Complexity Theory and Emergence: Contributions to ESD

  • Sarah Chave
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter aims to enable the reader to understand and reflect on the ideas of complexity theory and emergence and apply them to developing practical approaches to Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The chapter begins with a theoretical explanation of complexity and emergence and then introduces Doll’s (1993) 4 Rs approach (Richness, Recursion, Relations and Rigour) to provide a practical framework for working with these ideas. It ends with a case study of student teachers developing ESD in their curricula using Heron and Reason’s (2001) co-operative inquiry approach and a complexity approach incorporating the 4 Rs model. Reflective, critical thinking and research tasks are provided throughout the chapter for those who want to explore the concepts and practical ideas in more depth.

Keywords

Student Teacher Complexity Theory Cultural Relation Complexity Thinking Democratic Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Biesta, G. (2003). Learning from Levinas: A response. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(1), 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder, CL: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  3. Chave, S. (2015). Toward temporal conceptions of education as sustainability: Contributions from complexity and process thinking. In W. Leal-Fihlo (Ed.), Transformative approaches to sustainable development at Universities: Working across disciplines. Springer International: Cham, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, I. (2004). Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode, 36(4), 557–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, B., Phelps, R., & Wells, K. (2004). Complicity: An introduction and a welcome. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 1(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning and research. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research “with rather than “on” people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 179–188). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Huebner, D. (1999). The Lure of the Transcendent. Mahweh, NJ: Erbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Hunter, J. W., & Benson, G. D. (1997). Arrows in time: The misapplication of Chaos Theory to education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen, B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kuhn, L. (2008). Complexity and educational research: A critical reflection. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason, M. (2008a). Making educational development and change sustainable: Insights from complexity theory. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(2), 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mason, M. (2008b). What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational change? International Journal of Educational Development, 40(1), 35–49.Google Scholar
  15. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Osberg, D. (in press). Learning, complexity and emergent (irreversible) change. Sage Handbook of Learning. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2008). The emergent curriculum: Navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies., 40(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sterling, S., Irving, D., Maiteny, P., & Salter. J. (2005) Linkingthinking: New perspectives on thinking and learning for sustainability. Aberfeldy: WWF Scotland. RetrievedJune 29, 2015, from http://www.eauc.org.uk/wwf_linking_thinking_new_perspectives_on_thinking_
  22. Turner, D. (2005). The theory of education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. United Nations. (2005). World Summit Outcome Document, September 15, 2005. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://www.who.int/hiv/universalaccess2010/worldsummit.pdf

Further Reading

  1. Doll (1993) provides, introduces, the possibilities offered by complexity-informed approaches to education and connects these to the work of theorists such as Piaget and Dewey.Google Scholar
  2. Davis and Sumara (2006) provides a straightforward introduction to complexity thinking and education.Google Scholar
  3. The Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory published a special volume in 2008 (Vol. 40 No. 1) exploring complexity theory and educational research. It provides articles on: complexity theory and education (Mason 2008a and b), complexity and truth (Radford 2008), Foucault ‘as a complexity theorist’ (Olssen 2008), human research and complexity theory (Horn 2008) and the student as subject (Osberg and Biesta 2008).Google Scholar
  4. Biesta (2013) provides a challenging discussion of democratic possibilities of adopting complexity thinking in education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Chave
    • 1
  1. 1.Plymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations