DRAFT: Do Not Cite Or Duplicate Without Author's Permission

[DRAFT: Do Not Cite or Duplicate Without Author's Permission]

Appreciative instructional Design (AiD): A New Model

Karen E. Norum, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Adult Ed & HRD Adult, Counselor, & Technology Education College of Education University of Idaho, Boise 800 Park Blvd., Suite 200 Boise, ID 83712-7742

Paper presented at the 2000 Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) National Conference Denver, Colorado October 25-28, 2000 2

In recent years, there has been a call for new instructional design models; models that meet the speed of change most organizations must now perform at (Carr, 1997;

Gordon & Zemke, 2000; Gustafson & Branch, 1997). Gordon and Zemke (2000) suggest that the instructional systematic design (ISD) models that dominate the field have outlived their usefulness. Although instructional design models based on constructivist learning theory are emerging (see Reigeluth, 1996; Savery & Duffy, 1996; Willis, 1995,

2000; Wilson, 1996; Winn, 1992), the ISD models are still dominated by the behaviorist paradigm (Gordon & Zemke, 2000; Gustafson & Branch, 1997; Seels & Glasgow, 1998;

Willis, 2000). Thus, the idea that "behavior can be observed, measured, planned for, and evaluated in reasonably valid and reliable ways" (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 73) is reflected in current models of instructional systematic design. The word "systematic" in instructional design suggests that instructional design is a step-by-step, orderly, sequential, logical, linear process (Banathy, 1996; Gordon & Zemke, 2000). This is reflective of the "machine mentality," which creates the illusion that certain conditions will lead to certain outcomes, thus by following a "lock-step, engineering like" (Gordon

& Zemke, 2000, p. 48) model, the instructional designer can create the right conditions for the desired outcomes.

This paradigm has lead to "fiendishly complex" (Gordon & Zemke, 2000, p. 43) models that emphasize efficiency in human learning, instruction, and performance (Carr,

1997). It also can lead to low expectations: Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2001, p. 3 describe the role of instructional design as planning, developing, evaluating, and managing the instructional design process effectively "so that it will ensure competent 3 performance by learners." Today's organizations find themselves in quickly changing environments and need to develop the capacity to change and adapt quickly. They need to be constantly learning, able to re-create themselves at will and with skill (Fitzgerald,

1995; Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1999). This does not call for "competent" employees, it calls for quantum (Zohar, 1997) employees: people who are "mindful" (Daft & Lengel,

1998; Langer, 1997) and can think holistically, evoking and co-creating reality(s). This calls for an instructional design model that is systemic rather than systematic in nature.

From Deficit-Based to Value-Based

Current models of instructional design are deficit-based: the gap between current performance and desired performance is systematically analyzed and as appropriate, instruction is designed to fill that gap. It is a problem-solving process: What is the problem and how do we solve it? often begins the analysis (e.g., Seels & Glasgow, 1998).

The existence of a problem is often heralded by a gap in learning, evidenced by poor job performance or unacceptable error rates. During the analysis phase, a needs assessment that focuses on this gap is often conducted. By focussing on this gap, the unstated message becomes that there is an acceptable level of error. For example, it is OK for the airlines to lose luggage, they just need to lose less of it.

This deficit-based approach leads to unintended consequences. By focussing on the gap, we tend to focus on fragments: there is a danger we will analyze each puzzle piece instead of considering the place of piece within the puzzle (Cooperrider & Whitney,

1999b; Capra, 1982). The systematic approach to instructional design can set us up to design and develop excellent instruction and training that is not suited for the 4 organization or context in which it needs to live (Tessmer, 1990). A deficit-based approach is slow and past-oriented: it has us looking at yesterday's causes. The assumption is that if we correctly identify the problem, we can then select the solution that corresponds to it (Banathy, 1996). But because of the interdependent nature of systems, we may never find "the" cause of the problem (Capra, 1996; Senge, 1990;

Wheatley, 1999) and there is a good chance we will not actually solve the problem

(Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999b). Instead, what will most likely happen is that a new problem that demands more attention will come along and the "problem" we were working on will fade into the background. As our attention jumps from problem to problem never actually solving any of them, a negativity is engendered. We become progressively enfeebled, resign ourselves to live with diminished expectations, and become visionless (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999b). We come to believe that rather than design instruction or training for the "best of" level of performance, we need to design it for an "acceptable" or "competent" level of performance. We design the training or instruction to eliminate what we do not want rather than to give us more of what we do want.

