Toward a Siggs Characterization of Epistemic Properties of Educational Design

  • Myrna L. Estep
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to develop a general system theoretic characterization of epistemic properties of educational design. “General system theory” is taken to refer to sets of principles descriptive of organized complexities, that is, the principles descriptive of interactions of components of systems. “Epistemic properties” are taken to refer to sets of formal knowledge and knowing conditions obtaining of a person or persons. The aim of this paper is not to set forth a general system theoretic characterization of epistemic properties obtaining of a person or persons anytime or anywhere, but to set forth such a characterization of those epistemic properties obtaining of a person or persons in the context of teaching-studenting systems, education. Such a characterization will differ from a more general one in that the inquiry is directed to those epistemic properties obtaining of persons who have assumed the educative roles of either a teacher or a student, where “student” refers to an educational learner. The concept “role” is defined as the behavior of persons who occupy a position where the position is recognized by members of a group only if the position contributes to the purposes of the group.

Keywords

Epistemic Condition Affect Relation General System Theory Epistemic Property Epistemic Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    T. M. Newcomb, Social Psychology, Dryden Press, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, George Braziller, New York, p. 33, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. S. Maccia and G. S. Maccia, “The Logic of the SIGGS Theory Model.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1976.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. S. Maccia and G. S. Maccia, “The Logic of the SIGGS Theory Model.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1976., pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. S. Maccia and G. S. Maccia, “The Logic of the SIGGS Theory Model.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 1976, p. 12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. S. Maccia and G. S. Maccia, “Information Theoretic Extension of the Cybernetic Model.” Paper presented at the European Meeting of Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna, Austria, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    That is, where the system, including teacher and student, is “all-knowing” and where the same set of epistemic conditions constituting curriculum components obtain of both teacher and student during the same educative time sequence. The former condition is not possible for human systems and the latter would dissolve the educative relation.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The exculsive sense of ‘or’ is used here so long as S̄ and S̄ have assumed the roles of teacher and student. Should the same formal set of epistemic conditions obtain of both S̄ and S̄ during the educative time sequence of the relation, that teacher-student relation dissolves.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    These distinctions are elaborated upon and argued for in my forthcoming paper, “Perceptual Awareness and Aspects of Understanding,” prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Division 24, Philosophical Psychology, San Francisco, August 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. S. Maccia, “Pedagogical Epistemology.” In Proceedings of the 1973 Meeting of the Ohio Valley Philosophy of Education Society, W. E. Brownson and J. E. Carter (Eds.), Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, pp. 57–69, 1974. Also see: M. Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. S. Maccia and G. S. Maccia, “System Theory and the SIGGS Theory Model.” Paper presented at the Conference on the History and Perspectives of Development of Systems Approach and General System Theory, International Congress of the History of Science, Moscow, Soviet Union, August 1971.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. S. Maccia, G. S. Maccia, and R. E. Jewett, Construction of Educational Theory Models, Cooperative Research ProjectNo. 1632, The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Ohio, p. 103, 1963.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. J. Wilson, Introduction to Graph Theory, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, p. 102, 1972.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, p. 199, 1969.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. S. Maccia, G. S. Maccia, and R. E. Jewett, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, p. 104.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. S. Maccia, G. S. Maccia, and R. E. Jewett, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, pp. 106–107.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. S. Maccia, G. S. Maccia, and R. E. Jewett, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts [Also see: Cartwright and Harary, “The Number of Lines in a Digraph of Each Connectedness Category.” In SIAM Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, October 1961.]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    With a proper substitution of terms, certain of the definitions have been set forth to explicate influence relations of a group in general by Maccia, Maccia, and Jewett in Construction of Educational Theory Models, 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrna L. Estep
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations