Emergent Learning Outcomes: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning in
International Politics
The HEA’s subject network for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics (CSAP) funded a project
at Aberystwyth University to investigate the traditional model of intended learning outcomes
(ILOs) and, using the relatively new paradigm of Complex Adaptive Systems, considered
whether Hussey & Smith’s model of emergent learning outcomes (ELOs) can be better
utilised to enhance the cohesiveness of student modularised learning and expand the
boundaries of knowledge par excellence.
The project ran in three stages. Firstly, analysing and benchmarking existing modules
against the QAA’s own guidelines on learning outcomes in relation to the Academic
Infrastructure. Secondly, gathering student input and responses to the concept of emergent
learning. Thirdly, considering whether emergent learning outcomes are a feasible addition to
the module planning and assessment process, as well as theorising on a broader concept of
a ‘liberated / liberal learner’.
The headline results were:
 Complex adaptive systems (CAS) is a useful framework for investigating issues of
pedagogic development. It allows for competing pedagogic ideas to be synthesised
within the framework and enables the creation of a more flexible methodology of
practice.
 Constructive alignment (Biggs and Collis, 1994) is a useful tool for the construction of
the learning process; however, ILOs should not be the principal mechanism for
defining summative assessment.
 Improved assessment criteria should be defined which expand basic ILOs. Kember’s
(2009: 114-131) expanded SOLO taxonomy is a useful tool for defining assessment
criteria, however, the lecturer’s own perception is essential in defining representation
of SOLO categories.
 Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are essential in module planning to indicate the
direction of teaching, however, it must be recognised that ILOs represent the
lecturer’s intentions for study, not the student’s.
 Students’ ipsative (that is student defined) intended learning outcomes should also
be considered. By using complex adaptive systems as a framework students’ prior
history and future needs can be assessed and recognised as highly relevant to the
learning process.
 The study notes that learning is a process of emergence from an interaction of the
student with the lecturer and the curriculum. Emergent learning however, can be
greater than and different to or less than and different to the intended learning
outcomes.
 The study contends that a ‘learning fulcrum’ exists whereby intended learning
outcomes, ipsative learning outcomes and emergent learning outcomes need to be
balanced.
 Stacey (1995, 1996)1 notes that complex adaptive systems (including educational
systems) are paradoxical: that is they seek both stability and instability
simultaneously. If a system becomes too stable this may lead to ossification and
inability to change. Likewise, if the system is subjected to too much change this leads
to instability and disintegration: both outcomes though lead to organisational decay.
1
Stacey, R. (1995), The Science of Complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management
Journal, 16 477-495
Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler, San Fransisco



In an educational context therefore attention must be paid to balancing the fulcrum.
For example, too much emphasis on intended learning outcomes will lead to
instability in the system and emergent and ipsative learning outcomes will be ignored
to the detriment of the systems. Likewise, if too much emphasis is placed on ipsative
learning outcomes, then the intentions of the module or emergent learning will be
sacrificed.
In a complex adaptive system, feedback is the driver of adaptation and emergence.
This is supported by Kember’s (2009: 66) curriculum planning model which is a
useful representation of the learning and teaching process. It notes that feedback is
central to the development of quality learning. Therefore, to ensure quality learning
the system must be driven by quality feedback.
The principal mechanism for system feedback should be formative feedback and in
the case of an educational system this should be two-way formative assessment.
However, due to the complexity of the system, innovative types of feedback should
also be considered including pre-formative feedback (understanding the students’’
prior history and ipsative learning requirements) as well as ‘sustainable assessment’
(Boud and Fachikov, 1999) which embeds a culture of formative appraisal after the
educational process has ended.
The full project report is available at http://www.c-sap.bham.ac.uk/browseprojects?view=project&id=208.
Outcomes of the project were disseminated at the HEA’s Annual Conference in July 2011.
The presentation can be viewed online at https://sas.elluminate.com/p.jnlp?psid=2011-0706.0540.D.4DD8147854163C71F527C447107507.vcr&sid=2011158.
The project outcomes are to be submitted to two journals: International Studies
Perspectives; and the US based journal of the International Studies Association.
Key contacts:
 Dr Elena Korosteleva, Senior Lecturer, Department of International Politics,
Aberystwyth University, ekk@aber.ac.uk
 Mr Giles Polglase, Assistant Coordinator, Centre for the Development of Staff and
Academic Practice, Aberystwyth University, gop@aber.ac.uk.