ETEC 511 64DDenise Findlay

Chaos and complexity – implications in educational technology

Introduction

I have been undertaking two courses this semester – Foundations of Educational

Technology and Applications of Learning Theories. In addition, in my organisation

(vocational training for general practitioners) we have been exploring the concept of

Complex Adaptive Leadership from a book of the same title by Nick Obolensky.

The concepts of Complexity Theory have appealed to me and thus this essay provided

an impetus for further investigation and to identify whether what new understandings it

might bring to educational technology or learning theory.

This essay begins with an overview of Complexity Theory and its key concepts.

Following this are my reflections on Complexity theory and its implications in

educational technology and learning.

Complexity Theory

Complexity theory (CT) is described as having has developed from “new science” and

biology – relativity theory and quantum physics, chaos theory, complex adaptive

system theory. Gare (cited in Haggis 2009) identifies that the perspective of complexity

theory has been of interest to many different scientists, relating to the philosophy of

organism, neural networks, cellular autonomata, cybernetics. While identified as “new”

some would argue that it can be traced back to ancient Greek thought or Taoist ‘Te

Ching’ (Obolensky 2010, Tosey 2002).

The theory has been applied to social systems, organisational management and

leadership, epidemiology, health care economics, psychology, and in education

(Campbell 1989, Obolensky 2010, Tosey 2002).

CT is not a unified theory. It offers a view of a world that is made up of multiple, nested,

open, dynamic systems. These systems are interelated and therefore can’t be

considered in isolation from each other (Haggis 2009 p7).

Morrison 2009 (citing Santonus1998) identifies that “CT breaks with the simple

successionist cause-and-effect models, linear predictability, and a reductionist

approach to understanding phenomena, replacing them with organic, non-linear and

holistic approaches”.

Concepts of Complexity Theory

In the literature CT is described in a number of different ways however the main

concepts identified include:

Connectedness/interrelatedness

Emergence

Adaptive, self organising systems (Complex adaptive systems)

These concepts are not separate, but interrelated and there are a number of key

features that underlie these concepts and that are integral to understanding CT. These

include (Haggis 2009):

No-one stands outside a system (Tosey 2002).

Systems are part of many other systems, most of which are then also part of

other systems. Davis 2008 talks of systems being nested within other systems

Open systems. That is the systems are open “materially and energetically”

they are not closed systems. There is a constant flow of energy and matter

within the system and also between the systems in which it is embedded.

There are a large number of components in a system, which are all multiply

connected and interrelated.

The interconnections between components are non-linear with multiple

feedback loops back to each individual component and between

interconnected components

Feedback can be negative or positive. Negative feedback is regulatory,

positive feedback amplifies small changes, and with looping or spirally and

resulting in ever increasing change, growth and development (Morrison 2008)

The emphasis is on quantity and quality of connections, and much less the

nature of the individual components (Tosey 2009)

Small change can result in large effects (“butterfly effect”). Even if the initial

conditions of two systems appear to be similar, small changes in the initial

conditions can become amplified to result in different systems - each system

has specific and unique trajectories over time. Equally two systems can look the

similar but have been product of very different initial conditions and histories of

interaction

Change is unpredictable – different systems respond differently to the same

change and therefore we cannot generalise (Davis and Sumara 2006: Haggis

2009). In fact in complex systems we can predict that change will be

unpredictable (Bloom 2009).

Emerge initially in relation to specific initial condition but then continually

adapt, change and survive through process of emergence

Systems evolve but also learn over time (sometimes called co-evolution)

Systems are dynamic, responsive and distributed

Simple rules or principles underline complexity. If the rules are too

complicated the system freezes.

It embraces paradox recognising that tension and paradox are natural and can

never be fully resolved. Davis 2008 describes simultaneities – that is events or

phenomena which could be seen as distinct, opposed and unconnected but are

in CT actually existing or operating at the same time.

From these features it can be seen that an underlying tenet of CT is that the whole is

greater than the sum of the parts.

Another concept arising out of the features of CT is the concept of “zone of complexity”

(Zimmerman 2001) or the “edge of chaos” (Tosey 2002). This is a place of neither

chaos nor equilibrium (see Diagram 1). In this place there is insufficient certainty and

agreement to make an obvious, linear, simple choice; but also there is not enough

uncertainty or disagreement to throw the system into chaos. Thus in this “zone”, at this

“edge”, change can occur easily and spontaneously and there is high creativity,

innovation and creation of new modes of working. The implication is that systems

function best “at the edge of chaos” or in the “zone of complexity”.

Diagram 1 Diagram 2

Reproduced from Zimmerman, B. (2001) Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty. Matrix Edgeware - Aideshttp://www.plexusinstitute.com/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html

Complexity Theory and implications for Education

I am still personally exploring the impacts of CT on education and educational

technology, but the following are some of my reflections from a review of the literature.

