The limits of Learning Design

Uploaded on

In this session I present my side of a debate or discussion with Diana Laurillard regarding the Limits of Instructional Design. I approach the question from the perspective of LD as a language, and …

In this session I present my side of a debate or discussion with Diana Laurillard regarding the Limits of Instructional Design. I approach the question from the perspective of LD as a language, and suggest that as such it abstracts in a certain way and consequently defines and imposes a particular perspective on the topic, a perspective that is either arbitrary or cannot be supported from available evidence. For audio, video and more please see

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. The Limits of Learning Design Stephen Downes February 22, 2012
  • 2. • Learning design - topic - types of LD • The concept of patterns (designs / models / rules / principles) in general: an abstract representation of something concrete.Images: What is Learning Design?
  • 3. All crows are • Were thought to be black created by extrapolation or generalization (1,2,3, ... infinity) • But are in fact created This crow is through a process of black subtraction. "An X is Y". This crow is black • All language abstracts inThis crow isblack this way. Creating Abstractions
  • 4. • The elements of a language are whatever is left over after theImage: subtraction • The grammar or syntax of the language is the set of rules for manipulating those elements.Image: Elements of a Language
  • 5. • Purposes of a language: – to describe / communicate – to explain – to reason – to define • All languages perform all of these functions (and more!)Speaking in LOLcats Purpose of a Language
  • 6. • You cant create a language and say this is just to communicate; the very act of creating a language invokes all four elementsImage: • George Lakoff: Frame Frames
  • 7. • Also, you cant talk about LD by talking as though the language isnt there • LD is the languageImage: • Various pseudo- languages: – Pseudo-code – Globish Learning Design as a Language
  • 8. • Languages are more or less abstract – Eg. greater or smaller set of elements – Greater or smaller set of rules / rule-base – Greater or Smaller expressivityImage: Levels of Abstraction
  • 9. • In science, there is a methodological principle to prefer pure abstraction - fewer elements, fewer principles: – numbers - math - counting – properties - sets - groupingImage: – computability - boolean - inferring/moving Formalism & Pure Abstraction
  • 10. • the world is fundamentally a mathematical entityImage: The World as Mathematical Entity
  • 11. Pure interpretation interpretationReal world language Abstraction This crow is All crows are black blacknatural language process -- rules – objects binary code Interpretation
  • 12. • Reusability paradox - theory & practice – can we bridge this with a language?practise ---- interpretation ---- language ------ interpretation ---- theory The Reusability Paradox
  • 13. • Is there a functionally useful language that describes (teaching, learning, etc)?Image: Questions for Learning Design?
  • 14. • If there is such a language, then we can use computers to teach • If there is not, then we need teachers, but at a certain point, LDs become meaningless • (and one wonders, what is this that teachers do?)Image: Dilemma of Learning Design?
  • 15. • What are the elements and syntax of that language? • What will ground or give meaning to those elements (i.e., what is the interpretation)?Image: a Learning Design Language
  • 16. • If these are your primitives - what are these primitives? - what is their role? • Interpretation: the logical foundations for... • eg. probabilityImage: Primitives & Their Interpretation
  • 17. • 3 models: flowchart, rule-based, object-event basedImage: Locked into Processes
  • 18. • Is there a directionality in the process? • Locked into objectives (?) – problem solving, discovery ... others? – development of capacitiesImage: vs development of knowledge Locked into Directionality
  • 19. • What are the primitive objects? What are their properties? • Locked into roles – e.g. conversational framework - teacher - student - other student – want to look at the substructureImage: Locked into Roles / Entities
  • 20. • Epistemology - what grounds your theories • Theories of truth and reference • other approaches: – coherence webs of belief‘ – world as will and representationImage: Meaning and Reference
  • 21. • Positivism: saying there is some set of facts - even e.g. the existing theories • (Most people areImage: positivists - it takes real guts to be a coherentist, or a relativist) Hidden Positivism
  • 22. • The general principle is - you dont want to build the interpretation into the language - keep the language stupid - put semantics at the edgesImage: • Thats why e.g. LD wanted to be theory- neutral Theory-Neutrality
  • 23. Language? Design? • but your primitives dont have to be pure basic abstracts... Predicate Computation Calculus • We can ‘reach out’ from pure abstraction (via Set Theory Mathematics computability & decidability) The purely abstract 1011010101 The Nature of the Purely Abstract
  • 24. • Cognitivist theories - where the pure abstraction is based in the pure elements of thought • These elements are mapped to a ‘language of thought’ which is used to express abstractions • The theory-theoryImage: Cognitivism
  • 25. • Another version of the same framework Image: urnal/vol4/cs11/report.html This crow is All crows are black blackreal world ---- interpretation ---- language ------ interpretation ---- HUMAN The Human Equation
  • 26. • Non-theory-based theory – What do we believe are elements of the world? connections – What do we believe are the fundamentals of human thought? connections • Humans are fundamentally connective entities (and not cognitive entities)Image: The Non-Theory Theory
  • 27. • In LEARNING no langauge per se in between them – It is a process of directImage: recognition (JJ Gibson) • real world ---- pattern recognition ---- HUMANImage: Direct Representation
  • 28. • We use language to talk about this, but we should not confuse the language with the learning process – How do people learn then? – How do you get a person toImage: know x‘? • I said it takes courage to not be a positivist Language and Learning
  • 29. • To learn: – Not to remember a set of facts (and/or theories) – Becoming a good recognizer, a good patternImage: creator • These are based in the principles of effective networks Pattern Recognition
  • 30. • Teaser argument to conclude: • How do we learn languages? – we dont create a language to learn a language – a language is learned via the direct recognition of the language • aka thinking in French -- vs thinking in physics, etc.Image: Direct Perception
  • 31. • • stephen@downes.caStephen Downes