Advertisement

Opening the Wondrous World of the Possible for Education: A Generative Complexity Approach

  • Ton Jörg
Chapter

Abstract

This contribution is about the opening of a new perspective on education. This possibility is based on new thinking in complexity about the role of complexity in education. The focus is on understanding generative complexity as self-potentiating; that is, on how complexity is actually generated in the real world. Generative complexity offers the possibility of linking complexity to the concept of transition in “the transitory child.” This concept may be linked to the concept of the so-called Zone of Generativity, and be expanded to the Space of Generativity as a multidimensional, dynamic state hyperspace. The challenge is to show how these concepts may be linked to the opening and enlarging of new spaces of possibility for learning and development in education. New ways of thinking are needed to understand the generative complexity involved. This calls for rethinking the concepts of interaction, causality, and the unit of study. It is urgently needed to become explanatory about the nature of (self-) generative principles and (self-) generative mechanisms, being operative in complex generative processes of generative learning and development. Generative learning and the achievement of individual and collective generativity may be viewed as thriving on the full generative power of interaction.

Keywords

Bootstrapping Mechanisms Deviation Amplifying Mechanisms Direct Causal Effects Emergent Causality Generative Complexity Generative Emergence Indirect Causal Effects Reciprocal Causality Self-enhanced Loop Effects Self-perpetuating Change Self-potentiation Spaces of Generativity Theory of Generative Change Transitional Scaffolds Transitional Psychological Systems Zone of Generativity 