Complexity theory and the definition of educational technology

Do we see CT mirrored in the definitions of educational technology?

Tracing the definitions of educational technology of the AECT from 1963 to 2008

(Januszewski 2001, Ely 1999, Dorbolo 2004, Hlynka and Jacobsen 2009) one can see

an evolution in definition from control to facilitation. Ely suggests that the AECT

definitions of 1977 and 1994 draw from the roots of communication theory, systems

theory and learning theory.

Across the years there has been a move from educational technology being purely a

tool; to it being a “complex, integrated” process to currently “a study and practice”

(2008). In 2008 this also included the concept of “ethical” practice.

“Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating

learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing

appropriate technological processes and resources.”

In the latest version 2008, one can identify a convergence of tasks (the teacher

becoming designer and facilitator) and learning becomes the primary focus with

technological processes and resources a secondary focus (Hlynka and Jacobsen

2009).

This latest definition has also added a quality criterion with “improving performance”, a

focus on accreditation leading to usable skills not just knowledge. Which if one had not

read the companion description appeared remarkably as if the focus was an

assessment one.

These changes really do not reflect CT, rather they appear to mirror the changes of

learning theories from cognitivist approaches to constructivist approaches.

Complexity theory and the role of theory in Educational Technology

Issroff and Scanlon 2002, describe two groups of theories in educational technology,

theories designed to help:

i. design effective learning and teaching materials and systems

ii. understand the culture and context of different learning situations and their

impact on students’ learning

Isroff and Scanlon (2002) identify that Activity theory is an example of the second

group of theories, and that it recognises the complexity of the culture and context whilst

offering generalisability and some predictability. They argue situated cognition reduces

the predictive capabilities of the group one theories. Nardi (1995) would argue that

distributed cognition provides even less generalisability and predictive value. CT which

is situated, distributed and views change as unpredictable would have even less again.

However what each of these three theories do provide is a rich understanding of

complex systems and their interactivities.

Haggis (2009) argues that CT offers a way of understanding and exploring why

individuals might experience practices differently, why apparently similar systems

respond to similar context changes very differently. It goes beyond a preoccupation

with activity and practice to understand how physical location, activity, discourse,

awareness, and intentionality work together to produce emergent effects. (Haggis 2009

p13). That thinking using CT encourages the potential for new creative thoughts. Davis

and Sumara (2008) suggest that complexity research expects participation in the

emergence and evolution of insights.

Davis and Sumara (2008) suggest education in complexity terms needs to be

understood as a participation in the creation of possible futures (not preparation for the

future), that, complexity principles aren’t “applied” but that one takes part in their

articulation and elaboration.

Simultaneities/theorising educational technology

Davis 2008 describes a number of education paradoxes which he believes CT provides

new responses to. The “vital simultaneities” he describes include – Knower and

Knowledge, transphenomenality, transdisciplinarity, interdiscursivity, descriptive and

pragmatic insights, representation and presentation, affect and affect and education

and research. I will only deal with a few of these.

If we review his thoughts on the paradox Knower (knowledge producing system) and

Knowledge (systems of knowledge) we see that CT allows both these systems to

simultaneously exist in a dynamic and reflexive relationship “where they are enfolded in

and unfold from each one another” resulting in a transformation of both systems. He

argues that this transformation could be called learning.

Without CT these two systems might be merged, or be conceived as having a bottom

up or top down relationship or one would subsume the other. Rather than

discontinuities, with CT these systems can be considered separately but cannot be

considered to be separate, because they are interrelated with feedback to themselves

and to the other system (see Diagram 3).

From a complexity approach learning is “not being embedded in social and cultural

contexts, it is a characteristic of embedded, dynamic systems.” (Haggis (2009 p12)

Diagram 3 – A small sampling of some knowers and knowledges that they support

Reproduced fromDavis, B. 2008. Complexity and Education: Vital simultaneities. Chapter 4 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

While Davis in any of his writing does not include educational technology in his

discussion of CT I wonder whether a similar diagram could be developed between the

knower and educational technology or knowledges and educational technology. We

know that educational technology is not neutral and that “technology use is an act of

mediation which refocuses human perspectives and changes the nature of human

activity” (Hsu 2006 p10), and that technology is a transformative agent (Ihde’s in Hsu

2006). Might the nested system for educational technology be conceived as

content/instructional design/delivery technologies?

Davis 2008 combines the simultaneities of transphenomenality, transdisciplinarity,

interdiscursivity in an example relating to a learner’s understanding of multiplication.

(See Diagram 4)

Diagram 4. Illustrations of the levels of phenomena, intersections of disciplines, and interlacings of discourses

Reproduced fromDavis, B. 2008. Complexity and Education: Vital simultaneities. Chapter 4 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

CT in this example allows for level jumping (transphenomenality), border crossing

(transdisciplinary) and studying phenomenon at the level of their emergence using the

various discipline discourse languages (interdiscursivity).

In considering Davis’ table I am reminded of the disciplines identified in the

Foundations course. This use of CT to explore simultaneities seems to provide a

framework for a personal understanding of educational technology – almost by only

changing the word mathematics! However there were more disciplines identified in the

Foundations of Educational Technology and I have yet to identify how to include all of

these into a nested system of personal understanding of technology (although I think it

is possible).

Petrina and Feng 2008 map cognition and technology. They identify that the more one

focuses on the cognitive processes of the mind, the more one is focused on the

individual and less on the environment, and the more technology takes an instrumental

role. They argue that although partially derived from theories of technology

(i.e., cybernetics, system dynamics, etc.), theorists of autopoiesis,

enactivism and complexity, have not accounted for technology and that

technologies are merely components within systems or incidental to other

systems. This is a significant issue, however as mentioned previously, I

believe Cognitive Theory while it views the mind as a complex adaptive system

(Morrison 2008) it must interrelate with other complex adaptive systems – which could

and should include technology systems.

A question for further thought - does using the concept of simultaneities from Cognitive

Theory allow for a paradox where instrumental, mediated and cyborgenic learning

approaches exist simultaneously?

Complexity Theory and Instructional Design

You (1993) sets a challenge for chaos theory to be applied to the Instructional Systems

design (ISD). He argues for a new concept of design as dialogue, use of general

instructional guidelines rather than specific learning objectives and identification of the

types of content and contexts for these, identifying ways to apply error-driven

instruction and incidental learning, and new teacher planning processes.

Phelps, Hase and Ellis (2005) report on a computer education program that they

developed focusing on the differences between competence and capability, but also

attempting to design the program using a CT approach. However much of their design

changes were more constructivist in nature than embracing CT.

Complexity and Technology innovation

CT can also be applied to understanding technology innovation and evolution.

Morone’s (2005) review of Frenken’s book Innovation, Evolution and Complexity

outlines his model of how artefact innovation follows a CT framework taking into

account :

the degree of complexity of a system depends directly its number of component

interdependences

that improvement in the system as a whole is obtained only if the improvement

in one of its components outweighs the negative side-effects observed in others

that enlarging a design search strategy may result in “long jumps” towards a

global optimum

Frenken’s model explains an earlier anomaly -.the rate of innovation does not fall as

dominant design emerges. The appearance of a dominant design simply shifts

innovation activities from core to the peripheral components of a technology.

CT has also been used to explain the phenomenon of technology “lock in”. An example

of this is the persistence of the QWERTY key board, originally designed to be

inefficient to stop typewriter keys jamming. Business concepts assume that inferior

competitors are winnowed out for the most efficient, however the concept of “inertial

momentum” has resulted in the continued dominance of this key board. (Mason 2008)

Technology as Complex Adaptive Systems

Technology can be described as a complex adaptive system.

Pan (2010) analyses the internet as a complex adaptive system of individuals and

computers. He notes that without being planned by a “master architect” the networking

evolved until the World Wide Web appeared, self organisation saw growth of the

internet with email, search engine, social networking etc. The internet encapsulates its

own world, but from a human point of view it co-exists within the universe, it evolves

and adapts as its environment changes with feedback ie it co-evolves with human

society . “Iteration by iteration, the internet continues not only to shape, but to define

the world at an ever increasing rate, towards an unknowable future.”

Urqhart (2011) comments that cloud computing is evolving into a complex adaptive

system – where a change in one element triggers an automated response, then

humans adapt the system by attempting to correct negative behaviours and

encouraging positive ones. And tiny changes to the system can result in large changes

such as Amazon’s extended cloud outage (which his post was commenting on).

Technology for Teaching Complex Adaptive Systems

In Foundations we considered the impacts of technology on humans in the fields of

spirituality, psychology, politics, ecology etc but also recognised that educational

technology can be a vehicle for learning about and experiencing these eg technology

provides the opportunity for someone to undertake Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

online, one can attend church on the internet etc.

Technology may be a complex adaptive system, but it also provides opportunities for

learning about complex adaptive systems using rich simulation environments eg.

Netlogo and HubNet (a classroom participatory simulation).

http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

Conclusion

Having explored CT I suspect my comfort and interest in it is in part due to Tosey’s

(2002) assessment that we all have experienced it:

“ as educators we already often recognise that we cannot control or

determine (many forms of) learning; that students are essentially

self-organising; that (much) learning is emergent and constructed

– and often the most valuable learning is like this. Most of us

recognise the paradox that if we focus on learning (product) that

can be `engineered’ we limit the educational experience. Many of us

believe that the best we can do – and that what we should do as

professionals – is create conditions under which learning is likely to

emerge, and that our educational relationship to students is highly

influential – we do not stand outside their learning. This necessarily

means working at the edge of chaos.”

Davis and Sumara (2008) make a good argument for viewing Complexity as a theory of

education, especially for the purposes of research. However as a theory it should make

educational technology systems explicit, as we now live in a world where technology

and human interactions fulfil the remit of complex adaptive systems.

As a critique Mason (2008) identifies ten challenges to CT:

1. It is a descriptive theory and cannot be prescriptive

2. It is amoral and education is a moral enterprise

3. Knowledge is regarded as a social construct and is highly pragmatic – it could

be perceived as relativism

4. It brings many of the issues of education together into a coherent framework –

what added value does it provide?

5. It provides a sharp and timely critique of positivism but positivism does have

benefits.

6. Learners may not want to be complex adaptive systems, they may prefer

equilibrium and certainty

7. It under theorises power, or its lack

8. Its unpredictable nature may create problems of responsibility

9. Is it purely a theory of survival or is it focused on development?

10. How does one identify the boundaries of systems, and “what is the whole”?

CT is still a new and developing theory and time may answer these challenges, but for

now it provides a valuable lens through which to view three areas of my world

education, management and medicine.

References

AECT Definition and Terminology Committee document #MM4.0 June 1, 2004.The Meanings of Educational Technology. http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Meanings%20of%20ET_4.0.pdf

Bloom J. (2009) Issues of Learning and cognition as complex systems. Presented at American Educational Research Association. From Chaos and Complexity Theories in Education Group. http://chaoscomplexityineducation.wikidot.com/research:papersindex.

Campbell, C. (1989) Chaos Theory and Competency based Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 14 (2) , Article 1

Davis B, Sumara D 2008: Complexity as a theory of education Transnational Curriculum Inquiry 5 (2): 33-44. http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci

Davis, B. 2008. Complexity and Education: Vital simultaneities. Chapter 4 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

Dorbolo, J. (2004). Review of educational technology Ethics and Information Technology: The development of a concept, 5(1), 68-70.

Ely, D. P. (1999). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology: Thirty years on. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 305-310.

Haggis, T. (2009) Beyond ‘mutual constitution’: looking at learning and context from the perspective of complexity theory in Edwards, R. Biesta, G & Thorpe, M. (2009) rethinking Contexts for learning and Teaching: Communities, Activities and Networks. London, Routledge.

Hlynka D, Jacobsen M. (2009) What is educational technology anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of learning and technology 35(2) Spring. http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/527/260

Hsu, H M. (2006) Technological transformation: A case study of technology integration in a foreign language program. Proquest Dissertations and Theses.

Issroff, K. Scanlon, E. (2002) Educational technology: the Influence of Theory. Journal of Interactive media in education (6):1-13

Januszewski, A. (2001) Educational technology: the development of a concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Mason, M. 2008. Complexity Theory and What are its Implications for educational change? Chapter 3 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

Mason, M. 2008. Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education. Chapter 1 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

Morrison, K. 2008. Educational Philosophy and the Challenge of Complexity theory. . Chapter 4 in Mason M. (2009) Complexity and Education: Inquiries into Learning, Teaching, and Research. Wiley-Blackwell

Morone, P. (2007) Review of Innovation, Evolution and Complexity Theory. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/10/3/reviews/morone.html

Nardi, B. A. (1995) Studying Context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distrubuted cognition. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.) Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 35-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Obolensky, N. (2010) Complex adaptive leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Gower Publishing Company

Pan (2010) The Internet analysed as a Complex Adaptive System. Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligencehttp://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/the-internet-analyzed-as-a-complex-adaptive-system

Petrina, S. & Feng, F. (2008). Primer for defining and theorizing technology in education Pt 2. Vancouver, BC: Tech no-Printing Press.

Phelps, R. Hase, S. Ellis, A. (2005) Competency, capability, complexity and computers: exploring a new model for conceptualising end-user computer education. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 67-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00439.x

Stanley D. Complexity Theory: Portraits, Principals and Practices of Imagination? http://dev.papers.ierg.net/papers/Darren%20Stanley%20%20Complexity%20Theory.pdf

Tosey P. (2002) Teaching on the edge of chaos. Complexity theory, learning Systems and enhancement. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resource_database/id111_Teaching_at_the_Edge_of_Chaos.

Urquhart J. (2011) Outages, complexity, and the stronger cloud. CNET news May 4http://news.cnet.com/8301-19413_3-20059848-240.html?tag=mncol;txt

You Y. 1993. What Can We Learn from Chaos Theory? An Alternative Approach to Instructional Systems Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 41, No. 3 (1993), pp. 17-32. Springer Stable http://www.jstor.org/stable/30218385 .

Zimmerman, B. (2001) Ralph Stacey's Agreement & Certainty. Matrix Edgeware - Aideshttp://www.plexusinstitute.com/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html