A design for the recursive construction of learning communities.
Bernard Scott
Learning Environments and Technology Unit
University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute
Lews Castle College
Stornoway
Isle of Lewis
HS1 2SD
Tel 01851 770424 Fax 01851 770001
bernard.scott@lews.uhi.ac.uk
Presented at the Second International Conference on Sociocybernetics, June 25th – July 2nd,
2000, Panticosa, Spain. Published as:
Scott, B. (2002). “A design for the recursive construction of learning communities”, Int. Rev. Sociology,
12, 2, pp. 257-268.
Abstract
A major challenge in educational and institutional research is to disseminate findings
effectively. It is proposed that the solution lies in establishing a theory-grounded, evidencedbased approach to learning, teaching and communication as part of the culture of educational
systems and institutions. Conversation theory (CT) of Pask and Scott provides both an
evidence-based, theoretical model for guiding good practice in learning and teaching and
also, when applied iteratively, recursively and propagatively, provides a model for how to
produce the desired culture change. The paper describes the iterative, recursive, propagative
(IRP) form of CT. “Iterative” refers to reflective practice which has a commitment to
continuous improvement. “Recursive” refers to vertical dissemination of good practice within
an organisation. “Propagative” refers to horizontal dissemination. The IRP model has general
applicability to organisations that would aspire to be “learning communities”.
Introduction
A major challenge in educational and institutional research is to disseminate findings
effectively. It is proposed that the solution lies in establishing a theory-grounded, evidencedbased approach to learning and teaching as part of the culture of educational systems and
institutions. The conversation theory (CT) of Pask and Scott (Pask, Scott and Kallikourdis,
1973; Pask, 1975b, 1976; Scott, 1993) provides both an evidence-based, theoretical model
for guiding good practice in learning, teaching and communication and also, when applied
iteratively, recursively and propagatively, provides a model for how to produce the desired
culture change. The paper describes the iterative, recursive, propagative (IRP) form of CT.
“Iterative” refers to reflective practice which has a commitment to continuous improvement.
“Recursive” refers to vertical dissemination of good practice within an organisation.
“Propagative” refers to horizontal dissemination. The paper also describes the “glass walls,
floors and ceilings” that hinder dissemination, with references to empirical studies and the
author’s own experiences of using action research to bring about culture change. The IRP
model has general applicability to organisations that would aspire to be “learning
communities” and is broadly sympathetic with the arguments for “societal learning
arrangements” made by Raven (1995). The paper relates the IRP model to other seminal work
on “viable systems” and “learning organisations” (Beer, 1972; Revans, 1980; Harri-Augstein
and Thomas, 1991).
The intention is to present a relatively simple set of models that brings together classic and
seminal work on learning and teaching, interpersonal perception and the pragmatics of human
communication, self-organised learning and the associated concepts of reflective practice and
continuous professional development and the concepts of the learning organisation, the viable
system and knowledge management. The author considers such synthesising and
summarising activities to be an important part of the business of cybernetics as a unifying
transdiscipline (von Foerster et al, 1953; Wiener, 1948, 1954).
A model for dyadic communication interpreted for learning and teaching is developed based
on CT. Issues to do with interpersonal perception and the pragmatics of human
communication are drawn particularly from Laing et al (1966) and Watzlawick et al (1968)
and earlier “summarising and synthesising” discussions by the author (Scott, 1987, 1997). A
summary model for self-organised learning (SOL), reflective practice (RP) and continuing
professional development is presented, based particularly on the work of Laurie Thomas and
associates (Jahoda et al, 1967; Harri-Augstein and Thomas, 1991) but noting other related
work (Schon, 1983; Novak and Goodwin, 1984; Brockbank and McGill (eds.), 1998). This
model introduces the important concepts of recursive “laddering” and reflexivity within
conversations.
The term “learning organisation” has become a popular term in the literature on management
and organisations (see, for example, Braham, 1996). The emphasis is on engendering a
culture within which all participants not only learn individually, as reflective practitioners,
but also learn together in ways which surport an organisation’s strategic aims and long term
survival. Probably the most elaborated model for creating a learning organisation is that of
Harri- Augstein and Thomas (op. cit.), where a dyadic model of “learning conversations” and
“learning contracts” is extended to team situations. Closely related is the concept of “action
learning” pioneered by Revans in the 1960’s (Revans, 1964, 1980). Beer’s Viable System
Model (VSM) emphasises the importance of intelligence gathering and the auditing of
performance but does not highlight “learning” per se. However, the VSM does have a wellarticulated recursive, fractal structure and so may be applied at many levels of resolution or
granularity. As discussed below, Beer is also well aware of the institutionalised ways of
behaving that inhibit effective communication for learning and problem solving. The VSM is
a direct inspiration for the IRP form of CT presented here. Pask, himself, in developing CT
intended it to be applied recursively to social systems beyond the dyad (see, e.g., Pask, 1979).
Boyd (1993) and Laurillard (1998) are examples of such recursive applications, in essence
isomorphic to the IRP model but with slightly different emphases and motivations. Boyd is
particularly concerned with “conversations between cultures”; Laurillard sketches a model
for the management of educational systems within a democratic nation state.
“Knowledge management” is another popular term in the literature on management and
organisations. Sometimes the term is used in fairly simplistic ways using a “storage and
transmission” model. More sophisticated discussions adopt a “constructivist” epistemology
and emphasise that “knowing” and “coming to know” are processes of construction and
reconstruction (see, e.g. Ahlemeyer, 1999 and this conference). Winograd and Flores (1983)
is regarded as a classic of the field and draws directly on the constructivist, “second order”
cybernetics of Von Foerster, Maturana and Pask. The IRP form of CT is very much about
“knowledge management” in this sense.
Conversation Theory
Conversation Theory (CT) is Pask’s term for a theoretical framework that gives coherence to
a wide range of studies concerned with human communication, learning and teaching. It
provides (i) a methodology for analysing knowledge and tasks (ii) a theoretical model for the
adaptive instruction of procedural skills (iii) a theoretical model for supporting conceptual
understanding and reflection (Pask and Scott, 1973; Pask, Scott and Kallikourdis, 1973; Pask,
1975a, 1975b, 1976; Scott, 1993).
Underlying assumptions of CT include the following. The brain/body system is a dynamic
self-organising, “variety eating”, adaptive and habituating system, subject to boredom and
fatigue. The problem of motivation is not “that we learn” it is rather what is learned and why.
The basic mechanisms that support learning and adaptation are the various forms of
conditioning that take place in associative networks (parallel distributed systems), with
attentional systems subject to sensory-motor feedback (including proprioception and
kinaesthesia) and algedonic (pain, pleasure) feedback.
Humans also live in a domain of “symbolic representations”. Learning is then also the
construction of symbolic representations, subject to constraints of “logical coherence”,
acquired through the medium of dialogic, conversational interaction and the “inner dialogic”
processes of strategic and tactical attention directing and other forms of ”metacognition”.
What is memorable is then that which can be “taught back”. In conversation, narrative forms
are constructed and exchanged (Scott, 1999, Laurillard et al 1999, Bruner 1996).
System dynamics lead to the evolution of habitual forms of behaving and thinking by
“proceduralisation”. Proceduralisation may be guided nad monitored by learning and teaching
strategies. If we use the metaphor of memories being “stored” in our brains and bodies, we
should recognise they are also “stored in our environments including the brains and bodies of
other people” (a Pask aphorism that predates the more recently articulated concepts of
“situated” and “distributed” cognition).
The major aspect of CT that distinguishes it from Maturana’s and von Foerster’s accounts of
cognition and communication (see, for example, Maturana, 1969, and von Foerster, 1982 ) is that
Pask chooses to distinguish between the “biological” or “bio-mechanical” and the
“psychological” or “conceptual”. As well as the individuality of biological organisms as selfproducing, “autopoietic” (Maturana’s term), cybernetic “machines”, Pask distinguishes the
individuality of conceptual systems, processes of knowing and coming to know, that are
coherent, self-producing and, hence “organisationally closed”. Pask refers to such systems as
psychological (p-) individuals. For Pask, “consciousness” is a property of a p-individual, a
system that potentially may “know with itself” that it is a system. It is not a property of a
“mechanical individual” (m-individual). The participants in a conversation are p-individuals. The
conversation is itself a p-individual. Do note the power of the distinction: m and p-individuals
are not necessarily in one to one correspondence. One “m” may house several “p’s”; one “p” may
be housed by several m’s.
Minimally in a conversation the participants distinguish and learn about each other. Where
there is a particular topic under discussion, participants construct models of each other’s
models of that topic forming perspectives and meta-perspectives (Laing, Philipson and Lee,
1966). This is the basis for theories of stability in social systems (see also Nigel Howard’s
theory of metagames; Howard, 1971). The particular conceptions and misconceptions (kinds
of understanding) that participants have of the topic in question can, following Aristotle and
others, be broadly classified as “knowing why” and “knowing how”. In conversation
participants may share both kinds of knowledge, participants exchange theories and present
evidence in support of those theories, in this sense conversation theory is a theory of theory
construction and elucidation.
Kolb (1984), using ideas from Kurt Lewin and Jean Piaget, provides a simple but useful (and
frequently cited) model of the processes involved in constructivist learning (see figure 1).
Abstract
conceptualisation
Re flection on experience
Active exper imenta ti on
Co ncrete
experience
Figure 1 Kolb’s learning cycle
Kolb proposes that learning is a cyclic activity with four stages. These are: concrete experience,
followed by reflection on that experience, followed by abstract conceptualisation (the derivation
of general rules or theory construction) and, finally, active experimentation (the construction of
ways of modifying the next occurrence of the experience).
Rescher (1973, 1977), also building on ideas taken from Piaget (see, especially, Piaget,
1972), has constructed a more detailed model than that of Kolb, in which two cycles of
activity are distinguished: one corresponding to the acquisition and justification of “why”
knowledge, the other corresponding to the acquisition and consolidation of “how” knowledge
(see figure 2). Note, the ‘why’, ‘how’ distinction is, profoundly, a psychological one. It does
not correspond to the ‘declarative’, ‘procedural’ distinction in artificial intelligence work,
which, in any case, is generally acknowledged as being invalid (a computer program is a
computer program, not a concept or an organisationally closed system of concepts)).
Me taphysical assumptions
Why?
Th eoretical interpretations
Co nceptual systems
How?
Mo dels
Me thods
Application
Procedures
Pragmatic correction
Co rre ction by coherence
Figure 2 Rescher’s two-cycle model
In the “why” cycle, new conceptual knowledge is integrated with existing conceptual knowledge
to form a coherent whole, a Paskian p-individual. In the “how” cycle, new “methods”
(procedures, operations) are constructed and tried out and are subject to pragmatic correction.
Some reflection will show that this is a far more sophisticated model than that of Kolb, as it not
only distinguishes the “conceptual” from the “operational/pragmatic” but also shows their
interpenetration: “facts” may always be put into question; some form of constructive or
operational/pragmatic “proof” of theories may be asked for.
The basic CT model is shown in figure 3. Pask refers to this model as the “skeleton of a
conversation”. It shows a “snapshot” view of two participants in conversation about a topic.
Notice how it distinguishes verbal, “provocative” interaction (questions and answers) from
behavioural interaction via a shared modelling facility or “micro-world”.
The horizontal connections represent the verbal exchanges. Pask argues that all such exchanges
have, as a minimum, two logical levels. In the figure these are shown as the two levels: “how”
and “why”. As in Rescher’s model, the “how” level is concerned with how to “do” a topic: how
to recognise it, construct it, maintain it and so on; the “why” level is concerned with explaining
or justifying what a topic means in terms of other topics.
The vertical connections represent causal connections with feedback, an hierarchy of processes
that control or produce other processes. At the lowest level in the control hierarchy there is a
canonical world, a “universe of discourse” or “modelling facility” where the teacher may
instantiate or exemplify the topic by giving non-verbal demonstrations. Typically, such
demonstrations are accompanied by verbal commentary about “how” and “why”. In turn the
learner may use the modelling facility to solve problems and carry out tasks set. He or she may
also provide verbal commentary about “how” and “why”. Note that the form of what constitutes
a canonical “world” for construction and demonstration is itself subject to negotiation and
agreement.
Teacher
Le arner
Re ceives or offers
explanation in terms
of relations between
topics
Why questions
and responses
Re ceives or offers
explanation in terms
of relations between
topics
Why?
Offers
demonstrations or
elicits models and
problem solutions
How questions
and responses
Re ceives
demonstrations,
builds models or
solves problems
How?
Mo delling facility for performance of tasks
such as model building and problem solving
Figure 3 The “skeleton of a conversation” (after Pask).
Pask refers to learning about “why” as comprehension learning and learning about “how” as
operation learning. and conceives them both as being complementary aspects of effective
learning. These distinctions allow Pask to give a formal definition of what it means to understand
a topic. For Pask, understanding a topic means that the learner can “teachback” the topic by
providing both non-verbal demonstrations and verbal explanations of “how” and “why”.
Laurillard (1993) provides a useful elaborated account of the exchanges that make up the
skeleton of a conversation, interpreted for the kinds of learning conversation that take place in
Higher Education. She distinguishes a domain of exchanges of descriptions, conceptions and
misconceptions about both “how” and “why” from a general domain of “tasks”. “Tasks” are
interpreted liberally as any learning activity the learner is asked to engage in which generates
some product or outcome which can then be the subject for further discussion.
CT as a theoretical framework applied to learning and teaching and course design is an
explicit attempt to distill out what is good practice. It is taken as axiomatic that understanding
what constitutes good pedagogy is vital both to help teachers become effective reflective
practitioners and also for learners to become effective, reflective, self-organised learners who
have “learned to learn” and continue to do so (Shapere, 1977, “We learn how we learn as we
learn”).
CT distinguishes between three forms of learning outcome: performance outcomes, cognitive
outcomes and reflective outcomes. Performance outcomes refer to the mastery of skills,
procedures, operations knowing how). By cognitive outcomes is meant to the achievement of
conceptual understandings of definitions, justifications (knowing why) and verbal
formulations of how to achieve goals (clearly in context these latter “recipes” need to be
isomorphic to the actual performances described). Reflective outcomes are a particular form
of cognitive outcome where the emphasis is on reflection and meta-cognitive processes, for
example, a learner’s ability to reflect on and justify the “why” and “how” of her own
learning.
In some learning contexts, there is a major emphasis on reflective outcomes (the process of
becoming an effective learner, “critical thinker” or “problem solver”) rather than particular
products of learning in a subject domain). In some contexts, the emphasis is on performance
and and/or cognitive outcomes; reflective outcomes may not be separately distinguished or
highlighted. Where all outcomes are specified as important for a student’s learning, the
learning context is one which is supported by “full conversational learning” (Harri-Augstein
and Thomas, 1991; see also Novak and Gowin, 1984; Brockbank and McGill, 1998).
A clearly articulated model for what is entailed in being a reflective learner provides a useful
approach to characterising what, in other places, are referred to as core, generic skills or
competencies in problem solving or “critical thinking”. Pask notes that conversations may, by
recursive “laddering”, have many logical levels above a basic “why” level: levels at which
conceptual justifications are themselves justified and where there is “commentary about
commentary”. Harri-Augstein and Thomas make this notion central in their work on “selforganised learning”, where the emphasis is on helping students “learn -how-to-learn”.
In brief, they propose that a full “learning conversation” has three main components:
 conversation about the how and why of a topic, as in the basic Pask model;
 conversation about the how of learning (for example, discussing study skills and reflecting on
experiences as a learner);
 conversation about purposes, the why of learning, where the emphasis is on encouraging
personal autonomy and accepting responsibility for one’s own learning.
The model in figure 4 shows the relationships between the components.
Te ac he r
Lea rne r
Wh y of l ea rn i ng
How o f l ea rni ng
How aan
wh
hy
y of
of top
top ic
ic
How
ndd w
Figure 4. A full “learning conversation” (after Harri-Augstein and Thomas)
Reflexively, the conversation itself may always be the topic of conversation. The processes of
process control and production are then heterarchical, with no fixed ordering of levels of control.
Biologically, this corresponds to the concept of a self-productive network of processes (an
autopoietic system). Such a system is one that can support p-individuation, the evolution, through
conversation of stable systems of belief (see also, Scott, 2000 and Scott, in press).
A reflective learner reflects on:
 her own achievements with respect to learning outcomes;
 the processes that lead to effective learning (conceptual understanding and mastery of
procedures, attitudes and values).
The reflective learner goes on to:
 set new goals and desired learning outcomes;
 adapt behaviour and modify attitudes and values to attain those goals and learning
outcomes;
 continues to monitor her performance and reflect on what constitutes for her effective
learning, as an iterative process.
Reflective practice leads both to iterative cycles of practice and evaluation and also to
propogation, that is the reflective practitioner understands that part of good practice is the
propagation of good practice, the exchange of theory and evidence with colleagues. The
reflective practitioner is always ready to teach, always ready to learn.
Constructing learning communities
R
P
I
P
R
Figure 5. T he IRP M odel
The conversational model can be applied recursively to different levels within educational
and (by analogy) other institutions and: individual learners and learner groups; teachers;
managers who support teachers in their teaching up to managers concerned with strategic
aspects of the life of an institution. As noted in the introduction, this notion of recursive
applicability of system models parallels that developed by Stafford Beer in his “viable system
model” (see for example, Beer 1972). Recursive application of such models of human
systems can be applied to whole community and whole society levels. The relevance to
higher education of such models for fostering “learning communities” and the “learning
organisation” have been highlighted recently by Boyd (1993), Laurillard (1998) and Britain
and Liber (op. cit.).
Combining the notions of recursive applicability and reflective practice that leads to
continuous improvement gives the iterative, recursive, propagative (IRP) form of CT.
“Iterative” refers to reflective practice which has a commitment to continuous improvement.
“Recursive” refers to vertical dissemination of good practice within an organisation.
“Propagative” refers to horizontal dissemination (see figure 5). Applying the full IRP form of
CT to organisations provides a design for the construction of learning communities, a clearly
articulated programme for breaking down the “glass walls, floors and ceilings” that hinder
creativity, lead to pathologies of communication (Scott, 1997) and low morale (Revans,
1964).
The point to recall about the IRP exchanges is that they are constructivist encounters not
“transmissions of information”. In constructivist conversational encounters everyone needs to
check everybody understands everybody else. Part of the agenda then for establishing a
learning community is that everybody is committed to learn as much as they can about
everything including developing an understanding of what it means “To learn as much as you
can about everything”.
The transmission model is invidious in organisations. Perhaps the most common pathology is
downward commanding with little or no feed back being elicited from the level below.
People go through the motions of consulting about change or of eliciting feedback from
lower echelons about attitudes and performance but inadequately. Frequently, changes are
imposed top down, mechanically, by fiat; what is permitted to be fed back is restricted in
quantity and quality. A pathology with similar consequences is the weak manager who may
engage in consultative conversations but fails to act effectively by not making decisions or
being swayed to make poor ones.
Very often it is the propagative element that is missing in professional practice in many
institutions and organisations. Individuals take pride in improving the quality of their own
practice but often only take responsibility for what is prescribed by their position and role and
associated discretionary boundaries (glass walls). Indeed in many institutions individuals are
positively discouraged from looking beyond those boundaries and, if they do so, may be
labelled as aggressive, too assertive, ambitious busybodies, empire builders, or plain
troublemakers. Thus the culture itself must be supportive of conversational exchanges
between practitioners about their practice and opportunities for this need to be explicitly
constituted, for example, as research seminars. In a community where there is no good quality
horizontal propagation, individuals and teams become isolated and subject to rivalries and
petty jealousies. As a consequence there is no synergy, no creativity or no innovation.
Even when iterative reflective practice and evaluation do not take place, procedures may
become institutionalised as traditions. Note also that the evaluation that is part of iterative
reflective practise also needs itself to be evaluated. There needs to be a continual “revolution
within the revolution”. The management language of “targets”, “performance indicators”,
“reviews”, “appraisal” and “quality assessment” corresponds to some of the IRP model
requirements but are too often imposed top down, mechanistically, in unwieldy and
excessively bureaucratic ways that are alienating.
There will always be some inadvertent pathologies of communication in organisations
precisely because communication is a constructive activity, not transmission (Scott 1997).
The IRP model attempts to raise awareness by using simple clear models. It itself needs to be
propagated. An example of success in bringing about culture change approximating the IRP
model is presented in Scott et al (1998) and Ryan et al (2000) where there are descriptions of
work done to introduce resource based learning and the effective use of “learning
technologies”.
Concluding comments
Stafford Beer in his VSM model also addresses the problem of effective communication
within organisations. He argues that the orthodox hierarchical view of the organisation is one
which is competent to apportion blame but not one for encouraging constructive exchange of
relevant information. Rather Beer argues for a system of communication which he calls the
“multinode” (Beer, 1972: see chapter 14, page 258).
Beer suggests that we should accord that:
1) any boss is a colleague - primus inter pares – of a group which includes his subordinates;
2) that the ‘one man, one boss’ principle may work in some contexts but the protocol must
not forbid rich interactions throughout a group;
j +1
j, k
j -1 , k+1, l
j , k+1
j , k+2
j -1 , k+1, l +1
j -1 , k+2, l
j , k+3
j -1 , k+2, l +1
Figure 6. Hierarchical “ lines of reporting” within an organisation
3) that there is necessarily more communication between people at the same level of the
enterprise by far than there is between seniors and juniors.
Beer is particularly concerned with “decision making” by the multinode rather than
“learning”, as in the IRP model, although the concerns are very similar. The IRP helps
explicate in some detail just what needs to be done to facilitate learning in organisatons that
are hierarchically structured.
Below, I present examples and abbreviated case histories some of which refer to the structure
in figure 6.
 In the IRP model, level (j + 1) conversation about the level (j ) conversation is the “same”
conversation as the reflective practitioner part of the conversation at level (j).
 Horizontal propogation between conversations (j, k) and (j, k+1) minimally is concerned
with exploring similarities and differences (analogies) between perspectives.
 Inappropriate performance measures may stifle awareness and creativity.
 Sometimes “lines of reporting” are changed without prior consultation.
 There is a need for level j+1 to take responsibility for facilitating and monitoring
propagation at level j and below.
 Problems may arise when (as Beer suggests they should) individuals at levels j and j+1
attempt to work together collaboratively in peer relationships. The level j+1 individual
may attempt to command the situation. If this is resisted, the level j individual may be
scapegoated and isolated such that in the normal work situation there is even less
downward exchange or horizontal propagation. There may be an upward demand for a
more detailed accounting of performance. The downward transmission of commands and
fiats increases as conversation and discussion decrease. These are forms of “institutional
bullying” that are very hard to stand against as they closely resemble “normal” practice.
 In attempts to explicitly facilitate horizontal propagation and vertical exchanges, level j
criticisms of management at level j+1 may be interpreted at level j+1 as criticisms of level
j+2. Thus level j+1 avoids having to take responsibility for expressions of poor morale.
 Individuals at level j-1 may refuse to report up to level j or do so in a distorted manner.
This is typical of factory floor culture interacting with management or of the awkward
assistant who lacks motivation.
 As well as the members of a particular team needing to converse propagatively (e.g., (j-1,
k+1, l) with (j-1, k+1, l+1)), different teams at the same level also need to converse
propagatively (e.g., members of (j-1, k+1) with members of (j-1, k+2)).
References
Ahlemeyer, H. (1999). “Observing organised knowledge”, First International Conference on
Sociocybernetics, Kolimbari, Crete.
Beer, S. (1972), Brain of the Firm, Allen Lane, London.
Boyd G. (1993). “Educating symbiotic P-individuals through multi-level conversations”,
Systems Research, 10, 3, pp. 113-128.
Braham, B. (1996), Creating a learning organisation, Kogan Page London.
Britain, S. and Liber, O. (1999). A Framework for Pedagogical Evaluation of Learning
Environments, JTAP Report 41.
Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating Reflective Learning in Higher Education,
SRHE and Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Harri-Augstein S. and Thomas L. F. (1991). Learning Conversations, London, Routledge.
Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Jahoda, M., Thomas, L. F., Warren, N. and Ousten, J. (1966). A Search for the Optimal
Conditions of Learning Intellectually Complex Subject Matter, Department of Education and
Science Project Reports.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Laing, R. D., Phillipson, S., and Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal Perception., Tavistock,
London.
Laurillard D. (1993). Rethinking Higher Education, London, Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (1998). “A systems model of individual learning applied to organisational
learning and the HE system”, paper presented at an Open University Systems Conference,
convenor, Professor Ray Ison, Faculty of Technology.
Laurillard, D., Stratfold, M., Luckin, R., Plowman, L. and Taylor, J. (1999). “Affordances for
learning in a non-linear narrative medium”, J. of Interactive Media in Education, an on-line
journal.
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/99/laurillard/laurillard-t.html
Maturana, H. (1969). “The neurophysiology of cognition”, in Garvin, P. (ed.), Cognition: A
Multiple View, Spartan Books, New York, pp. 3-24.
Novak, J. D. and Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Pask, G. (1975a). The Cybernetics of Human Learning and Performance, Hutchinson,
London.
Pask G. (1975b). Conversation, Cognition and Learning, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Pask G. (1976). Conversation Theory: Applications in Education and Epistemology, Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Pask, G. (1979). “A conversation theoretic approach to social systems”, in Sociocybernetics,
F. Geyer and J. van der Zouwen (eds.), Martinus Nijholf, Amsterdam, p. 15-26.
Pask, G., Scott, B. and Kallikourdis, D. (1973b). "A theory of conversations and individuals
(exemplified by the learning process on CASTE)", Int. J. Man-Machine Studies, 5, pp. 443-566.
Piaget, J. (1972). The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Raven, J. (1995). The New Wealth of Nations: A New Enquiry into the Nature and Origins of the
Wealth of Nations and the Societal Learning Arrangements Needed for a Susatainable Society,
Bloomfield Books, Sudbury, Suffolk.
Rescher, N. (1973). Conceptual Idealism, Basil Blackwell. Oxford.
Rescher, N. (1977). Methodological Pragmatism, Basil Blackwell. Oxford.
Revans, R. W. (1964). Standards for Morale, Oxford University Press, London.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action Learning: New Techniques for Management, London, Blond
and Briggs.
Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H. and Patel, D. (2000). The Virtual University: The Internet and
Resource Based Learning, Kogan Page, London.
Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals Think in Action, Temple
Smith, London.
Scott, B. (1983). "Morality and the cybernetics of moral development", Int. Cyb. Newsletter, 26,
pp. 520-530.
Scott, B. (1987). "Human systems, communication and educational psychology", Educ. Psychol.
in Practice, 3, 2, pp. 4-15.
Scott, B. (1993). "Working with Gordon: developing and applying conversation theory (19681978)”, Systems Research, 10, 3, pp. 167-182.
Scott, B (1997). “Inadvertent pathologies of communication in human systems”, Kybernetes, 26,
6/7, pp. 824-836.
Scott, B. (1999). “Knowledge content and narrative structures”, in Words on the Web: Language
Aspects of Computer Mediated Communication, L. Pemberton and S. Shurville (eds), Intellect
Books, Exeter, pp. 13-24.
Scott, B. (2000). “Organisational closure and conceptual coherence”, in Closure: Emergent
Organisations and their Dynamics, J. L. R. Chandler and G. van de Vijver
Scott, B. (in press). “The cybernetics of systems of belief”, to appear in Kybernetes
Scott, B., Ravat, H., Ryan, S. and Patel, D. (1998). “Embedding TLTP and other resource based
learning materials into the curriculum”, Active Learning, 8, pp. 41-44.
Shapere, D. (1977). “Scientific theories and their domains”, in The Structure of Scientific
Theories (2nd.ed.)., F. Suppe (ed.), Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Von Foerster, H. (1982) Observing Systems. Seaside, California: Intersystems
Publications.
Von Foerster, H., Mead, M., and Teuber, H. L. (eds.) (1953). Cybernetics: Circular Causal
and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems, Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation,
New York.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., and Jackson, D. D. (1968). Pragmatics of Human
Communication. Faber and Faber, London.
Wieland, G. F., and Leigh, H.E. (eds.) (1971). Changing Hospitals: A Report on the Hospital
Internal Communications Project. Tavistock, London.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Wiener, N. (1954).The Human Use of Human Beings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass.
Winograd, T. and Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition: a New
Foundation for Design, Ablex, Norwood, N.J.