References

  1. Arthur, W. B. (2013). Complexity economics: A different framework for economic thought. SFI WORKING PAPER: 2013-04-012. Retrieved the 20th of January 2015 at http://www.santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/13-04-012.pdf.
  2. Arthur, W. B. (2015). Complexity and the economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, A. F. (2009). Toward a generative theory of change. American Educational Research Review, 46(1), 45–72. Retrieved the 27th of July 2013 at http://aer.sagepub.com/content/46/1/45.full.pdf+html.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, A. F. (2012a). To know is not enough. Presidential address AERA 2012. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/tabid/13250/Default.aspx.
  5. Ball, A. F. (2012b). To know is not enough: Knowledge, power, and the zone of generativity. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabási, A. L. (2003). Linked. How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  7. Bhaskar, R. (2011). Reclaiming reality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder (CO): Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Blossfeld, H.-P. (2009). Causation as a generative process. The elaboration of an idea for the social sciences and an application to an analysis of an interdependent dynamic social system. In H. Engelhardt, H.-P. Kohler, & A. Fürnkranz-Prskawetz (Eds.), Causal analysis in population studies. Concepts, methods, applications (pp. 83–109). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bohm, D., & Peat, D. M. (2000). Science, order, and creativity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Buber, M. (1970/1928). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  13. Caporael, L. R., Griesemer, J. R., & Wimsatt, W. C. (Eds.). (2014). Developing scaffolds in evolution, culture, and cognition. The Vienna series in theoretical biology. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Capra, F., Juarrero, A., Sotolongo, P., & Van Uden, J. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing omplexity. Mansfield (MA): ISCE Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Carey, S. E. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origin of concepts. Daedalus, 133 (1), 59-68. Google Scholar
  16. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cilliers, P. (1998). Acknowledging complexity. Foreword. In G. Biesta & D. Osberg (Eds.), Complexity theory and the politics of education (pp. vii–viii). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching. A genealogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, B., Phelps, R., & Wells, K. (2005). Complicity: An introduction and a welcome. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  20. Fazio, X., & Gallagher, T. L. (2009). Supporting learning: An examination of two teacher development collectives. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Fenwick, T. (2009). Responsibility, complexity science and education: Dilemmas and uncertain responses. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fenwick, T. (2012). Complexity science and professional learning for collaboration: A critical reconsideration of possibilities and limitations. Journal of Education and Work, 25(1), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Follett, M. P. (1924). The creative experience. See also P. Graham (1995). Also (partly) retrievable via http://www.follettfoundation.org/writings.htm.
  25. Graham, P. (Ed.). (1995). Mary Parker Follett. Prophet of management. A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  26. Grotzer, T. (2012). Learning causality in a complex world. Understandings of consequence. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.Google Scholar
  27. Hawking, S. (2000). San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 20th January from http://www.comdig.com/stephen-hawking.php
  28. Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modelling with Lisrel: Essentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL issues, debates, and strategies. London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Illari, P., & Russo, F. (2014). Causality. Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL8: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SSI.Google Scholar
  32. Jörg, T. (2004). A theory of reciprocal learning in dyads. Cognitive Systems, 6(2, 3), 159–170. European Society for the Study of Cognitive Systems (ESSCS), Groningen (The Netherlands): ESSCS.Google Scholar
  33. Jörg, T. (2009). Thinking in complexity about learning and education – a programmatic view. Complicity, 6(1), 1–15. http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY6/Complicity6_TOC.htm.Google Scholar
  34. Jörg, T. (2010). The paradigm of complexity and the future of education. Paper presented at the conference on theorizing on education, at the University of Sterling, 24–26 of June 2010. Sterling (UK).Google Scholar
  35. Jörg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities – a generative, transdisciplinary approach. New York: Springer Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jörg, T., & Akkaoui Hughes, S. (2013). Harnessing the complexity of innovation. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science, 4(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jörg, T. (2014). The crisis of knowing in the age of complexity. In M. E. Jennec (Ed.), Knowledge, discovery, transfer, and management in the information age (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jörg, T., Davis, B., & Nickmans, G. (2007). Towards a new complexity science of learning and education. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kauffman, S. A. (2009). Foreword. The open universe. In R. Ulanowicz (Ed.), The third window. Natural life beyond Newton and Darwin (pp. ix–xvii). West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kauffman, S. A. (2013). Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and entailing law: The origin of complexity in the evolving biosphere. In C. H. Lineweaver, P. C. W. Davies, & M. Ruse (Eds.), Complexity and the arrow of time (pp. 162–190). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lichtenstein, B. B. (2014). Generative emergence. A new discipline of organizational, entrepreneurial, and social innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Lord, B. (1994). Teacher’s professional development: Critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In N. Cobb (Ed.), The future of education (pp. 175–204). New York: College Board Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Mainzer, K. (2004/2007). Thinking in complexity. The computational dynamics of matter, mind, and mankind. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. American Scientist, 5(2), 164–179.Google Scholar
  47. Maturana, H. R. (1980), In: H.R. Maturana & F. J. Varela, Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  48. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/PLSC541_Fall06/Merton_Science_1968.pdf.
  49. Mitchell, C. M. (2011). Complexity. A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Müller, K. H., & Riegler, A. (2014). Second-order science: A vast and largely unexplored science frontier. Constructivist Foundations, 10(1), 7–15. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/10/1/007.introduction.Google Scholar
  51. Nowotny, H. (2013). The embarrassment of complexity. Presentation at the 5th Global Drucker Forum, Vienna, 14–15 November 2013. Retrieved the 20th of January 2015 at http://helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b143.pdf.
  52. Osberg, D. (2009). “Enlarging the space of the possible” around what is means to educate and be educated. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 6(1), iii–x.Google Scholar
  53. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Pellegrino, J. W. (1994). Generative learning and anchored instruction: design, research and implementation issues. In P. M. Creemers & G. J. Reezigt (Eds.), New directions in educational research (pp. 33–61). Groningen: ICO‐publications.Google Scholar
  56. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work. Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  57. Phelps, R., & Hase, S. (2002). Complexity and action research: Exploring the theoretical and methodological connection. Educational Action Research, 10(3), 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity. A philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines. Biology beyond determinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rossi, F., Russo, M., Sardo, S., & Whitford, J. (2010). Innovation. generative relationships and scaffolding structures. Implications of a complexity perspective to innovation for public and private interventions. In P. Ahrweiler (Ed.), Innovation in complex social systems (pp. 150–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Sassone, L. A. (1996). Philosophy across the curriculum: A democratic Nietzschean pedagogy. Educational Theory, 46(4), 511–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sassone, L. A. (2002). The process of becoming. A democratic Nietzschean philosophical pedagogy for individualization. Chicago: Discovery Ass. Publishing House.Google Scholar
  63. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  64. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  65. Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence. Exploring profound change in people, organizations and society. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Sloman, A. (2015). Meta-morphogenesis and toddler theorems: Case studies. Retrieved from http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/toddler-theorems.html
  67. Sumara, D., & Davis, B. (1997). Enlarging the space of the possible: Complexity, complicity, and action-research practices. Action Research as a Living Practice, 67, 299–312. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/42975255?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106640017293.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, M. (2001). The moment of complexity: Emerging network culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development. Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  70. Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Vygotsky, L. (1987). In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), Collected works, Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vygotsky, L. (1997). In R. W. Rieber, & J. Wollock (Eds.), Collected works, Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  74. Vygotsky, L. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wimsatt, W. C. (2014). Entrenchment and scaffolding: An architecture for a theory of cultural change. In L. R. Caporael, J. R. Griesemer, & W. C. Wimsatt (Eds.), Developing scaffolds in evolution, culture, and cognition. The Vienna series in theoretical biology (pp. 77–105). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wimsatt, W. C., & Schank, R. (2002). In G. Schlosser & G. Wagner (Eds.), Modularity in development and evolution (pp. 359–394). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/ModelsAndPrediction/papers/wimsatt.Mod-evol-pardx-89POSTfin.pdf.
  77. Wiseman, L. (2010). Multipliers. How the best leaders make everyone smarter. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations