that further investigation of qualitative
symbolic mediation take place to identify, develop and
construct the theoretical foundations of the "curricular
arts" in specific formulations.

Since art in this context is a process that is

conducted by persons to generate qualitative outcomes

161

(consequences) in a social system, a basis for the
identification of specific arts may be found in the
area of human interaction.

Recommendation #5. The Concern Matrix and the

 

Model of Systemic Disorders are two models that have
analytic potential and heuristic capacity for remedia-
tion in examining curriculum as a social system. Both
models were generated to demonstrate the application of
a systemic approach to problems of curriculum change,
furnish a conceptual vieWpoint and provide a basis for
decision—making in terms of potential consequences.
The Concern Matrix represents a method of analysis of
the interactive elements of the curricular system. The
Model of Systemic Disorders identifies eight conditions
or states of a curriculum system. In each case, em-
pirical studies are needed in order to test the applica-
bility of the model to problems in the curricular system.
Where actual problem situations are not available
for experimentation, simulated models of problem Situations
can be formulated for eXperimentation. Models can be
assessed for potential consequences with and without re-
medial treatment. With testing and eXperimentation,
modifications and additions to the models can be made to

improve their worth and function for the educator.

162

Concluding Statement

Progress in education comes in many guises.
With the advent of federal programs, the Single biggest
impact toward change was the increased resources brought
to bear on develOping innovative ideas. Having a non-
creative tradition upon which to draw, educators did

remarkably well in problem solving and testing out ideas

 

for which neither money nor time was previously avail-
able. As the pressures and the politics of the supra-
system shift and the problems we set out to solve still
remain, educators will seek new answers.

Much of the orientation of the change-minded
educators has been applied in the direction Of solving
problems or adOpting answers. In order to make an im-
pact on change in the curriculum system, it is neces-
sary to include problem finding as a first step toward
a more creative orientation. It is hoped that a re-
conceptualized orientation toward curriculum will be
helpful to others as they re—examine the conditions

for facilitating educative experiences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Books

Alexander, Hubert A. Language and Thinking: A
PhiIOSOphical lhtroductibn. New York: D. Van
Nostrand'Co., Inc., 1967.

 

 

Association for Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment.
Perceiving, Behavingy Becoming: A New Focus
for Education. The 1962(Yearbohk. WaShington,
D. C.: The Association, 1962. '

 

 

Bennis, Warren G. et al. (eds.). The Planning of Change:
Readings in Applied Behavioral Sciences. New
York: HOlt, Rinehart andIWinston, l961.

 

 

Blakely, Robert J. "The Copernican Revolution in
Attitudes," Changing Attitudes in a Changing
World. New York: Associates of Bank Street,
153?? .

 

Brodbeck, May. Synopsis on PsycholOgical Theories, ed.
L. T. Gross. Evanston,’lll.: Row Péterson,
Inc., 1959. '

 

I
Bronowski, Jeromme. Science and Human Values: And the
Abacus and the Rose (Rev. Edition). Harper
Toréhbooks. NewYork: Harper and Row, Publishers,
1965. '

 

 

Cameron, Norman. The Psychology of Behavior Disorders.
New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1947.

Carlson, Richard 0. Adoption of Educational Innovations.
Eugene, Oregon: UniVersity of Oregon Press, 1965.

 

Caswell, Hollis L., et al. Curriculum Improvement in Public

School Systems. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers COllege, Columbia University,l950.

 

Combs, Arthur, and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior:
A New Frame of Reference for Psychology. New
York: Harper Bros., Inc., 1949.

 

 

163

164

. Individual Behavior: A Perceptual Approach
to Behavior, rev. ed., 1959. New York: Harper
6 Row, Publishers, 1949.

Corey, Stephen M. Action Research to Improve School
Practices. New Ydik: Teachers College,
ColUmbia University, 1953.

De Chardin, Pierre Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man.
New YOrk: Harper Brothers, Inc., 1959.

 

Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Minton
Balch and Company, 1934.

 

. Experience and Nature. New York: W. W.
Norton 8(C0., 1929.

Philosophy and Civilization. New York:
Minton Balch and Company, 1931.

