Abstract
In the current paper, we develop an approach to early science pedagogy that is based on insights about how complex adaptive systems function. Complexity approaches have an important advantage over traditional information-processing approaches: They anticipate the proverbial ‘mind with a mind of its own’ without having to postulate exclusively mental constructs. They also offer insights about key determinants of learning and effective pedagogy, again without postulating exclusively mental constructs. For complex adaptive systems, learning depends on the presence of sufficiently salient novelty (i.e., variability), and it depends on the presence of sufficiently salient repetitions or ordered patterns (i.e., stability). Science learning, therefore, requires science-relevant novelty and science-relevant patterns of order. Equipped with these insights, we address two challenges of early science pedagogy: (1) how to combine children’s self-guided explorations with teachers’ strategic interventions, and (2) how to minimize the chances of generating misconceptions about science. The answer lies in creating a learning context that maximizes science-relevant variability and science-relevant stability. If both aspects are abundantly available, a child’s self-guided explorations are effective. Conversely, if either aspect is missing, efforts must be made to add them strategically to a child’s experience. Adding science-relevant stability is particularly challenging, yet crucial to avoid science misconceptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The idea of elements being changed is broadly conceived to include not only genuine change but also the idea of elements being created. Incidentally, education typically focuses the process of creating something (e.g., knowledge), while ecology typically focuses on the process of change (e.g., adaptation of species). However, the distinction between creating and changing is likely to be artificial. In reality, elements of complex adaptive systems are neither fully new, nor fully old.
In order to explain why some words are learned much faster than others, Rosch (1975) focused on a word’s level of specificity. Basic-level concepts were said to be neither too specific nor too abstract. Sub-ordinate level concepts, on the other hand, were said to be more specific than basic-level categories; and super-ordinate level categories were said to be less specific (i.e., more abstract) than basic-level categories. The complexity view is in line with this taxonomy but adds detail to what is meant with specificity.
References
Allesina, S., & Bondavalli, C. (2003). Steady state of ecosystem flow networks: a comparison between balancing procedures. Ecological Modelling, 165(2-3), 221–229.
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: a simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.
Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers.
Ashiabi, G. S. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: its socioemotional significance and the teacher’s role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 199–207.
Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: learning as participation in autocatakinetic systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 349–390.
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.
Brenneman, K., & Louro, I. F. (2008). Science journals in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 113–119.
Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101–108.
Caldarelli, G., & Catanzaro, M. (2012). Networks: a very short introduction (Vol. 335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.
Carey, B. (2014). How we learn: the surprising truth about when, where, and why it happens. New York, NY: Random House.
Castillo, R., Kloos, H., Richardson, M., & Waltzer, T. (2015). Beliefs as self-sustaining networks: drawing parallels between networks of ecosystems and adults’ predictions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). Nonlinear pedagogy: learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(2), 189–200.
Clarke, A., & Collins, S. (2007). Complexity science and student teacher supervision. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.006.
Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Knowledge embedded in process: the self-organization of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science, 11(2), 195–203.
Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120(3), 341–349.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034903.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, C., Nikolić, I., & Dijkema, G. P. (2009). Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling: toward informed decisions on evolving infrastructure systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 306–325.
Deacon, T. W. (2011). Incomplete nature: how mind emerged from matter. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Diamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on A-not-B. Child Development, 56(4), 868–883.
Diamond, A. (1990). Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of inhibitory control in reaching. In A. Diamond (Ed.), The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions (pp. 637–676). New York: National Academic of Sciences.
Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2003.11661478.
Fenwick, T. (2008). Responsibility, complexity science and education: dilemmas and uncertain responses. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9099-x.
Fine, C. (2008). A mind of its own: how your brain distorts and deceives. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878.
Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1998). The mind has a mind of its own: developing knowledge about mental uncontrollability. Cognitive Development, 13(1), 127–138.
Fleer, M. (1991). Socially constructed learning in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 96–103.
Fleer, M., & Beasley, W. (1991). A study of conceptual development in early childhood. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 104–112.
Fodor, J. A. (1981). Representations: philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for education reform. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of Curriculum and Development.
Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2004). The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT press.
Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based in teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.
Golbeck, S. L. (2001). Psychological perspectives on early childhood education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gopnik, A. (1996). The scientist as child. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 485–514.
Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623–1627.
Gross, T., & Blasius, B. (2008). Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 5(20), 259–271.
Hadley, E. (2002). Playful disruptions. Early Years, 22(1), 9–17.
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–831.
Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202.
Holland, J. H. (2000). Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-0060001-z.
Hunter, J., Monroe-Ossi, H., & Fountain, C. (2008). Young Florida naturalists: concept mapping and science learning of preschool children. In A. J. Cañas, P. Reiske, M. Åhlberg, & D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Connecting educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland: University of Finland.
Iberall, A. S., & McCulloch, W. S. (1969). The organizing principle of complex living systems. Journal of Basic Engineering, 91(2), 290–294.
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.
Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kagan, S. L. (1990). Children’s play: the journey from theory to practice. In E. S. Klugman & S. Smilansky (Eds.), Children’s play and learning: perspectives and policy implications (pp. 173–187). New York: Teachers College Press.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press.
Kauffmann, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. NY: Oxford University Press.
Kelemen, D. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70(3), 241–272.
Kello, C. T., Beltz, B. C., Holden, J. G., & Van Orden, G. C. (2007). The emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 551–568.
Kelso, J. S., Dumas, G., & Tognoli, E. (2013). Outline of a general theory of behavior and brain coordination. Neural Networks, 37, 120–131.
Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling: Constructing, using, evaluating, and revising scientific models helps students advance their scientific ideas, learn to think critically, and understand the nature of science. Science and Children, 46, 40–44.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Kloos, H., Baker, H., Luken, E., Brown, R., Pfeiffer, D., & Carr, V. (2012). Preschoolers learning science: myth or reality? In H. Kloos, B. J. Morris, & J. L. Amaral (Eds.), Current topics in children’s learning and cognition (pp. 45–70). Rijeka: Tech - Open Access Publisher. https://doi.org/10.5772/54119.
Kloos, H., Waltzer, T., Maltbie, C., Brown, R., & Carr, V. (2018). Inconsistencies in early science education: can nature help streamline state standards? Ecopsychology, 10(4), 243–258.
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.
Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.
La Cerra, P., & Bingham, R. (2002). The origin of minds: evolution, uniqueness, and the new science of the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366.
Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, 40, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307351.ch1.
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
Mendes, J. F. F., & Dorogovtsev, S. N. (2003). Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the internet and WWW. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Michaelian, K. (2005). Thermodynamic stability of ecosystems. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 237(3), 323–335.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: educating our preschoolers. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity: an introduction. New York: WH Freeman.
Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: how the mind overrides experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Human learning. London: Pearson Higher Education.
Pantaleone, J. (2002). Synchronization of metronomes. American Journal of Physics, 70(10), 992–1000.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Vol. 5001). New York City: Basic books.
Posner, M. I., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: conflict, target detection, and cognitive control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2016). How does a word become a message? An illustration on a developmental time-scale. New Ideas in Psychology, 42, 46–55.
Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2002). Variability and determinism in motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34(2), 99–125.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schulz, L. (2012). The origins of inquiry: inductive inference and exploration in early childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 382–389.
Shtulman, A. (2017). Scienceblind: why our intuitive theories about the world are so often wrong. London: Hachette UK.
Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124(2), 209–215.
Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: the insides story. Cognition, 56(2), 129–163.
Spencer, J., Thomas, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2009). Toward a new unified theory of development: connectionism and dynamical systems theory re-considered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sporns, O., & Zwi, J. D. (2004). The small world of the cerebral cortex. Neuroinformatics, 2(2), 145–162.
Strogatz, S. (2004). Sync: the emerging science of spontaneous order. London: Penguin UK.
Swenson, R. (2000). Spontaneous order, autocatakinetic closure, and the development of space-time. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 311–319.
Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 457–482.
Tumer, E. C., & Brainard, M. S. (2007). Performance variability enables adaptive plasticity of ‘crystallized’ adult birdsong. Nature, 450(7173), 1240–1244.
Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (2012). On intelligence from first principles: guidelines for inquiry into the hypothesis of physical intelligence (PI). Ecological Psychology, 24, 3–32.
Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A third window: natural life beyond Newton and Darwin. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.
Ulanowicz, R. E. (2012). Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 331–350.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50(1), 47–54.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.
Weber, B. H. (2010). What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 40(2), 221–229.
Weisberg, R. W., & Reeves, L. M. (2013). Cognition: from memory to creativity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (2009). Systems theory. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 325–355). New York City: Springer US.
Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: when should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). Abingdon: Routledge.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149.
Funding
Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation (DLS 13138890; Kloos).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Highlights
• A new approach to early science learning is offered, motivated by insights about the mind as a complex adaptive system.
• Complexity theory, unlike information-processing theory, anticipates the often-lamented tendency for the mind to behave as if having a mind of its own.
• Two key determinants of learning are identified: (1) the amount of variability in the surrounding, and (2) the amount of stability from one experience to the next.
• Science topics can be organized systematically by whether the variability and stability available in the surrounding are relevant to the chosen science topic.
• Science topics with sufficient variability and stability (i.e., basic-level science content) are best learned via mere explorations, without needing teacher intervention.
• Science topics that lack either variability or stability (i.e., sub-ordinate and super-ordinate level science content, respectively) require teacher intervention to support learning.
Initial impetus for this work came from inspiring interactions with preschool teachers during a workshop on science learning, organized by LeeAnn Lang and the Cincinnati Museum Center. We thank Stellan Ohlsson, Vicki Carr, Anna Fisher, Chris Erb, Chris Bell, and Jay Dixon for formative comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Essential feedback was also provided by the students of the Special Topics graduate course in experimental psychology at the University of Cincinnati (Spring 2017). For questions about this manuscript, please contact the authors (heidi.kloos@uc.edu, bakerhe@live.com, or twaltzer@ucsc.edu).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kloos, H., Baker, H. & Waltzer, T. A Mind with a Mind of Its Own: How Complexity Theory Can Inform Early Science Pedagogy. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 735–752 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09472-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09472-6