Is Complexity Theory Useful in Describing Classroom Learning?
Author(s):
Mark Hardman
Conference:
ECER 2010
Network:
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Format:
Paper

Session Information

27 SES 08 C, The Knowledge of Teachers in Professional Development

Paper Session

Time:
2010-08-26
17:15-18:45
Room:
M.B. SALI 13, Päärakennus / Main Building
Chair:
Meinert Arnd Meyer

Contribution

Complexity theory in the physical sciences describes systems in which groups of agents acting in relation to only their immediate environment nevertheless develop an organisational structure which is able to evolve and adapt.  It also highlights the sensitivity of this structure to small changes and the indeterminate nature of these changes.

In education, these characteristics have been applied to understanding action research (Radford, 2008); curriculum (Osberg, 2005; Doll, 2008) and change in educational systems (Mason, 2008).  Whilst this is a promising field, complexity theory within education is still in its infancy, and a systematic and rigorous evaluation of the validity of transferring concepts from the physical to the social sciences is urgently required before analysing the usefulness of complexity theory in describing educational settings. 

In this paper I evaluate the validity of transferring understanding about complex systems from the physical sciences to understanding the dynamic interactions in a classroom, through focus on the below research questions:

1.       What general properties of complex systems can be defined from the physical sciences?

2.       What is the validity of using this understanding of complex systems to consider learning in classrooms?

3.       How useful are concepts from complexity theory in understanding classroom learning?

Through these research questions the paper leads to the development of a theoretical framework for describing classrooms as a complex system.

Method

Whilst broad critical reading forms a background to the research, the focus of this paper is the mapping of complexity in relation to two specific sources in the physical sciences, namely Prigogine’s (1978, 1984, 1997) pioneering work on complex chemical systems and Cilliers’ (1998) presentation of complex neural networks. This analysis of complexity in the natural sciences forms the basis of expounding the characteristics of complex systems. These characteristics are then analysed in relation to classroom learning in order to assess the validity of applying these concepts in this new setting. A small scale study of a cohort of trainee teachers gained their opinions of the utility of applying complexity theory in relation to classrooms, and this is related to the theoretical findings of the author in evaluating complexity theory as a framework for understanding classroom learning.

Expected Outcomes

I argue that a classroom may be considered as a complex system in which individuals learn, but also in which the classroom system dynamically alters in relation to both its internal structure and environment. This includes the emergence of behavioural norms within a classroom and the incorporation of the histories of the students such that aspects of both behaviourist and constructivist learning theories are subsumed. However, such conceptualisation requires a definition of learning which transcends traditional notions of knowledge and skill acquisition and incorporates all experiences in the classroom. Although further work is needed to establish how it might inform teaching, initial consideration of complex dynamics within a classroom supports the unpredictable nature of classroom learning which educationalists have been aware of for centuries. Complexity theory offers a framework for understanding this unpredictability, as well as for promoting the experience of teachers in influencing such systems. It also draws into question reductionist notions of classroom learning and behaviour and explains the need to adapt strategies to particular groups of students. In this sense complexity theory defines the limitations of educational theory and policy, particularly the reductionist measures of student performance presently applied in European schooling systems.

References

Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity & Postmodernism – Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge Doll, W. (2008). Complexity and the Culture of the Curriculum. Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 40, No. 1 Mason, M. (2008) What is Complexity Theory and What Are Its Implications for Educational Change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40 (1) pp35-49 Osberg, D. (2005) Curriculum, Complexity and Representation – Rethinking the epistemology of schooling through complexity theory. Ph.D. Thesis, The Open University Prigogine, I. (1978) Time, Structure, and Fluctuations. Science, New Series Vol. 201, No 4358. Pp. 777-785 Prigogine, I. (1997) The end of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York: The Free Press Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I (1984) Order out of Chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. London: Flamingo Radford, M. (2006) “Researching Classrooms: Complexity & Chaos” 2006, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2 172-90

Author Information

Mark Hardman
Canterbury Christ Church University
Postgraduate Initial Teacher Education (POINTED)
London

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.