"Theory of Valuation," International En-
cyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. II, Number
4. Chicago: UniverSity of Chicago Press, 1939.

 

The Sources of a Science of Education. New
York: Liveright Puhlishing COrporation, 1929.

Drucker, Peter F. America's Next Twenty_Years. New
York: Harper and—Bros., 1957.

 

Einstein, Albert. The World as I See It. New York:
The Wisdom Library, 1934.

 

Goodlad, John 1., et al. The ChangingSchool Curri-
culum. New York: Ford Foundation, 1966.

 

Goodlad, John. School Curriculum and the Individual.
Massachusetts: Blaisdell Puhlishing,1966.

Griffiths, Daniel G. "Behavioral Science and Administra-
tion," The Sixty-third Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of’Education, Part II.
Chicago, Ill.: TheiUniverSity of Chicago Press,
1964. '

Griffiths, Daniel E. Administrative Theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Croft, Inc., 1959.

 

165

Hadamard, Jacques. The Psychology of Invention in the
Mathematical Field, Dover Edition, 1954. New
Jersey: PrihCeton University Press, 1945.

 

 

Hearn, Gordon. Theory Building in Social Work. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1958.

 

Henry, Jules. Culture Against Man. New York: Random
House Publishing Inc., 1963.

 

Hertz, Heinrich. The Principles of Mechanics, trans. by
D. E. Jones and Walley. London: Macmillan and
Co.,‘l899.

 

Hill, Joseph E., and Kerber, August. Models, Methods
and Analytical Procedures in Education. Detroit,
Michigan: (Wayne State University Press, 1967.

 

 

Ianni, Francis A. J. Culture, System and Behavior. The
Foundation of Education Series. Chicago: Science
Research Associates, Inc., 1967. -

 

Katz, Elihu, and Lazarsfeld, Paul. Personal Influence:
The Part Played byPeople in the Flow of Mass
CommuniCations, a Free Press Paperback. ’New
York: The Free Press Corporation of the
Macmillan Co., 1964.

 

 

 

Kelley, Earl C. Education for What iS Real. New York:
Harper Bros., Inc., 1947.

 

Kelly, George A. A Theory of Personality: The
ESychology of Personal Constructs, Norton Library,
1963. New Ydrk: W. W} Norton and Company, Inc.,
1955.

 

Kluckhorn, Clyde, et al. "Values and Value Orientations
in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in
Definition and Classification," Toward a General
Theory of Action. Talcott Parsons and Edward
Shills (eds.). Harper Torch books. New York:
Harper and Row, 1962.

 

Mead, George H. Mind; Self and Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934.

 

Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science: Problems in
the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York:
Harcourt,‘Brace and World, Inc.,_l96l.

 

166

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System, Free Press Paper-
back Edition, 1964. ‘Toronto,_0ntario: Collier-
Macmillan, Ltd., 1951.

 

Peirce, Charles S. The Collected Papers of Charles
Sanders Peirce, ed. Charles Hawthorne and Paul
WeiSS. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1932, Vol. II.

 

Pellegrin, Roland J. An AnalySis of Sources and Pro-
cesses of Innovation iniEducation. Eugene,
Oregon: University of Oregon, Center for the
AdVanced Study of EducatiOnal Administration,
1966.

 

 

Phenix, Philip H. The Realms of Meaning: A Philosophy_
of the Curriculum fOr General Education. New
York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.

 

 

Polanyi, Michael. The StuSy of Man. Phoenix Books.
‘ Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959.

 

Rosenthal, Robert, and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in
the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8
Winston,(lnc., 1968.

 

 

Rosenthal, Robert. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral
Research. New York: Appleton Century Crofts,
Inc., 1966.

 

Sherif, Muzafer. An Outline of Social PSychology. New
York: Harper Brothers, l948.

 

Snow, Charles P. Two Cultures: And the Second Look.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

 

Taba, Hilda. Curriculum DevelOpment Theory and Practice.
New York: Harcourt, Brace andCWorld, Inc., 1962.

 

Thelen, Herbert A. Education and the Human Quest. New
York: Harper 6 Row, Publishers, 1960.

 

Whyte, William Foote. Pattern for Industrial Peace.
New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1951.

