THRIVING ON THE EDGE OF CHAOS:
AN ARGUMENT FOR A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION
Lee L. Chazen
B.A., Colorado State University
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Curriculum and Instruction)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2004
1
Abstract
Of
THRIVING ON THE EDGE OF CHAOS:
AN ARGUMENT FOR A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION
by
Lee L. Chazen
Statement of the Problem
Though chaos theory has been researched since the 1960s, it has only recently
been applied in a limited way to education and the social sciences. Some research
suggests that a problem inherent in education is the application of the
scientificdeterministic model (the standard cause and effect/outcome model) underlying
the philosophy guiding most schools. Some educators and researchers have concluded
that this model imposes too much order on learning; restricting student and teacher
possibilities for connections, limiting the flow of information between subject areas,
stifling student and teacher curiosity, creativity and potential for growth. Of equal
importance, is the problem that ideas and innovations are often introduced but have only
limited local effects. Innovations do not rise to the top. The question is whether or not a
new, more adaptive and emergent model might address this problem.
Sources of Data
This was a qualitative study leading towards the development of a complex
2
adaptive theory of education. Using grounded theory as a methodology, data were
analyzed from classroom observations, teacher notes, administrative evaluations as well
as from student notes, evaluations and essays. To form a basis for this theory, a wide
array of information was gathered and studied from relevant books and journal articles to
websites and from discussions with colleagues and educators.
Conclusions Reached
When I changed the structure of my classroom from one of hierarchy to a
complex adaptive system with lateral distribution of power, I observed profound changes.
Changing the power system so that the teacher (myself) became more of a facilitator
(acting as a feedback loop) and switching from the use of lecture to an openended game
format in order to deliver course content resulted in a major increase in participation and
complex, higher order behavior. Arguably, this lead to a greater degree of creative and
critical thinking.
The research on emergence, chaos theory, complexity and consilience gave
justification and support for these findings. Data was compared from scientific
phenomena with that of social behavior to see if there were some universal truths. I found
many similarities between the research and behavior observed in my classroom over a
sevenyear period. The idea that the second law of thermodynamics (that everything is
prone to entropy) could be overturned and that order can form from chaos is interesting
and worthy of future research.
3
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
“Historians of science often observe that asking the right question is more
important than producing the right answer. The right answer to a trivial
question is also trivial, but the right question, even when insoluble in exact
form, is a guide to major discovery.” __ Edward O. Wilson (1998)
Brief Statement of Purpose
A typical high school teacher has contact with approximately 150 students each
week. If one considers the potential for interaction, there would be an almost infinite
number of variations of teacher and student combinations. One view of teaching would
limit such possibilities for interaction by placing these students in rows and delivering
content in a topdown fashion. Another view, the purpose of this paper, is to embrace the
complexity inherent in this situation. Those with this view might consider disorganization
and confusion to be positive aspects of education, and worthy of examination. They
would embrace the confusion and complexity in education, looking to chaos and
complexity theories for possible answers.
Educators realize that the classroom is an unpredictable environment, where
agents of change and disruption threaten to overturn the imposing order at any given
4
time. A student mood swing, an ADHD outburst, a students day dream, a drug problem, a
recent fight at the school, overcoming peer pressure, distraction from noise, fluorescent
lighting, confusion over subject matter, pressure to meet district and school standards all
threaten to interrupt order, goals and academic progress.
As long as we live in a complex, multifarious world, the structure of organizations
and facilities will remain equally important to the content within these institutions. How
planners build cities, construct roads, and highways and design buildings all say
something about the philosophy of humans. Underlying the research presented in this
paper is the idea that concerned professionals can design schools, classrooms, and
curricula in such a way to take advantage of our inherent diversity; a span of ideas that
include; different styles of learning, classroom and school configurations, methodologies
of teaching and the general complexity found in school settings. These systems can self
organize to produce creative and critical thought on a wide array of subjects.
Significance
Randomness, unpredictability, uncertainty, and doubt have led over time to an
overwhelming sense of anxiety in the world. Examples include the professional baseball
player who has, on average, a 3 in 10 chance of hitting the ball when at bat, the
uncertainty that one will arrive at her or his destination on time when traveling, or pure
randomness involved in meeting a suitable mate, finding a goodfitting job or, in the case
of the teacher, putting the right combination of things together in order to meet the varied
needs of different types of learners with different degrees of intelligence and differing
degrees of expectations.
5
There has also been uncertainty when it came to understanding not only who we
are, but also what the universe was doing around us. This need to know led to the study
of the orbital behavior of planets, oscillators, slime mold and bifurcations in heart
rhythms; all considered part of the history of chaos theory. One could argue that this
revealed universal truths about the behavior of systems towards the end of unlocking
answers to just about everything. As part of a larger study of chaos and complexity, this
could lead to better functioning cities, medical cures, more profitable companies, a better
economy, more efficient government and better curriculum. Because of the global,
heterarchical nature of chaos and complexity theories, it is not hard to understand why
the study of chaos theory is part of a larger, emergent process in the search for a Theory
of Everything (TOE).
There are those who might consider disorganization and confusion to be negative
aspects of education, and unworthy of examination. They would question the justification
for embracing, what to some is, the confusion and complexity in education. To be fair,
though, educators realize that the classroom is an unpredictable environment, where
agents of change and disruption threaten to overturn the imposing order at any given
time. A student mood swing, an ADHD outburst, a students day dream, a drug problem, a
recent fight at the school, overcoming peer pressure, distraction from noise, fluorescent
lighting, confusion over subject matter, pressure to meet district and school standards all
threaten to interrupt order, goals and academic progress.
Chaos theory and the related ideas of consilience and emergence might all offer a
solution. Methods such as problem solving and critical thinking are solutions within
6
complexity. They are emergent in nature and provide excellent learning opportunities, but
offer no overall model to understanding the phenomenon of complexity. Perhaps, by
providing a place or design, enabling students to move upward, by having the teacher act
as catalyst, educators can effectively put this organism into motion. Like the sending of
an email message, one writes and structures it, and with the push of a button, sends it on
its way. Though there is a lot of activity there, the working of the computer, the use of
language, the Internet, electricity, binary code, web servers, URLs, etc., the email is sent
and finds its recipient in seconds, making its way through the maze of cyberspace in what
seems to be a miracle.
Similarly, I will make the argument that educators can create classes, which rise
to a higher order, looking to student creativity to solve seemingly impossible problems.
The teacher can allow students to discover and recognize pathways and patterns.
The findings from a study of chaos and the “edge of chaos,” could reveal new and
important ways of structuring curriculum, the classroom and the educational process in
general. This could have vast implications for how the teacher teaches, what they learn in
schools of education, and how teachers, administrators, and students interact. The results
from research on chaos theory and related areas could provide a way for differing ideas
and opinions to come together under the heading of a larger model. This model may help
readers to cater better to different learning styles, interests and goals and to efficiently
take advantage of a complex web of energy in the schools. Understanding and using this
model could lead to progress and creativity in a number of areas and at a greater rate.
The Status Quo and Problem Areas
7
What is wrong with the status quo such that this research might be helpful in
some way? Though chaos theory was first introduced in the 1960s, it has only recently
been applied in a limited and selective way to education and the social sciences. There
are problems in education for which chaos and related theories might offer a good
solution. One problem is that innovations do not rise to the top. Ideas and innovations are
often introduced but only have limited, local effects. The problem may be structural
because educators are using models not suited for complex situations.
Of equal importance are some of the problems inherent in the
scientificdeterministic model. This theory assumes that teaching is simplistic, based
upon simple cause and effect rules (Iannone, 1995). Teachers, according to Iannone,
know that this simply is not true. Every day brings something new with new variables;
the teacher’s self concept, psychological and physiological needs, skills, attitude, ad
infinitum (Iannone, 1995). Mix this with all the student variables and resulting behaviors
and one starts to get the picture that the scientific, deterministic model is short sighted.
Yet, it is the mix of these variables that determines what happens on any given day in the
classroom (Iannone).
Proponents of this model value predictability and argue in some cases that free
will is an illusion (Popper & Hawking, 2004, p. 1). Scientificdeterminism (my
interpretation) is at the core of the standardsbased, cause and effect curriculum in place
in many schools. According to Iannone (1995) and others the linear
scientificdeterministic model imposes too much order on learning, restricting student
and teacher possibilities for connections, limiting the flow of information between subject
8
areas, and stifling student and teacher curiosity, creativity and potential for growth.
Another significant problem is the division of education into subsections, each
pursuing separate, and sometimes competing courses. Many teachers subscribe to one or
more theories such as the Madeline Hunter model, multiple intelligences, cooperative
learning or artsbased curricula. All of these are appropriate and well founded, but what if
there were a larger model that brought many of these together, providing a pathway for
interconnectedness and a way for the whole to move together? What if such a system
were based on scientific phenomena observed in all systems?
Evolution of an Idea
One does not arrive at the conclusions and questions in this paper without
interaction with colleagues, information, and one’s own thought processes. This paper is
the culmination of at least 10 years of thought and action on this topic.
As a teacher of high school social studies, I began experimenting with the idea of
using an interactive game not as a sideunit of instruction nor as a supplement to the
curriculum but as the curriculum itself. I became more of a facilitator (acting as a
feedback loop) and switched from the use of lecture to an openended game format in
order to deliver course content. I changed the structure of my classes to give students
more opportunities for creative and critical thinking. As the classes changed in this way
from the use of a traditional hierarchy to a lateral distribution of power, or heterarchy, I
observed profound changes. The classes experienced a major increase in participation
and, arguably, thinking as a result of complex, higher order behavior.
During the use of this game (called Global Challenge and invented by the author)
9
I realized something interesting was taking place; a phenomenon of sorts. It remained an
idea without a model for many years until two things happened:
1. I discovered a book by the famous biologist Edward O. Wilson entitled
Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998). This book opened up the door on how one
might merge ideas and subject areas in order to discover universal truths. There was
occasional mention in the book about how physicists do not work enough with
mathematicians and biologists, even though one might find answers for their area of
study in a completely different discipline. The idea occurred that, by analogy and
metaphor, professionals could find universal answers. One might even see the possibility
for a “borderless,” 24hour learning environment, uninhibited by prefabricated,
schoolimposed barriers on learning.
2. On a trip to England in early 2002, I discovered another book in the London
Museum of Science called Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and
Software (2001) by science writer Steven Johnson. This book exposed some other ideas,
mainly the notion that the most productive and creative behavior seemed to happen from
the ground up (Johnson, 2001). This book, and discussions with a longtime friend, led to
the discovery of something more profound – chaos theory. Chaos theory disproved the
second law of thermodynamics and offered hope that things do not have to disintegrate.
Since entropy and thermodynamics are important to the model or metaphor being
presented in this paper, they are worthy of deeper analysis here. According to Gleick
(1987) the concept of entropy derives from thermodynamics and is a part of the Second
Law (of thermodynamics). Thermodynamics, according to the Encarta World English
10
Dictionary (1999), refers to a branch of physics dealing with the conversions of energy
from one form to another “and how these affect temperature, pressure, volume,
mechanical action and work.”
Gleick wrote that entropy was the tendency of systems in the universe to move
towards a state of increasing disorder. Gleick also noted that this term has taken root in
the nonscientific world and has woven itself into our culture. He gave as examples the
non scientific explanations for disintegrating societies and economic decay. People, it
seems, use the term entropy to describe any system that is likely to fall apart.
In thermodynamics, certain things are true such as losing heat when transferring
one form of energy to another. This would make perfect efficiency impossible. In
addition, Gleick (1987) pointed out that the universe, because of this, was a “one way
street.” A process tending towards disorder could not be reversed. These things may be
true in the world of thermodynamics, he pointed out, but are not so true in complexity.
He went on to say that thermodynamics did not explain the creating of amino acids,
microorganisms, selfreproducing plants and animals, and the complexity, even, of the
human brain. Systems such as these did not fall victim to entropy, but rose to a higher
level.
When Johnson (2001) wrote about nonequilibrium thermodynamics, he spoke of
the work done by Ilya Prigogine in the 1950s, and defined nonequilibrium
thermodynamics as “environments where the laws of entropy are temporarily overcome,
and higherlevel order may spontaneously emerge out of underlying chaos” (p. 52).
Putting these things together, one might move in the direction of accepting
11
complexity as a better system to use when defining and explaining the social system in
use in education. Where thermodynamics refers to the transfer and conversion of energy,
complexity is more of the working model, large enough to explain all systems. Entropy
has become an excuse from which cynics can look to explain disintegration of social
systems. When, in fact, such disintegration may be because of faulty design, imposition
of too much order, lack of balance in the system and, most importantly, a model not
suitable to handle random variables. At this point, these are suppositions but are worth
considering.
The question naturally emerged as to whether there was some way to make sense
of all the disarray and confusion people found in their personal and professional lives.
What if there was a larger order to things that humans simply were not seeing, one where
order would arise out of seemingly meaningless interactions? What if chaos and
confusion were part of a larger design and could lead to greater things?
From a psychological, emotional, and social viewpoint, this could revolutionize
the way people think and interact, just knowing that everyday friction and random
interactions might actually lead to something. In Consilience, Wilson (1998) argued that
there may be a higher order, one that fuses or synthesizes many subjects at the same time;
that there might be, in fact, some universal laws that underlie all knowledge. This made
an excellent case for interdisciplinary studies. After reading Johnson, however, I became
more interested in emergence and chaos theory, thinking that such ideas might make for
an appropriate model for education. These two ideas, if synthesized, could form a model
for a higher order of learning based on complexity.
12
Background on the Theory
This area of science was developed over time as scientists began to explain
random and unpredictable phenomena. Research lead in many directions, from
mathematics to explanations of the solar system. Scientists studied the weather, fractals,
the economy, and even market forecasting. Why, then would one try to apply chaos and
complexity theory to social (human) areas such as education?
By metaphor, theoreticians and practitioners might create a larger model, one that
assumes that human beings will act much in the same way as other organisms. It is an
attempt to take Wilson’s assertion seriously that there are certain universal truths. Look at
any lifesimulating program such as the SIMS or SIM City, as examples, and underneath
it, one will find source code. What if chaos theory helped us to interpret that “code” so
that we could better understand human interactions? Could it then be applied broadly to
education?
In many ways, some would argue this is already happening. However, once
educators understand the model more clearly, we can take steps to realize these great
scientific discoveries and take theory into application. In this paper, I will briefly outline
some scientific theories and then propose ways that educators can incorporate them into
curriculum. The purpose is to find structures that are more conducive for students to learn
and be creative based on evidence found in science and nature. I will then present and
discuss a curriculum, Global Challenge, which puts such theories into action.
Though the theories supporting the growth and development of Global Challenge
were not known at the time, such principles now support this and curricula of its type.
13
Top down, rigid structures, I will argue, do have a place in education, but not as the sole
delivery method for curriculum. Many argue, instead, that programs that grow out of the
creativity, curiosity, and complexity of teachers and students be allowed to take on their
own form, merging where possible, forming new networks and, quite possibly, forming a
greater, collective intelligence not seen before.
Purpose
I began research on the subject of chaos theory and found out two interesting
principles:
1. Everything in the universe had an emerging nature about it, from the evolution
of organisms, to volcanic eruptions, to weather patterns, to the growth of civilizations.
2. The greatest creativity, evolvability and progress appeared to take place at the
“edge of chaos.” I will show, in this project how, because of these discoveries, we ought
to apply such principles to education broadly – from the classroom, to the curricula, to
the network of educational systems across all imaginary, prefabricated lines.
After an explanation of scientific determinism and brief look at the older model, I
will suggest ways to achieve our educational objectives is by using systems found in
nature and throughout the universe. These systems can be explained through chaos and
related theories (complexity, consilience and emergence). After a discussion of this, I will
show how similar phenomena were observed during seven years of using an “emergent”
curriculum, developed by the author, called Global Challenge. Using examples from
nature and the structure of organisms, I will show how educators can apply chaos and
related theories to the curriculum and education generally.
14
More specifically, I will (a) give a brief history of chaos theory to the present, (b)
define and discuss emergence, and the difference between chaos and complexity and (c)
introduce what researchers know (as of this writing) about chaos theory as it relates to
education.
Put another way, this thesis is an argument for structural changes to the paradigm
or format in which classes are set up, specifically the curriculum that guides activity in
the classroom and therefore the learning process. By metaphor, such formats could have
application in other social systems. The argument is one for a bottom up process based on
scientific understandings of chaos and related theories. The fundamental question is this:
do chaos and complexity theories “speak” to education?
Methodology
I will attempt to prove the aforementioned concepts (bottom up phenomenon,
emergent tendencies, productivity at the edge of chaos, heterarchy as a better solution,
order forming from chaos, etc.) by researching the observations made by scientists,
theoreticians, and science writers who have already synthesized a lot of this information.
On the practical side, I will look at a few case studies where researchers attempted to
apply such concepts in educational settings. Additionally, I will look back at Global
Challenge, observations from administrators, students and my own memories to see what
worked and did not work in terms of this model.
Since research could explain and legitimize this method of teaching and make it
available to others wishing to achieve the same results, it was important to have a sound
methodology. Grounded theory was recommended as suitable for this type of research.
15
One typically uses this methodology when trying to explain a phenomenon. As Haig
(2004) stated, "the general goal of grounded theory research is to construct theories in
order to understand phenomena” (section 1, paragraph 3).
According to Haig, (2004) grounded theory, introduced in the 1960s, is the most
comprehensive qualitative research methodology available. Grounded theory applies very
well under these circumstances since researchers use it to construct theories that help to
explain phenomena (Haig, 2004). Another important component of grounded theory is
the order of the research process. Unlike other theories, the problem in grounded theory
does not have to be stated before the research begins. Indeed, the first misconception,
according to Haig, (2004) is the belief that the scientific method has a natural beginning.
Haig contends that it is more realistic to say that research begins wherever most
appropriate. Therefore, if one hopes to go back in time to explain a phenomenon, much as
is being done in this thesis, then it is possible in grounded theory.
Limitations and Assumptions
This was a qualitative study, wherein high school social studies classes were
observed over a sevenyear period. The study looked only at one curriculum in one
subject area in one high school and taught by one teacher. The breadth of the study did
not go beyond this into different types of curricula using the same philosophy. It did not
observe the effects of different teachers using the same curriculum, nor did it examine
more than one school. Further studies could make the theory more generalizable.
The study of the application of chaos and related theories to education had other
16
important limitations. Time, money, staff, etc. limited the comprehensiveness of this
project. I did not have the resources to perform a fiveyear longitudinal study, nor did I
look at all research done on the application of these theories. Although I have gone to
great lengths to find the most important and relevant books and studies written on the
subject, other resources did exist. The important thing to note here is that a general “snap
shot” was taken of where educators and others were in understanding this field, and
questions were asked that could lead to further development in the area.
Also, though several patterns and areas of agreement have emerged, it is not an
exact science. The depth of this topic is tremendous. I will not have the time or resources
to perform an exhaustive study. I can only look indepth into a few areas. I will not be
analyzing the effects of a chaos theorybased curriculum, other than the one that took
place in my class over a sevenyear period.
The largest assumption in this project is that physical laws that pertain to the
weather, Boolean networks, cellular automata, slime mold, cities, etc. will behave the
same way when applied to humans. Specifically, it is not known (except for a few
studies, and my own observations) how teachers and students will react when the theory
is applied. I will attempt to overcome this as best as possible by showing human behavior
in complex situations. I am assuming, first, that the physical laws of the universe will
extend to all areas of the natural world, and that the behavior will be relatively the same.
Lastly, I am assuming the following when I speak of the objectives of education:
We hope to educate students so that they can a) be problem solvers, capable of creative
and critical thinking, b) learn how to be learners and adopt an understanding of lifelong
17
learning and c) rise to a level of basic competency, suitable to state and federal standards.
Definition of Terms
These terms will be explained more broadly, especially in Chapter 2.
Nevertheless, it is important to generally define some terms here, more to limit what this
paper will address.
Attractor – the element that allows chaotic systems to develop patterns and stay
within boundaries. Such elements have “drawing and organizational power” (Cutright,
2001, p. 5).
Chaos – is not, according to Cutright, (2001), just random activity. Chaos theory
does hold that random activities, instead, show “complex, replicated patterns.” (p. 4).
Chaos Theory – deals with nonlinear systems displaying “random” behavior. In
the case of fractals, order can be described and predicted by simple equations. Such
systems exhibit “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” (Millick, 2004). This theory
suggests that random forces will converge, bringing order to chaos (Gleick, 1987).
Complexity according to Johnson (2001) a global order built out of local
interactions. Complexity theory (as interpreted by Millick) also deals with nonlinear
systems but displays “higher order” behavior. Such systems are “characterized by
bottomup processes, self organization, feedback, and adaptation (learning). When a
system is in a state of disequilibrium or instability it is inordinately sensitive to events
from within or without. A small or even subtle trigger can propel the system out of its
current structure. At such a time, a system is vulnerable to break down into chaos, or,
alternatively and dramatically, it can break through to a completely new order
18
(Prigognine & Stengers, as cited in Karpiak, 2000).
Consilience – “the jumping together of knowledge by the linking of facts and
factbased theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation”
(Wilson, 1998).
Edge of chaos that area between chaos and order known to be poised for the
greatest creativity and evolvability (my synthesized definition). Chris Langton, a
researcher in the area of artificial life and one who is often credited for his discoveries in
this area, said, “being at the transition point between order and chaos not only buys you
exquisite control – small input/ big change – but it also buys you the possibility that
information processing can become an important part of the dynamics of the system”
(Lewin, 1999, p. 51).
Emergence According to Johnson (2001), it is about the whole being smarter
than the sum of its parts. If you were to have thousands or millions of component parts
that acted in relatively simple ways, emergence would be the phenomenon – the
interaction – leading to a higherlevel structure or intelligence. These systems evolve
from the bottom up and have no master planner.
Heterarchies are a new way of organizing different from traditional hierarchy.
Instead of dependent relations, heterarchies are based more on interdependence.
Heterarchies involve minimal hierarchy and consist of organizational heterogeneity
(Stark, et al., 2002).
Organization of the Study
19
The purpose of the study, stated differently above, is to take what scientists and
researchers know about chaos and related theories and use this knowledge to construct an
effective model for educators and others (who deal with groups and organizations).
Knowing this, the study is based almost solely on theoretical research, anecdotal
evidence, and discussions with colleagues, professors, and teachers. The result will be
some malleable ideas that can readily be applied in the classroom and elsewhere. This
information will be structured accordingly:
Chapter 1: The personal journey that brought me to this thesis topic; an overview of the
topic (chaos and related theories); resulting questions and guide to the rest of the paper.