The Appreciative instructional Design model offers a new alternative.

Appreciative instructional Design (AiD) takes its theoretical foundation from

Appreciative Inquiry (AI). AI was developed by David Cooperrider, professor of organizational behavior at Case Western Reserve University. As opposed to problem solving, AI begins with a search for the best of "what is" rather than looking for exactly what is wrong or what needs to be "fixed." According to Cooperrider, every system has good and bad in it. We are trained to look for the "bad" and "fix" it. But what if we paid 5 just as much attention to the "good" in the system? AI gives us a structure for searching out the "goodness" in the system, allowing us to appreciate "what is" and use that as inspiration for what "could be." It is a valued-based rather than deficit-based approach

(Norum, 2000a).

Applying AI to Instructional Design

When AI is applied to the instructional design process, the goal is to discover the factors present when the system is operating at its "best of" level. Instruction or training is then designed around those generative factors. Thus, the gap in performance or learning becomes immaterial. There is no need to analyze the gap between current and desired levels of performance: what we want to know is what is the "best of" level of performance? AiD assumes there is something working in the current level of performance (after all, it cannnot all be poor) and that what is "working" can be found and amplified (Bushe, 2000a). The instruction or training then will be designed to nurture, develop, and amplify the competencies needed to perform at the "best of" level and give the organization "more" of what it wants.

To contrast the ISD model with the AiD model, imagine you are charged with designing customer service training: the organization has been receiving what it considers to be too many complaints. Using a traditional ISD model, the gap between the current

(unacceptable) level of performance and the acceptable level of performance is analyzed.

One measure for this might be the number of complaints received: how many are received now and how many is an "acceptable" number? The training would then be designed to lower the number of complaints received into the "acceptable" range. Using 6 the AiD model, instead of determining the gap between the current and acceptable levels of performance, a search to discover what the organization defines as the "best of" level of customer service performance is engaged in. When customer service is operating at its

"best of" level, what does it look like? Training would then be designed to nurture, develop, and amplify the competencies needed to perform at that "best of" level. Thus, it is quite possible that the training developed will take the employees well beyond the

"acceptable" level of performance! By focussing on the potential to create the best of what "could be," this model goes beyond filling gaps in performance.

The AiD model is systemic, advocating "a global conception of the problem and an understanding of the interrelationships and interconnections" (Carr, 1996, p. 17).

Another distinctive characteristic of AiD is its focus on "inquiry." While conducting a needs assessment is important in traditional ISD models, it is critical in AiD. From

Appreciative Inquiry, we learn that the questions we ask determine what we find and the data we gather determines what we design (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). Thus, in the

AiD model, a fair amount of time is devoted to constructing questions: the inquiry is at the heart of the process. The AiD model is future-oriented, looking at generating "more of" what the organization wants rather than minimizing what it does not want. This is reflected in the difference in one of the first questions asked: rather than beginning the process by asking, "What is the problem and how do we solve it?" AiD begins with a question designed to evoke stories of what the "best of" level of performance looks like.

An overview of the AiD Model follows.

The Appreciative instructional Design Model: An Overview 7

The AiD model is based on the "4-D" cycle used in Appreciative Inquiry:

Discovery, Dream, Design, Destiny. Cooperrider and Whitney describe Appreciative

Inquiry as "the cooperative search for the best in people, their organizations, and the world around them (1999a, p. 10). This involves a search into what gives "life" to the system. A hallmark of AI is the kinds of questions asked during the inquiry: questions that are unconditionally positive, designed to strengthen the positive potential in the organization. The inquiry is based on the assumption that there are untapped, rich, inspiring stories about the organization (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999a) and that what is

"working" can be amplified and fanned throughout the system (Bushe, 2000b). A four- phase model is employed to conduct this appreciative inquiry. Cooperrider and Whitney

(1999a) refer to it as the "4-D Cycle":

Discovery

Destiny Dream

Design

The AI cycle begins by crafting positive questions that are designed to uncover the "life-giving" forces of the system. The inquiry begins through an interviewing process. During this process, the task is to discover the best of what already is—to appreciate the good things about the system. The "best of what is" is used to inspire

"what might be": the Dream phase. Possible (positive) futures are envisioned. The next step is to create the policies, procedures, infrastructures, governance systems, etc. that are 8 needed to support "what should be." This is the Design phase. The new system is co- constructed. As the new system is implemented, the question turns to how to sustain and maintain this new system. The focus of the Destiny phase is how to continue to learn, improvise and adjust so that the system can continuously strengthen its affirmative capacity. This often leads back to the first phase in the cycle: Discovery. A new inquiry begins into the "best of" what has just been re-created.

This same process is reflected in AiD. As in an Appreciative Inquiry, the process begins with Discovery: questions are crafted to discover the "best of" performance level in the organization. Stakeholders (those who will be the audience for the training and/or those who need to support it) are interviewed to elicit stories about what the "best of" performance level looks like as well as their "best" instructional or training experiences.

Questions are also asked about the "ideal" system and "ideal" instruction or training.

Drawing inspiration from what is working, people are encouraged to dream about what could be. They are dared to expand the realm of the possible. The information gathered in the interviews is relevant to the Discovery and Dream phases of AiD. The goal is to discover what is already working well in the system's performance and to understand why it is working well. What life-giving factors are present at this "best of" level of performance and what does the system want "more of"?

As the Discovery and Dream data is analyzed to find themes, patterns, and refrains (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), the Design Phase is entered.

Competencies that need to be nurtured and developed, what needs to be learned, how to learn it, effective design elements, what needs to be amplified are all considered. Clues to these questions are contained in the stories gathered during the Discovery and Dream 9 phases. Those clues will be used to create instruction or training designed to give the system "more" of what it wants. The goal is to create instruction or training that will nurture, develop, and amplify competencies that will in turn amplify the life-giving factors identified in the Discovery and Dream phases. The design takes place around generative factors.

The Destiny Phase is entered when the instruction or training is implemented.

This phase reflects the plan to sustain, maintain, improve, or adjust the instruction or training. It also reflects how the system will know if it is getting "more" of what it wanted. The plan outlines what will be assessed and how. The appraisal of what is working about the instruction or training brings us back to the beginning of the cycle:

Discovery.

AiD is a specific application of Appreciative Inquiry. It shares the same theoretical foundations and the "4-D" cycle. Where it differs is in its focus. While

Appreciative Inquiry is a system-wide intervention with a focus on organizational change, Appreciative instructional Design is specifically concerned with designing instruction or training. While it is quite possible that the instruction or training designed could be part of a system-wide change effort, that is not necessarily the focus for AiD.

Because the theoretical foundations of AiD make it distinct from current models of instructional design, they are described next.

Theoretical Foundations of AiD

AiD is compatible with the constructivist paradigm, insisting that learners go beyond acquiring knowledge and create it. It advocates user-design: engaging 10 stakeholders in the design of their own systems (Carr, 1997). In the AiD model, the instructional designer is a facilitator, working with the system to help it get more of what it wants. The AiD model also draws from action research methodology particularly in the data analysis process, which takes place in the Design phase. It recognizes that learning and performance take place in a context and that context can "facilitate or inhibit human enterprises" (Tessmer & Richey, 1997, p. 88). AiD understands that organizations and the people in them are living, dynamic systems, embracing the "new science" paradigm (Wheatley, 1999; Zohar, 1997) and ecological thinking (Capra, 1996).

It evokes "idealized" design: design that is future-focused, based on what we want, yet grounded in current reality (Banathy, 1996).

Five principles are central to Appreciative Inquiry and thus are foundational to

AiD. These five principles (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000) are the:

•Constructionist Principle

•Principle of Simultaneity

•Poetic Principle

•Anticipatory Principle

•Positive Principle

Several propositions are related to these Principles. What follows is a description of each

Principle and its related propositions.

Constructionist Principle

This Principle asserts that organizations are living, human constructions. They are constructed based on what we think we know, thus what we know and how we know 11 it becomes fateful (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). "[T]he truth about an organization is what those involved agree the truth is" (Zemke, 1999, p. 30). This principle is strengthened by the proposition that stakeholders in the organization carry in their minds some sort of shared idea of what the organization is, how it should function, and what it might become (Cooperrider, 2000). The Constructionist Principle calls us to unearth and examine the mental models (Senge, 1990) that we hold about an organization and consider how those mental models have effected the fate of the current system.

Principle of Simultaneity

Change begins the minute we ask a question. The questions posed set the stage for what is found. What is found becomes the data we use to re-construct the future.

"Even the most innocent question evokes change" (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000, p. 18).

Thus, change is not something that happens after an analysis is conducted; change begins with the analysis. A corresponding proposition encourages us to create the conditions for organization-wide appreciation to "ensure the conscious evolution of a valued and positive future" (Cooperrider, 2000, p. 52).

The Poetic Principle

If organizations are constructed, they can be re-constructed. Just as a poem can be interpreted and re-interpreted as we bring new meaning to every reading of it, so can organizations be re-interpreted as the system they are embedded in changes. This is "The

Poetic Principle": as the stories of the people in and attached to the organization change, the organization changes. "There is no such thing as an inevitable organization" 12

(Cooperrider, 2000, p. 47). This principle teaches us that we can choose what to study in an organization: the good or the bad, the joy or the alienation, the creativity or mediocrity

(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). A related proposition tells us that no matter what the previous history, every system can be altered and re-invented (Cooperrider, 2000).

The Anticipatory Principle

From this Principle we learn that the image of the future guides the current behavior and actions of the system (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). Positive images of the future lead to positive actions; negative images lead to negative actions. This image becomes the "referential core" of the system and determines its essential characteristics

(Capra, 1996; Wheatley, 1999). It is possible for this image to be incoherent or unclear or even for it to be pathetic. Many organizations are better at articulating what they do not want than at being clear about what it is they do want. An image that is based on what we do not want is likely to engender negative behavior and actions. Malaise, mediocrity, angst, and dysfunction are likely to be present in such an organization. This principle is supported by the proposition that systems are limited only by their imaginations (Cooperrider, 2000). Paradoxically, even the best future images can hold the system back if those positive images become so cherished, they cannot be given up for even better images (Cooperrider, 2000). This proposition reminds us of the

Constructionist Principle: our organizations are constructions.

The Positive Principle 13

The more positive the question asked is, the more longer lasting and successful the change effort will be (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000). Problem solving is a null-sum game, directing the focus to what is wrong (Zemke, 1999). Building and sustaining momentum for change requires large doses of hope, inspiration, caring, excitement and commitment. Seeking out positive experiences and past successes and using those to build the future engenders positive affect and social bonding. The "heliotropic" proposition tells us that systems, like plants, move in the direction of light or positive imagery (Cooperrider, 2000). Thus, organizations move in the direction of what they study. To move in a positive direction, the system has to be studying the positive, not the negative. A related proposition asserts that the more an organization experiments with conscious evolution of positive imagery, the better it will become as its heliotropic and affirmative competencies strengthen (Cooperrider, 2000). This heliotropic tendency needs to be appreciated and understood—this proposition directs us to appreciate rather than fix our organizations (Cooperrider, 2000; Zemke, 1999).

The Importance of Language

There is great power in how we talk about things. "The words we use and the way we use them are powerful indicators of how we see, of our particular vision of reality"

(Daloz, 1986, p. 233). We are constantly telling each other stories. As we share our stories, we also share what we believe about the way the world works. The stories we tell have the potential to expand our imaginations and enlarge our vision of what could be

(Feige, 1999). When we tell stories about our organization in the break room, over the water cooler, in the hallway, we socially construct what we want our organization to be 14

(Abma, 1999; Bushe, 2000b). These stories then end up guiding the organization's practices and policies (Abma, 1999; Cooperrider, 2000; Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999).

This is the Constructionist Principle in action: a system can be reconstructed by changing the stories that are being told (Norum, 2000b).

The Anticipatory Principle reminds us that the questions we ask will determine what we find. What we find will determine what we design. Thus, the questions we ask become powerfully consequential. This is illustrated in the movie Apollo 13. When Jim

Lovell announces, "Houston, we have a problem," imagine how different the outcome might have been if flight director Gene Kranz had asked for a rundown of everything that was wrong or had failed vs. a status report on what was still working on the space craft.

By keeping the focus positive, Kranz engendered creative energy and hope rather than failure and despair.

By how we talk about it, "we largely create the world we later discover"

(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 2000, p. 92). Our current social vocabulary is largely deficit based, challenging us to consciously move to hopeful and appreciative language

(Ludema, 2000). How we think and talk about things largely influences our destiny. If we think and talk like something is impossible to accomplish, it probably will be. By how we think and talk about it, we create the world we later discover.

AiD Principles

The five Principles and the importance of language are reflected in the AiD model. AiD assumes that we are only limited by our imaginations and collective will. 15

Thus, the instruction or training that can be designed is limited only by our own thinking.

This is the role the Constructionist Principle plays in AiD.

The heliotropic hypothesis has an important place as well: the image we hold of what the instruction or training should accomplish will determine the direction the system will grow in. For example, it makes a difference if the image held is to minimize error vs. perform at the "best of" level: the training developed will differ according to the image held. This is related to the importance of language as the questions asked in developing the training will be different according to the image held. AiD offers the potential to create images that can release a system caught in paradox (Bushe, 2000b).

User-design is a central premise. AiD engages the potential learners in creating their own instruction or training. This process garners support for the training and minimizes the potential of sabotage. Because they have been part of designing it, they are assured of its applicability and implementation of the instruction or training generally goes faster. Working together, the instructional designer and learners are creating and recreating the organization.

The design created through the AiD process is ultimately meant to expand the realm of the possible while still being realistic (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 2000). It is idealized design in that the training or instruction has to live in the current environment yet simultaneously be connected to the future (ideal) image. It is training or instruction that "enlarges [people's] conception of what can be implemented" (Banathy, 1996, p.

193) by providing a systemic rather than systematic perspective.

A New Model 16

Organizations are living, dynamic systems. They are not dissociated collections of parts but rather are holistic, interconnected and interdependent systems (Capra, 1996).

Traditional instructional design models treat organizations as if they are machines to be engineered and re-engineered (Wheatley, 1999; Zohar, 1998). These models are systematic rather than systemic in nature, deficit rather than value based, tend to be deductive and reductionistic rather than inductive and additive, and expert rather than user driven. These models have come under attack for being cumbersome and not flexible and fluid enough to keep pace with the internet speed organizations operate at today (Carr, 1997; Gordon & Zemke, 2000).

Ackoff (in Banathy, 1996) describes three properties of an "idealized" design model: technological feasibility, operational viability, capable of rapid learning and adaptation. The AiD model meets this criteria. It is technologically feasible in that it uses technologies that are known and usable (interviewing, user-design, action research).

It is operationally viable because what is designed through the AiD process can function and sustain itself once implemented. This is assured through the participation of stakeholders in the design process. The capability of rapid learning and adaptation is seen in the stakeholder's ability to modify what has been created through the introduction of "positive dissatisfaction" (Carr-Chellman, 2000) which leads into another round of the

"4-D" cycle.

Taking its theoretical foundations from Appreciative Inquiry, AiD honors organizations as living dynamic systems. Every living system has three basic components:

• identity or pattern of organization 17

• information or life process

• relationships or structure

The identity or pattern of organization is found in the system's referential core: the qualitative features that determine the system's essential characteristics (Capra, 1996;

Wheatley, 1999). Information or life process keeps the organization alive. As information is processed, interpreting that information through the identity of the organization helps the system to know in what direction to move (Capra, 1996; Wheatley,

1999). As information flows and is interpreted through the identity of the organization, the various components of the system determine how they need to be in relationship to each other to accomplish the work of the system. This becomes the structure of the system (Capra, 1996; Wheatley, 1999).

The three components of any living system are reflected in the AiD process.

Determining what the organization wants more of becomes the referential core of the instruction or training that is being developed. Information begins to flow through the

AiD interviews, conducted in the Discovery and Dream phases. When analyzing the data collected through the interview process, knowing what the organization wants more of helps to determine the data most relevant to the design of the instruction or training. The design of the training is like putting puzzle pieces together: what components are necessary and how will they work together to give the organization more of what it wants through the instruction or training? The relationship or structure component of living systems is reflected in the AiD Design phase.

The notion that organizations are not machines that can be controlled through engineering and re-engineering, but rather are living dynamic systems that at best can be 18 disturbed (Wheatley, 1999) is reflected in the Destiny Phase of AiD. Rather than creating an analytic evaluation plan, a valuation plan and a plan for tinkering is outlined.

Organizations today live with uncertainty, rapid change, unpredictability and need to be responsive, flexible and fluid to adjust to their changing environment (Senge, et. al.,

1999; Wheatley, 1999; Zohar, 1998). Instruction and training developed for such organizations needs to be the same. The models we use to design instruction and training need to be flexible, fluid, adaptable, and responsive which would suggest that they provide guidance but not directives for design. "The best we can do is work from flexible guidelines or principles that are subject to change and being overruled" (Willis, 2000, p.

9). Such models need to be simple, based on a few clear core assumptions; adaptable; easy to use with a knowledge base that is available or readily attainable; and capable of providing new insights (Banathy, 1996). This simplicity gives rise to complexity

(Wheatley, 1999; Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996).

The Appreciative instructional Design model offers an alternative to traditional instructional systematic design, honoring organizations as living, dynamic systems. As the AiD model is employed, a holistic picture of the organization emerges. The instruction or training that is developed expands the realm of the possible, giving the organization more of what it wants, nurturing the capacity to evoke and co-create new realities. 19

References

Abma, T. A. (1999). Powerful stories: The role of stories in sustaining and transforming professional practice within a mental hospital. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Making meaning of narratives: Vol. 6 (pp. 169-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. NY: Plenum Press.

Bushe, G. R. (2000a). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organizational development intervention. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorenson, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.)Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 113-121). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Bushe, G. R. (2000b). Five theories of change embedded in appreciative inquiry. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorenson, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 99-109). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Capra, F. (1982). The turning point: science, society, and the rising culture. New York: Bantam Books.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Carr, A. A. (1996). Distinguishing systemic from systematic. TechTrends for Leaders in Education and Training, 41 (1), 16-20.

Carr. A. A. (1997). User-Design in the creation of human learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), pp. 5-22.

Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2000). The new sciences and systemic change in education. Educational Technology, 40 (2), pp. 28-37.

Cooperrider, D. L. (2000). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of Organizing. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 29-53). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Cooperrider, D. L. & Srivastva, D. (2000). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 55-97). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing. 20

Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Communications, Inc.

Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry: A constructive approach to organization development and social change (A workshop). Taos, NM: Corporation for positive change.

Cooperrider, D. L. & Whitney, D. (2000). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 3-27). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. (1998). Fusion leadership: Unlocking the subtle forces that change people and organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Feige, D. M. (1999). The legacy of Gregory Bateson: Envisioning aesthetic epistemologies and praxis. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation: Essays on learning and thinking (pp. 77-109). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Fitzgerald, L.A. (1995). Building a learning organization: The series. Workshop sponsored by Mountain States Employers Council, Denver, CO.

Gordon, J. & Zemke, R. (2000, April). The attack on ISD. Training, 36 (6), pp. 42-53.

Gustafson, K. L. & Branch, R. M. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (3), pp. 73-89.

Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. and Davis, J. H. (1997). The Art and Science of Portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ludema, J. D. (2000). From deficit discourse to vocabularies of hope: The power of appreciation. In D. L. Cooperrider, P. F. Sorensen, Jr., D. Whitney, T. F. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry: Rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change (pp. 265-287). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 21

Norum, K.E. (2000a, July). Appreciative Design. Paper presented at the International Society for Systems Sciences Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

Norum, K. E. (2000b, September ). Storying change: The power of the tales we tell. Paper presented at the ALARPM/PAR World Congress, University of Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

Reigeluth, C. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36 (3), 13-20.

Seels, B. and Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P.M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. NY: Doubleday/Currency.

Tessmer, M. (1990). Environmental analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38 (1), 55-64.

Tessmer, M. & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 (2), 85-115.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wheatley, M. J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A simpler way. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publications, Inc.

Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 35 (6), pp. 5-23.

Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40 (1), pp. 5-16.

Wilson, B. (Ed.). (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Winn, W. (1992). The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 177-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zemke, R. (1999, June). Don't Fix That Company. Training, 36(6), 26-33. 22

Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we structure and lead organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.