 

Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cyber-
netics and Sociery. Anchor Books, 2nd rev. ed.
1954. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1950.

 

 

 

167

Wilhelms, Fred T- (ed.)."Evaluation aleeedback and
Guide. Washington, D} C.: (Association for
Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment, 1967.

 

Woodger, J. H. "The Technique of Theory Construction,"
International Encyclopedia of Unified Sciences,
II, 5. Chicago: (University dfChicago Press,
1939. ' '

 

Periodicals

Berlo, David K. "Communication Theory and Audiovisual
Education," Audiovisual, Vol. VIII (June 1963).

 

Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von. "An Outline of General Systems
Theory," British JOurnal for the Philosophy of
Science, Vol. I (1950).

 

"General Systems Theory: A Critical Review,"
The Yearbook of Secial General Systems Research,
VOl. V (1962).

"The World of Science and the World of Value,"
Problems and Issues in COntemporary EduCation:
An Anthology’from the—Harvard Education’Review
and the Teachers College Record. NewYork:
Scott Foresman and COmpany, 1968.

 

Bishop, Leslie J. "The Systems Concept," Educational
Leadership, Vol. XXIV (May, 1967).

 

 

Blalock, H. M., and Blalock, Ann B. "Toward a Clarifica-
tion of Systems Analysis in the Social Sciences,"
' Philosophyof Science, XXVI (April, 1959).

 

Cameron, Norman. "Role Concepts in Behavior Pathology,"
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55 (March
1950).

Churchman, C. W., and Ackoff, R. L. "Purposive Behavior
and Cybernetics," Secial Forces, Vol. 29 (1950).

 

Christian Science Monitor. April 30, 1966.

168-

Deutsch, Karl. "Mechanism, Organism, and Society: _Some
Models in Natural and Social Science," PhiloSOphy
of Science, Vol. 18 (April 1951).

 

 

Goodlad, John I. "The Future of Learning and Teaching,"
AV Communication Review, Vol. 16, Number 1
(Spring 1968).

Miller, James G. "Toward a General Theory for the Be-

havioral Sciences," The American PSychologist,
Vol. X (1955).

 

. "Living Systems: Structure and Process,"
Behavioral Science, Vol. X (October 1965).

 

Rosenblueth, Arturo, and Wiener, Norbert. "The Role

of Models in Science," Philosophyof Science,
XXII (1945).

 

Reports and Unpublished Material

Andrew, Gwendolyn. "Criteria for Systems Models and
Their Application to a Sociological Theory Of
Organizations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1961.

Champlin, Nathaniel. "Methodological Inquiry and
Educational Research," A Seminar in Art Educa-
tion for Research and Curriculum DevelOpment.
University Park: The Pennsylvania State Uni-

versity, COOperative Research Project No. V-002,
1966.

Coleman, James S., et a1. "Equality of Educational
Opportunity.” Washington, D.C.: National Center
for Educational Statistics of the U. S. Depart-

ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, OE-38001,
1968.

Dworkin, Leo, and Miller, William C. "Increasing Edu-
cational Innovations in Wayne County." ’Report
of Title III, OE Grant #66-2479, Activities of
the Chair of Innovation and the Consortium of
Advanced Educational Thinking. Detroit: Wayne
County Intermediate School District, 1969.

169

Fox, Robert. "Staff Consultation With Team Leaders."
Wayne County Intermediate School Districts:
Innovation Workshop (February 13, 1968).

Gutman, Louis. "Notes on Terminology for Facet Theory."
1959. (Mimeographed.)

Hill, Joseph. "The Educational Sciences." Unpublished
manuscript, Detroit, Michigan, 1969.

Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner. "The Conceptions of Model in
Educational Theorizingf' Washington: Cooperative
Research Program of the Office of Education,

U. S. Department of Health, Education,_and Wel-
fare, Occasional Paper.

Rogers, Everett M. "Toward a New Model for Educational
' ChangeJ'Num. 8-9. Washington, 1965. (Mimeo-
graphed paper presented at the Conference on
'Strategies for Educational Change.)

Sigel, Irving. "Design Tasks: A Test for Cognitive
Organization." Merrill-Palmer Institute, n.d.

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII44: