Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

論文

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

Conrad BUCSIS

要約本論文は，複雑性と複雑適応系の科学，およびそのような科学が人間の学習についての理解にもたらし得る知見について論じる。人間の思考を複雑適応系と見なす可能性について検討するとともに，そこから学校教育の学習環境の設計に対して得られる含意を提示する。筆者は，生徒が事故の学習地平を形成するべく積極的な行動をとることができるよう，「車輪の再発明」を行わせることの重要性について論じる。

Abstract
This paper discusses the science of complexity and complex
adaptive systems and how such science might inform theunderstanding of human learning. The possibility of viewing humanthinking as a complex adaptive system is explored and implications
for designing formal learning environments are suggested. The
author argues for the importance of allowing students to “reinvent
the wheel” in order to take an active part in sculpting theirindividual learning landscapes.

75

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

Part 2: The Learning LandscapeIntroduction to the Learning Landscape
There are always multiple layers in a landscape. That’s why revisiting a landscapeis never boring. Every time we return, we see it in a different light. We normallysee an intermingling of different aspects of multiple sub-landscapes when
we appreciate the beauty of the whole. (Visser, Landscaping the Learning
Environment to Create a Home for the Complex Mind, 2001)

Visser writes about the “learning landscape” as a way of visualizing the external
contexts within which learning takes place. Kelso maps the interior learning landscape.
The concept of the learning landscape fits nicely with the research on complexity andlearning, as well as providing a visual metaphor for the next portion of this discussion.
The previous discussion of complex adaptive systems and brain functioning lends
itself to a view of learning as an active, evolving process rather than as a product. In
addition, it suggests that the learning process is a nonlinear one. Simple ideas of cause
and effect cannot adequately describe the learning process. The ever-changing nature of
the learning process makes a definition of learning in terms of products unworkable. Thevery best one can hope for by naming products is a snapshot of a moment, recognizing
that, like all snapshots, the moment it describes is irretrievably transformed by time.
Thus, the snapshot can never provide a definitive description.
Not only does this perspective require one to view learning as a process whichis inextricable from the system of which it is a part, it requires a recognition of eachhuman as a unique entity within whom there is an irreducible and irreproducible context
in which learning is taking place. The context is irreproducible in any other human, as
well as in that same human at a different moment in time. Learning is not the process of
capturing a moment, but a process integral to creating the moment. This is an importantdistinction, and one which merits consideration in any discussion of the design of formal
learning environments.

Biologue
The idea of continuous dialogue fits well with what has been discussed aboutcomplex adaptive systems as well as autopoietic unities. In an attempt to capture an even76

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

more dynamic notion—an image of many, many dialogues occurring simultaneously, atmany levels of living interactions, a new term is proposed: biologue.
Biologue encompasses the concept of interactions and transformations occurring
simultaneously at all levels (in this case, the term levels denoting differences ofscale and organization) of complex biosystems. In fact, as a starting point, biologue
may be described in precisely these terms. Biologue is the continual interaction andtransformation occurring at all levels of a complex biosystem.
Learning itself can be seen in terms of this biologue. One possibility is to describe
learning as the biologue of a self-organizing complex biosystem through whichtransformation the system creates itself. Seen in this way, every agent of a complex
biological system is in a continual process of transformation that is essential to theexistence of the system. There is a sense of unceasing activity through which a worldis created, after the ideas of Maturana and Varela (26). This description also conveys
the relevance of context, both physical and temporal, within which learning takes place.
And finally, inherent in this perspective is the underlying notion of the unique history of
the system, as the future of the system is created within the context of its physical andtemporal present, the present constructed from the system’s physical and temporal past.

Curiosity and Learning
While learning as a process may be fairly easy for the reader to go along with,learning as a nonlinear process may be a bit more difficult. Learning as a linear activity
is deeply embedded in our language and philosophies.
For example, Shulman says “learning is basically an interplay of two challenging
processes—getting knowledge that is inside to move out, and getting knowledge that is
outside to move in” (1999, p. ?). Shulman further explains “these two processes—theinside-out and the outside-in movements of knowledge—alternate almost endlessly” (?).
From the point of view of complex systems, this linear alternation grossly oversimplifies
the learning process. Here the view is of knowledge as a noun, a static representationin the mind, and the process of learning is seen as an attempt to move discrete units ofknowledge back and forth between the learner and … what? or whom?
To use the word knowledge in reference to learning is to conjure an image that belies
the intricate dynamics of which current brain research suggests knowledge is comprised.
Maybe it is time to reconsider our conception of that word, maybe even replace it with

77

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32a new concept, the verb: knowing—to signify the verb know in the present progressive
tense. It is a simple change that conveys a dramatic change of perspective.
Visser, whose work is steeped in an understanding of complex dynamics, defines
human learning as “the disposition of human beings, and of the social entities to which
they pertain, to engage in continuous dialogue with the human, social, biological andphysical environment, so as to generate intelligent behavior to interact constructively
with change” (Visser, Integrity, Completeness and Comprehensiveness of the Learning
Environment: Meeting the Basic Learning Needs of All Throughout Life, 2001, p. 453).
Thus, according to Visser, learning is more a disposition of mind than an activity—more
a readiness to act than a particular action. For our discussion, Visser’s definition might
be productively applied to the term curiosity .
Visser has further suggested that this disposition “is based on openness of mind andwillingness to interact, i.e. on the readiness to give and in the process receive” (Visser,
The Conditions of Learning in the World of the Twenty-First Century, pp. 8–9). This
captures beautifully the notion of curiosity.
If one looks simply at the idea of willingness and readiness to interact, it can be said
that this definition might apply to complex systems in general. In fact, this precursor
to learning, this learning potential, may be said to be fundamental to complex system
dynamics.
This view of curiosity, like the view of learning previously discussed, may haveconsciousness as a component, but consciousness is not necessarily required. It is moreof a biological approach to curiosity. Webster’s defines curiosity as, “a desire to learn”(Guralnik, 1979, p. 153). The desire need not be a conscious one, but rather is an innate
disposition (to use Visser’s term) toward learning.
The reader might question the value in viewing curiosity and learning from thisbiological perspective when considering the design of formal learning environments.
The value lies in approaching an educational environment with the assumption that every
participant is naturally predisposed toward learning and in fact, is learning all the time.
To design with this assumption in mind is to see the designer’s (and the teacher’s) role as
more of a facilitator than as one who is to impart knowledge packets that must somehow
be “gotten into” the learner. When we encourage an innate disposition to learn, we are
activating a biological imperative.
Even if one can accept that every participant is learning, there may be a discrepancy

78

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

between the learning taking place and the learning intended by the teacher, curriculum
designer, parents, facilitator or society. The focus in the educational system is often on
what is not being learned, rather than what is being learned. The situation is further
complicated by the fact that even learners themselves often cannot identify, are often noteven aware of, vast tracts of their own learning landscapes.
Then, what is the point of talking about curiosity and learning without consciousness?
First of all, simply assuming that everyone is learning all the time might move the focus
within the educational system from lack to abundance. A focus on the abundance oflearning might generate a more encouraging environment for all concerned. Secondly,
the admission that no one can possibly fathom the entire learning landscape and its
continual transformation might stimulate questions about how learning is or should beassessed. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, such an approach might encourage
greater mindfulness regarding how and what manifestations of learning are valued.

Consciousness and LearningThis paper has argued for a view of learning as a process that is fundamental to living
and inseparable from it. Now the focus is going to move from this general understanding
toward some aspects of learning that are of particular concern to those involved in formal
learning environments. The first of these topics is the role of consciousness in learning.
A theory of consciousness is well beyond the scope of this paper. It will not
be necessary here to determine the origin or nature of consciousness, or to define
consciousness in specific terms. A simple definition (taken from Webster’s New World
Dictionary) of consciousness as “awareness” will suffice(Guralnik, 1979, pp. 132–
133). This conventional use of the term consciousness will be entirely adequate for the
discussion to follow.
From the discussion so far it could be said that if a complex adaptive system exists,then it is engaged in biologues in which learning is taking place. Similarly, if learning
is not taking place then the system ceases to exist. Therefore, it is safe to assume that inevery living human, learning is continuously taking place. If an individual human is acomplex adaptive system comprised of many other complex adaptive systems, it can also
be said that biologues are going on simultaneously at many different scales.
For the sake of discussion, I’d like to suggest a somewhat arbitrary division of thesemany biologues into three categories with regard to consciousness: 1) those of which one

79

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32is unaware, 2) those of which one has the potential to be aware, and 3) those of which
one is aware. The first category—biologues of which one is never aware under ordinary
circumstances—would include those taking place at the cellular level, for example. With
the possible exception of certain laboratory situations, a human individual is entirely
unaware of the firing of neurons in the central nervous system and the exchange ofgases involved in respiration. If one can accept that these cellular systems are indeed
complex adaptive systems, then learning at this level is certainly taking place. While
such learning is of great importance to the survival of an individual, it is not generally
considered a subject of consciousness. This is not to say that consciousness cannot affectthese processes, only that the processes themselves, at a cellular level, are not subject toconscious awareness. For ease of discussion, this level of learning will be referred to as
nonconscious learning.
Research also suggests that unconscious learning is taking place during the myriadinteractions with one’s social and physical environments as one goes about the businessof daily living. For example, one may feel uncomfortable in meeting a particular person
for the first time, and without realizing it, step back a pace or two from that person. Thisbias may likely be the result of unconscious learning.
Unconscious learning and responses also have great value for survival. For example,
a friend once described a situation in which she was waiting at the curb for a bus. She
was reading while she waited, her conscious attention focused on the book. Suddenly
she realized that she had jumped back as a car had come up over the curb in the place
where she had been standing a moment before. Her body responded to the threat before
the danger had had a chance to register in her consciousness. She only realized what
had happened after the event. LeDoux discusses the fact that reactions such as thisbypass the cortex, thus they are not subject to conscious interpretation while they are
occurring(1998, p. 163). This bypass buys the human the tiny bit of extra time that may
mean the difference between life and death. Unconscious learning is a powerful force
in the human experience and the implications for formal learning environments are
intriguing. We will explore this idea further in the next section.
The second category—biologues of which one has the potential to be aware—might
include activities of the systems mentioned above, but occurring on a larger scale. For
example, breathing is an activity of the respiratory system of which one is generally
unaware. However, it is easy to raise breathing to the level of awareness, and even to80

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2change breathing patterns through intention. Other types of biologues in this category
might include habitual or routine interactions, skills one has learned and at which one is
proficient, concepts which are well understood, and conscious beliefs. During these typesof biologues, adjustments and adaptations may be taking place without one’s active focus
or awareness. For example, it is a common experience to have driven a route traversed
many times before with no conscious recollection of the journey.
The third proposed category includes biologues of which one is aware, such as
whatever thoughts are being attended to and focused interactions with elements of one’s
internal and/or external environment which are not routine or habitual. It will be clear
to the reader that there is not specific division between categories two and three of thisdescription, as activities in category two have the potential to move into category three,
and activities in category three may pass into category two.
The main point of this discussion of learning and different degrees of consciousness
is to illustrate the fact that, while schooling focuses almost entirely on conscious learning,
conscious learning constitutes only a small fraction of all the learning taking place in an
individual at any particular moment. At the same time, the learning going on at all levels,
conscious, potentially conscious, and nonconscious, comprises the entire individual
context in which new learning is taking place. This raises the question of whether one cantake into account a learning landscape the totality of which is unknowable.
This paper argues that the impossibility of knowing the totality of the learning
landscape is not as important as understanding that such a vast, ever-changing landscapeexists. In addition, research into cognitive processes is revealing parts of the learning
landscape which have previously been entirely hidden from view. Our decisions about
how to design and implement structured learning environments can benefit from thesenew perspectives.
Furthermore, this perspective suggests questions about the strict focus on conscious
learning in formal learning environments. As Dewey said, “ Children doubtless go toschool to learn, but it has yet to be proved that learning occurs most adequately when it
is made a separate conscious business” (Dewey, Democracy and Education, 1919)

Unconscious Learning
While the main focus in structured learning environments has typically been on
conscious learning, unconscious learning might also be put to good use in the classroom.

81

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

In fact, ignoring the major influence of unconscious learning may have a detrimental
effect on the conscious learning that is taking place.
In contrast to the three levels of awareness suggested above, researchers in cognitive
psychology have developed several dual-processing theories of cognition (Kaufmanpp.
445–447; Kahneman, 2011, pp. 19–30). Although they do not agree on the particulars,in general these theories posit Type 1 processes, which are fast and typically occur
beyond the reach of conscious awareness, and Type 2 processes, which are slower andmore deliberative, and which are the domain of the conscious mind. Type 1 processes,
Kaufman writes, “are heavily influenced by context, biology, and past experience; and aid
humans in mapping and assimilating newly acquired stimuli into preexisting knowledge
structures” (445). These Type 1 processes are continuously working, sometimes to ourbenefit, and sometimes to our detriment. They are expert at finding patterns and, in theabsence of multiple instances to draw conclusions from, will generalize from a single
experience(Hill, Lewicki, Czyzewska, & Boss, 1989, p. 385). This explains, to a certain
extent, how we can express biases that are in direct conflict with our consciously held
beliefs (Hill, Lewicki, Czyzewska, & Boss, 1989, p. 386; Kahneman, 2011, pp. 79–88).
But the speed of Type 1 processes and their accuracy without the interventionof Type 2 consciousness makes it possible to learn highly complex information thatmight otherwise be unavailable. In many experiments, Lewicki and his colleagues havedemonstrated the efficiency of nonconscious learning and the inability of the conscious
mind to identify or articulate the learning that has occurred(Lewicki, Hill, & Czyzewska,
1992, pp. 797–798). The conscious mind, however, benefits from the learning that has
taken place at the unconscious level.
Although Lewicki’s research suggests that conscious beliefs and goals do not seemto influence Type 1 processes(1992, pp. 800–801), some researchers believe that Type 1
processes may be affected by nonconscious goals (Eitam, Hassin, & Schul, 2008, pp. 261,
266). Eitam, Hassin, and Schul conducted two experiments, each designed to detect any
difference in implicit learning between two groups of subjects. In one experiment, theimplicit learning task was a simulation of a sugar factory. In the other experiment, theimplicit learning task was a serial reaction time task involving reacting to the locationof a disappearing and reappearing circle on a computer screen. The participants in eachexperiment were primed with a seemingly unrelated task: completing a word search
puzzle. One group in each of the two experiments was given a word search puzzle that82

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

included motivational terms such as excellence, aspiration, and win. The second groupin each experiment was given a word search puzzle with motivational neutral terms suchas carpet, hat, and topaz. While the participants did not differ in their explicit motivation
or explicit knowledge after completing the implicit learning task, there was a significant
difference in performance between the two groups (Eitam, Hassin, & Schul, 2008, pp.
265–266). The word search puzzles were not directly related to the implicit learning
tasks, but they had a measurable effect on learning. The implications for even the mostseemingly insignificant aspects of the learning environment are profound.

Disequilibrium
The reader may recall a reference earlier in this paper to the fact that complex
adaptive systems continually move between order and disorder, never settling in one stateor the other. This very movement, or disequilibrium, engenders the flexibility necessary
for the system’s ongoing participation in the dance of co-creation. Gell-Mann considers
the process of thinking a complex adaptive system. To view thinking in this way, toacknowledge the continual disequilibrium and its concurrent creative potential, is toinvite questions about the place of such potential in formal learning environments.
A complex adaptive system does not exist in a state of total disorder; such a system
is a chaotic one. Instead, there is always a certain degree of order present—some order,
but not enough to lock the system into stasis. If the existing, dynamic order of thinking
in an individual is an integral part of the context within which thinking takes place,then it stands to reason that the disequilibrium of each individual’s thinking within each
one’s unique, dynamic learning landscape may be the most vital component to consider
when designing formal learning environments. As we have seen previously, just before
phase synchronization occurs in the brain, disequilibrium becomes pronounced. In
the experiments we have discussed, there was a slowing of response time just before
phase synchrony of the new skill took place. This might mean that a genuine change
in the learning landscape of an individual may be preceded by some sort of confusion,awkwardness, or uncertainty. In learning a simple motor skill, this period is quite brief.
Does this same process occur over a longer period for more complex tasks or skill
acquisition? Do we allow for this in our classrooms? Is there time available for this kindof transition to take place?

83

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32Inquiry and the Search for Excellent Solutions
At this point, let us revisit a crucial feature of complex adaptive systems: the searchfor excellent solutions. The reader may recall that the theory maintains that complex
adaptive systems engage in the search for excellent solutions to whatever problems
are encountered. Without specifying what those problems might be, the implicationis that they are co-transformations that require adjustment in order for the system tosurvive. These excellent solutions result in maximum fitness for the system. Maintaining
maximum fitness allows the system to persist, and more than that, to thrive. How cana view of thinking as a complex adaptive system and the search for excellent solutions
inform formal learning environments?
In complex adaptive systems, finding a single best solution is impractical, maybe
even impossible, due to the constraints of time and the vastness (with respect to thesearching agent) of the landscape within which the search takes place. As was previously
mentioned, Holland and Kauffman have shown that, rather than search for a single bestsolution, the ability to adapt to an ever-transforming landscape requires finding one ormore excellent solutions to the presenting problem. The assumption is that any number of
excellent solutions may be discovered.
Contrary to this view of the possibility of many excellent solutions for a presenting
problem, often formal learning environments are organized around the assumption that
there are single best solutions to well-known problems, and that these best solutions, inmost cases, have already been discovered. Building on this assumption, the role of theteacher is often seen as to provide students with this best solution information, referred
to in this system as “knowledge.” In turn, students are evaluated on their ability todemonstrate understanding of such knowledge in the form of “right” answers.
There are several significant consequences of this approach. One is that any answer
that is not considered the right one, is considered wrong. This dichotomy contradicts what
we know of the history of human thinking. Nowhere is this more evident than in the flowof scientific inquiry. If, for example, the theory of the earth as the center of the universe
had been accepted as the single “right” one, then most of the ways we communicate about
the cosmos via modern science would not have been developed. Piaget expressed thisidea in a 1968 lecture on his theory of genetic epistemology.
Scientific knowledge is in perpetual evolution; it finds itself changed from84

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

one day to the next. As a result, we cannot say that on the one hand there is thehistory of knowledge, and on the other its current state today, as if its current
state were somehow definitive or even stable. The current state of knowledge
is a moment in history, changing just as rapidly as the state of knowledge inthe past has ever changed and, in many instances, more rapidly. Scientificthought, then, is not momentary; it is not a static instance; it is a process. Morespecifically, it is a process of continual construction and reorganisation.

Finding the single right answer spells the end of thinking. Since an importantcomponent (some might argue the most important component) of schooling is to engage
students’ thinking, it can be seen that the single right answer approach contradicts thisaim. One might argue that the idea of the earth as the center of the universe was always
wrong, but that people just didn’t realize it until the real right answer—the earth assimply one of several planets that orbit the sun—was discovered. I would counter bysaying that in itself is evidence enough for us to question the assumptions we believe to
be true.
Dewey considered the problem of insisting that students get the right answer, aswell. He wrote that it was “impossible … to exaggerate the hold that this attitude has uponteaching in the schools” (Dewey, Intelligence in the Modern World, 1939, p. 689). He said
that one reason for the prevalence of the right answer approach was a misunderstandingof the alternatives, with many educators believing that without the resolution provided
by such answers, students’ minds would be left in confusion. In response to this attitude,
Dewey commented, “The real alternative to settling questions is not mental confusion,
but the development of a spirit of curiosity that will keep the student in an attitude ofinquiry and of search for new light”(Dewey, Intelligence in the Modern World, 1939, p.
689).
Another drawback of the single best answer approach is that it defines the student’s
task as to find the answer rather than to think about the problem. The focus is shifted fromthe process to the goal. This subtle shift is critical in instilling a pattern of thinking I haveoften encountered in the secondary classroom. Since the goal is seen by students as to get
the right answer rather than to think about a particular problem or situation, students tend
to develop the skills they need in order to accomplish the goal. If the student has beenable to figure out how the teacher thinks, getting the prescribed answer (in the prescribedway) may be easy. If not, and if that is the only way that is deemed acceptable, a student

85

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

may rely on other skills to find the answer. These might involve copying the answer fromthe student who has figured it out, copying from the Internet, or stealing the answer key.
The problem then expands from the original, seemingly simple question of right andwrong answers to the more complex question of ethically right and wrong actions. On
several occasions I have been told in sincerity by students that these alternative methodsof achieving the goal of the right answer were not wrong if one didn’t get caught at them.
Apparently to these students, since the only thing that really “counts” is the right answer
and the final grade, the means of achieving it is of secondary importance.1)
So, what kind of approach in formal learning environments can support the searchfor excellent solutions? One possibility is that of guided inquiry. This is inquiry motivatedby student-generated questions. The quality of questions generated by students varies
widely, however, and it is one role of the teacher to guide students in formulating goodquestions. This is not to suggest that the teacher must have one right question in mind,
which the students are required to guess. Rather, the teacher can encourage each student
to evaluate his own questions until he can discern which of them are worth pursuing.
There can be no right or wrong questions, only some that might lead to productive
exploration and others that are unlikely to produce valuable experiences. There is anelement of subjectivity involved, and the student’s own intuition must be respected.
By providing guidance within the context of the student’s own interest and intuition, ateacher may encourage the confidence required to maintain rigorous inquiry.
What constitutes a good question is not, as one might suppose, the likelihood that
pursuit of the answers will produce a correct result. On the contrary, a good question is
one that stimulates productive inquiry regardless of the end result.
“Good questions” are … good because they engage our minds in complex
processes of analysis - uncovering unstated assumptions, and searching forevidence that will lead us to logical, reasonable conclusions. (Barell, 2003, p.
80)

Those reasonable conclusions may or may not produce a correct answer. The processof reasoning is what is most important. The purpose of formulating good questions,then, is to encourage thinking. Dewey points out that “the first stage of contact withany new material, at whatever age of maturity, must inevitably be of the trial and error
sort” (Dewey, Democracy and Education, 1919). Of necessity, there is a certain amount86

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2of trial and error involved in thinking, particularly when a topic is first encountered. A
recognition and accommodation of this trial and error phase of inquiry can aid in the
search for excellent solutions.
Generating ideas and pursuing possible avenues of thought is time-consuming. The
thinker makes false starts and wrong turns, encounters blind alleys, collapses in a heap,
reconsiders, and starts again. It is all part of the search. This may seem to be a waste oftime, particularly when the teacher or textbook is perfectly capable of providing a “right”
answer without all the bother. However, there may be no quicker way to stymie student
interest and motivation than to present material as if all the answers have already beenfound and the student’s job is simply to memorize them. It is crucial to allow students
to take the time they need to make their own discoveries. Providing the opportunity forstudents to discover answers for themselves also encourages them to develop invaluablethinking skills, which can make learning more interesting and effective.
Dewey, whose writing of 1916 seems almost to predict the current study of complex
adaptive systems and Maturana and Varela’s work in biology, advocates designinglearning environments that encourage inquiry and exploration. This quote reminds oneof Maturana and Varela’s concept of structural coupling:
A response is not just a re-action, a protest, as it were, against being disturbed; it
is, as the word indicates, an answer. It meets the stimulus, and corresponds with
it. There is an adaptation of the stimulus and response to each other. A light isthe stimulus to the eye to see something, and the business of the eye is to see. If
the eyes are open and there is light, seeing occurs; the stimulus is but a conditionof the fulfillment of the proper function of the organ, not an outside interruption.
To some extent, then, all direction or control is a guiding of activity to its own
end; it is an assistance in doing fully what some organ is already tending to do.
(Dewey, Democracy and Education, 1919)

The concept of structural coupling can inform the way teachers help guide thinkers
in formal learning environments. With a view of thinking as a complex adaptive system
within which curiosity, the potential for learning, is innate and learning itself proceeds
continuously, the teacher can be seen as one who facilitates these processes rather
than one who instigates them. Moreover, everyone involved in the formal learning
environment can be seen as a co-creator in transforming individual learning landscapes.

87

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

Correct and True
Thinking about a problem is necessarily personal as it occurs in the unique personal
contexts mentioned in previous sections. The thinker is engaged in a learning activity,
discovering and making connections. Finding an answer, on the other hand, is seen asa process in which the individual learner has no voice. The answer has already been
discovered, the single best solution has already been worked out by someone else, and thestudent’s job is merely to memorize, reiterate, or duplicate it. This approach distances thestudent from the problem and lessens the possibility that the process of finding a solution
will be incorporated into the student’s conscious learning landscape, or that she will beable to find the prescribed solution at all. As Paley observed of her work with 3-year-olds,“Tempting as it may be to set the record straight [regarding whether or not a particular
student’s mother has a birthday, for example], I have discovered that I can’t seem to teachthe children that which they don’t already know” (Duckworth, 1996, p. 158). What is true
for a learner is that which has been incorporated into the learner’s individual learning
landscape. Thus, what is deemed correct may simply not be true in a particular learner’s
case.
Duckworth offers plenty of examples that illustrate this point. Her work, strongly
grounded in that of Piaget, has led her to an approach to teaching that encourages
students, no matter their ages, to become aware of their own ways of thinking andtransforming conscious experience. This approach is student-centered and requires thatthe teacher stay attentive and actively engaged in the students’ own reasoning processes.
One important way the teacher stays engaged is by asking open-ended questions thatoffer opportunities for the students to examine and test their own ideas. Here Duckworth
describes the process.
Instead of explaining to the students, then, I ask them to explain what they think
and why. I find the following results. First, in trying to make their thoughts clear
for other people, students achieve greater clarity for themselves…. Second, thestudents themselves determine what it is they want to understand…. Third,
people come to depend on themselves: They are the judges of what they know
and believe. They know why they believe it, what questions they still haveabout it, their degree of uncertainty about it, what they want to know about it
next, how it relates to what other people think. Any other “explanation” theyencounter must establish its place within what they know. Fourth, students

88Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

recognize the powerful experience of having their ideas taken seriously, rather
than simply screened for correspondence to what the teacher wanted [sic]. Fifth,
students learn an enormous amount from each other…. Finally, learners cometo recognize knowledge as a human construction, since they have constructed
their own knowledge and they know that they have. (1996, pp. 158–159)

The gifts of such an approach are apparent. Not only do Duckworth’s students
take an active role in their learning, driven by innate curiosity and guided by their own
reasoning processes, but they also develop metacognitive skills. This metacognition canserve them in learning situations throughout their lives, as it is the key to learning how tolearn.

Practice! Practice! Practice!
There is an old joke in the U.S. that goes like this:A tourist is walking down the street in New York and he stops someone to ask
for directions. “How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” he asks. The respondent
answers, “Practice! Practice! Practice!”

Carnegie Hall is a concert performance venue. For many artists, the chance toperform there represents the epitome of a career.
In addition the opportunity to explore for excellent solutions, the research suggeststhat learning at the conscious human level also requires time for practice and mastery.
In Kelso’s simple experiment with the cycling fingers, participants were not immediately
able to perform the activity out of phase with the nearby basins of attraction. The change
to the learning landscape required work and practice.
To many readers, this point may seem obvious. But the emphasis on testing and therequirements that more and more content be covered per term have resulted in less timefor exploration and mastery in the typical classroom.
In addition to more time for practice, we need to provide a variety of options forpracticing, including verbal, kinesthetic, and visual.

In Defense of Reinventing the Wheel
A common expression in English cautions one against “reinventing the wheel”—theimplication being that rediscovering what has already been discovered by someone else

89

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32is a waste of time. This may be one of the underlying beliefs of our current educational
system. Seen from that perspective, the logic of encouraging students to achieve rightanswers makes sense. Such an approach theoretically avoids wasting time by giving
students the knowledge of what has gone before. Presented in this way, knowledge isstatic, unchanging, correct.
However, if a human being is a complex adaptive system, and if learning is a
dynamic of that system through which transformation occurs as a result of the experienceof co-creating the world, then such an approach is, in fact, an utter waste of time. Seenfrom this point of view, the wheel must be invented again and again, by each one in his
or her own way.
In this contradiction is the essence of a major struggle in educational practice. Inan effort not to waste time and to demonstrate the “results” on which funding and public
support depend, formal educational practice is designed to fill students’ minds withdata that can be measured and graded. This practice depersonalizes the educational
experience, creates an environment in which students compete with one another for
their places on the bell curve (Hartwell, 2001) and values getting “the right answer”
over personal vision and the co-creation of meaning. Simultaneously, educators, parents
and students themselves bemoan the lack of student engagement, low levels of criticalthinking ability and high disillusionment with a system in which students are often seen
as unable or unwilling to learn. We as a learning society can’t have it both ways. We canchoose either to set up flexible learning environments in which learners can take the timethey need to create personal understanding or we can continue with the present system,
thereby giving up the benefits of such an approach.
Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in, learning by a passive
absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still so entrenched inpractice? That education is not an affair of “telling” and being told, but an active
and constructive process, is a principle almost as generally violated in practice
as conceded in theory. Is not this deplorable situation due to the fact that thedoctrine is itself merely told? It is preached; it is lectured; it is written about. But
its enactment into practice requires that the school environment be equippedwith agencies for doing, with tools and physical materials, to an extent rarelyattained. It requires that methods of instruction and administration be modified
to allow and to secure direct and continuous occupations with things. Not that90

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2

the use of language as an educational resource should lessen; but that its use
should be more vital and fruitful by having its normal connection with sharedactivities. (Dewey, Democracy and Education, 1919)

Dewey’s words ring as true today as they must have in 1916.
Another possibility is that everyone involved can actively engage in a search forexcellent solutions to the dilemma of our present system. It seems likely that we arecapable of generating many excellent solutions, and their efficacy in the changing
learning landscape will surely change as well. Complex adaptive systems exist in anever-changing state somewhere between order and chaos. They simply cannot exist in arigidly ordered state, nor can they self-organize in a state of chaotic disorder. Maybe one
secret of successful educational reform lies in the understanding and application of thisidea. Instead of searching for the single best approach to education, our system might
benefit from an acceptance, even a celebration of its transformational nature, that is, thenecessity of its continual transformation and its ability to simultaneously transform its
participants.

Summary and Questions
The study of complex adaptive systems suggests that beauty and organization may,under certain conditions, arise spontaneously as a result of the actions of many agentsacting locally and without a specific leader. Such study generates an image of systems
at many scales which are involved in continuous transformation, dynamic and vibrant.
In such systems, the synergistic whole is, indeed, greater than the sum of its parts andinseparable from them. Viewed through a biological lens and brought into focus by
the work of Maturana and Varela, this continuous transformation within and among
nested and aggregate complex adaptive systems may be conceived of as the process of
co-creating the world; each agent is a co-producer of a future fashioned out of myriad
possibilities. In complex adaptive systems, flexibility is the key to success.
When these ideas are applied to thinking, many opportunities arise for reflection
about how learning systems can be designed to best support human learning. The searchfor excellent solutions to the challenges of our current formal educational system might
begin with questions as a point of departure. These might stimulate discussion, but mightalso encourage experimentation, which could generate more questions, and so on.
The point is not to find an answer, or even several answers. The underlying reality

91

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32of complex adaptive systems is that they are always in a state of transformation. As
such, successful solutions must themselves be flexible and subject to transformation.
The challenge of such an adventure beckons those who dream of a world in which thejoy of learning is the focus of formal learning environments—not entertainment, but thesweaty, difficult, exasperating, exhilarating process of bringing forth a world.
Here are some questions the reader might wish to consider. It is hoped the reader
will have many more.
The Type 1 processes are unconscious, fast and efficient, capable of analyzing
patterns too complex for the conscious mind to grasp, and continuously active. These
processes are not available to the conscious mind, but they inform conscious learning.
Is there a way to construct formal learning environments that support unconscious
learning? Are there elements in our current designs that do so? If so, what kinds ofunconscious learning is being supported? Is their effect positive?
What are the main purposes of formal education? What kinds of educational culture
best support those aims?
Can the emerging understanding of complex adaptive systems and brain function
productively inform formal educational design and practice? If so, how? If not, why not?
Note
1)

See Brooks and Brooks, page 67.

Works Cited
Barabási, Albert-László. Linked. Cambridge: Perseus, 2002.
Barell, John. Developing More Curious Minds. Alexandria: ASCD, 2003.
Brooks, Jacqueline G. and Martin G. Brooks. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria:
ASCD, 1993.
“Complex.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Warner, 1979.
“Consciousness.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Warner, 1979.
“Curiosity.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Warner, 1979.
Dewey, John. “Democracy and Education.” 1919. http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/dewey.
html.
——. Intelligence in the Modern World. New York: Random House, 1939.
Duckworth, Eleanor. The Having of Wonderful Ideas. 2nd Edition. New York: Teachers College Press,
1996.

92

Learning and Complex Adaptive Systems Part 2
Eitam, Baruch, Ran R. Hassin and Yaacov Schul. “Nonconscious Goal Pursuit in Novel Environments:
The Case of Implicit Learning.” Psychological Science 19.3 (2008): 261–267.
Fingelkurts, Andrew A. and Alexander A. Fingelkurts. “Making Complexity Simpler: Multivariability
and Metastability in the Brain.” (n.d.).
Gell-Mann, Murray “Regularities and Randomness: Evolving Schematat in Science and The Arts.”
Art and Complexity. Ed. J. Casti & A. Karlqvist. New York: Elsevier, 2003. 47–58.
Gleick, James. Chaos. New York: Penguin, 1987.
Hall, Edward T. Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
Hartwell, Ash. “The End of Planning: Notes on Public Policy and Educational Plans.” Vimukt Shiksha
Special Issue (2001).
Hill, Thomas, et al. “Self-Perpetuating Development of Encoding Biases in Person Perception.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57.3 (1989): 373–387.
Holland, John H. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Cambridge, MA: Perseus, 1995.
Johnson, Steven. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York:
Scribner, 2001.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
Kauffman, Steven. At Home in the Universe. New York: Oxford, 1995.
Kello, Christopher T., et al. “The Emergent Coordination of Cognitive Function.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136.4 (2007): 551–568.
Kelso, J. A. Scott. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1995.
——. “Instabilities and Phase Transitions in Human Brain and Behavior.” 11 March 2010. 28 September
2012 <www.frontiersin.org>.
LeDoux, Joseph. The Emotional Brain. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1998.
Lewicki, Pawel, Thomas Hill and Maria Czyzewska. “Nonconscious Acquisition of Information.”
American Psychologist 47.6 (1992): 796–801.
Lewis, Marc D. “The Promise of Dynamic Systems Approaches for an Integrated Account of Human
Development.” Child Development 71.1 (2000): 36–43.
Luisi, Pier Luigi. “Autopoiesis: A Review and Reappraisal.” Naturwissenschaften 90 (2003): 49–59.
Maturana, Humberto R. and Francisco J. Varela. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of
Human Understanding. Trans. Robert Paolucci. Revised Edition. Boston: Shambala, 1998.
Piaget, Jean. Genetic Epistemology. Trans. E. Duckworth. New York: Columbia University Press,
1968.
Schulman, Lee S. “Taking Learning Seriously.” Change 31.4 (1999): 10–17.
Schwartz, Jeffrey M. and Sharon Begley. The Mind and the Brain. New York: HarperCollins, 2002.
“Starlogo.” Cambridge: Media Laboratory, MIT.
Strogatz, Steven. “Exploring Complex Networks.” Nature (2001): 268–276.
——. Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order. New York: Hyperion, 2003.
Thompson, Evan and Francisco J. Varela. “Radical Embodiment: Neural Dynamics and Consciousness.”
TRENDS in Cognitive Science 5.10 (2001): 418–425.

93

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 32

Varela, Francisco, et al. “The Brainweb: Phase Synchronizationa and Large-Scale Integration.”
Neuroscience (2001): 229–239.
Visser, Jan. “Integrity, Completeness and Comprehensiveness of the Learning Environment: Meeting
the Basic Learning Needs of All Throughout Life.” International Handbook of Lifelong Learning.
Ed. D. N. Aspin, et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001. 447–472.
——. “Landscaping the Learning Environment to Create a Home for the Complex Mind.” April 2001.
Learning Development Institute. <www.learndev.org/dl/KinseyLecture2001-rev2.pdf>.
——. “The Conditions of Learning in the World of the Twenty-First Century.” June. Learning Development Institute. <www.learndev.org/dl/Versaille2001-Paper.pdf>.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Wallenstein, Gene V. and Steven L. Bressler J. A. Scott Kelso. “Phase Transitions in Spatiotemporal
Patterns of Brain Activity and Behavior.” Physica D 84 (1995): 626–634.
Watts, Duncan J. Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. New York: W. W. Norton, 2003.
Wilensky, Uri. “Netlogo.” Evanston: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling,
Northwestern University.

94