ETEC 511 64D
Denise 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 - Aides
http://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 from
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
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 from
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
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 Intelligence
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/the-internet-analyzed-as-a-complex-adaptivesystem
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.pd
f
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_t
he_Edge_of_Chaos.
Urquhart J. (2011) Outages, complexity, and the stronger cloud. CNET news May 4
http://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 Aides
http://www.plexusinstitute.com/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html