An examination of the steps in systems design reveals it to be an iterative process. The complexity and dynamic quality of the educational environment require designers of educational technology systems to emphasize this process and at the same time take into account conditions within the education system and the community that provide essential data. Examples of attempts to cope with these features of the design processes are presented along with implications for changes in the approach to the design of educational technology systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RosensteinA. B. and EnglishJ. M., “Design as the Basis for an Engineering Curriculum,”Proc. First Conf. on Engineering Design Education, Cleveland, Sept. 8–9, 1960, pp. 1–26.
2.
TribusM., Rational Descriptions, Decisions and Designs, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, N.Y., 1969, pp. 389–398.
3.
A Program for Leadership in Rural Development: A Report on the Activity and Results of the Process Approach to the Design of a Regional System for Vocational Education and Other Community Services. Arthur D. Little, Inc. in Association with the Appalachian Regional Commission and Operation Leader, Smethport, Pa., Sept., 1972.
4.
LavinR. J., Planning Model for School Facilities. Chelmsford Park High School, Chelmsford, Massachusetts. “A Planning Model for Secondary School Utilizing a Multi-Dimensional Approach for Optimum Flexibility,” ESEA Title III (Grant No. OEG-3-7-703509-4012), Sept., 1968.
5.
PolanyiM., The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y., 1967.
6.
LindblomC. E., “The Science of Muddling Through,”Administration Review, Spring, 1959. XIX, pp. 79–88.
7.
EtzioniA., “Mixed-Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision-Making,”Public Administration Review, December, 1967, XXVII, pp. 385–392.
8.
SalzerJ. M., “Evolutionary Design of Complex Systems,”Systems: Research and Design, EckmanD. P., ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1961, pp. 197–215.