Chapter 2: Review of relevant literature. Here, evidence will be provided to answer most
of the questions brought up in Chapter 1, showing what is generally known on the topic,
and building a case for structural change.
Chapter 3: Methodology: this chapter will chronicle the development and emergence of
a new model based on chaos and related theories. Using grounded theory as a guide, this
chapter will show how data, observations, and theoretical research led to the development
of a theory.
Chapter 4: Chapter 4 will be a summary of the main points found in this research. Using
Global Challenge as the example, this chapter will examine how these theories were
supported by events surrounding this emergent style curriculum. If Chapter 3 shows how
the theory was developed, Chapter 4 will be an explanation of those findings in order to
demonstrate what this theory actually is.
Chapter 5: Building on all the research and observations, this chapter will summarize the
20
main points. Chapter 5 will offer the reader thoughts for the future of this model for use
in education, other organizations, and society. Therefore, as the final chapter of the thesis,
chapter five will primarily be a discussion with recommendations.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
In Chapter Two, research will be presented to better define chaos and related
21
theories in order to show their relevancy to education. The purpose of this chapter is to
establish a theoretical basis for a new model for education and other social systems.
The question of whether there were problems with the status quo came up in the
last chapter. Before looking to new research, one might want to examine what is flawed
in our present system.
Chaos Theory and Higher Education (2001) examined the applicability of this
model to higher education, but, in the process, provided good ideas for education at all
levels. Looking at the organization of the educational system, Dolence and Norris (as
cited in Cutright, 2001), both higher education planners and authors, described the
processes and organizations of higher education as being “of classic, late Industrial Age
design, a factory model characterized by insufficient flexibility and a fixation on
processes rather than outcomes” (p. 4).
The effect that such a model has on students was discussed in an article that
appeared in the summer of 1995 concerning curriculum and chaos theory. In this article,
Ron Iannone (1995), referring to education more broadly, said the scientific deterministic
paradigm created dependent students who were passive, unresponsive and nonthinking.
He also pointed out that the present model created “robotlike domesticated
deprofessionalized teachers” (p. 541). More on the problems of the scientific
What then can chaos and complexity theories offer the field of education? To
answer this, educators must first take a look back to the beginnings of the science known
as chaos theory.
22
The word chaos at first conjures up many things, most of which have a negative
connotation – turbulence, disruption, disorganization, unpredictability and unreliability.
On further investigation, however, researchers have discovered that there is a lot more to
this term. In 1987, Gleick, a New York Times writer and editor, lecturer at Princeton, and
well known science writer, produced a book called Chaos: Making a New Science. In this
book, an account of the research done on chaos and a history of the theory, he established
that Chaos transcended the lines that separated scientific disciplines. He said that chaos is
a science of the global nature of systems, and has brought together thinkers from fields
that had been widely separated. Chaos theory explained the universal behavior of
complexity (Gleick, 1987). As a theory, this had the possibility of merging disciplines
together under a new model. Chaos theory seemed the most attractive in this regard.
In the prologue, Gleick (1987) led readers into the world of chaos by suggesting
that it existed everywhere. One could see it in swirling cigarette smoke, the pattern of a
flag snapping in the wind, and a dripping faucet going from a steady pattern to a random
one. Chaos appeared in the weather patterns or in the nature of cars clustering on an
expressway. No matter what the medium, (and this will become important later in the
discussion of education), the behavior obeyed the same newly discovered laws. Gleick
said these realizations affected the way business executives made decisions about
insurance, the way astronomers looked at the solar system and the way political theorists
talked about the stresses leading to war.
There was a real gap in our knowledge and understanding of chaos. Gleick (1987)
wrote that physicists had been researching the laws of nature for a long time, and that
23
there always seemed to be a gap in areas such as our knowledge concerning disorder in
the atmosphere, in the turbulent sea, the variations in wildlife populations and the
oscillations of the heart and brain. In general, the “irregular side of nature, the
discontinuous and erratic side” (p. 3) had been puzzles to science. Perhaps this is why
scientists shied away from study in this area.
This leads to the question of relevancy in the social sciences. There has been
some work over the last two decades in adapting the concept to education and the social
sciences, but as it will be argued later, there is need for more research in this area.
History of Chaos Theory
The study of chaos and complex systems is not new. In fact, chaos and related
theories have been thoroughly examined and have roots going back to the late 1800s at
least. The only thing that is relatively new here is the idea that chaos theory has relevancy
in the classroom and in curricula.
To understand why chaos and complexity theories are appropriate and adaptable
models for curricula and the educational system, researchers must first understand the
development and evolution of ideas leading to the present. Below are a brief history of
chaos theory and a definition of what it is. Included is a section on the “edge of chaos,”
examples of where this phenomenon occurs. There will also be examples of the
application of this theory in science and the social sciences, including education.
A Brief History of Chaos Theory
A study of chaos theory can lead a researcher in many directions, all of which are
24
at least tangentially related. But, it is easy to get side tracked on any one of these issues
and miss the larger picture. Researching back to the roots of chaos revealed work on
nonlinear, selforganizing systems, thermodynamics, entropy, orbital patterns of planets,
convection, fluid dynamics, complex adaptive systems, cellular automata, Boolean
networks, and more. The body of work that came out of research in these areas now helps
researchers piece together a larger chaos theory, or explanations for how systems go from
a state of chaos to one of order, or how patterns emerge over time.
Many studies of chaos theory go back to the work of Jules Henri Poincaré, a
French mathematician who lived around the turn of the last century. His most important
work was arguably that done on whether or not the universe was stable. King Oscar II of
Sweden posed this problem and offered a cash prize to whoever could answer it. In order
to figure this out, Poincaré solved the very difficult “three body problem,” without the aid
of computers or calculators to perform the difficult math. He solved the problem, won the
prize and was able to determine in the process that complicated behaviors could arise in
simple nonlinear systems (Crutchfield, Humphrey, & Vella, 1996, p 1). Cutright et al.
(2001), writing in Chaos Theory and Higher Education (2001), came from many
universities and wrote a series of essays on the applicability of chaos theory to higher
education. Henri Poincaré proved, according to Cutright (citing Hayles, 1990 and Ruelle,
1991), that the gravitational and orbital behavior of bodies in the solar system could not
be explained using only simple, Newtonian, linear physics.
In the 1950s, John von Neumann, a Hungarian mathematician, invented cellular
automata. Cellular automata are set up on a grid and act like a Boolean network. They
25
progress through a series of states where each cell reacts to the actions of its neighbors.
Here, global structure emerges from local activity rules (Lewin, 1999). Cellular automata,
at least by metaphor, shows how entities behave in complex situations.
Often cited in reviews of the origins of chaos theory is work done in the 1960s by
Edward Lorenz. Chaos theory as the academic community understands it today, really
begins with work done on a giant Royal McBee computer, complete with a mass of
wiring and vacuum tubes. The computer was Lorenz’s and he was doing experiments on
the weather. One day in the winter of 1961, something bizarre occurred. Lorenz was
interested in studying one section of a run of a particular program. But, rather than start at
the beginning, he started at the midway point. He programmed in the new numbers but
rounded them from .506127 to .506 (to correspond to what he saw on a printout, which
was shortened to save space on the paper). Instead of finding a similar outcome, he
discovered a totally different one. The weather, because of this small difference at the
starting point, diverged rapidly and completely (Gleick, 1987).
Johnson, in Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software
(2001), reported different but related discoveries. The theme of his book was the myth
that things were governed from the top down. Many believed falsely, for example, that
the Queen ant somehow governed the ant colony. Johnson (2001) met with Gordon, of
Stanford’s Biological Sciences Department to discuss ant colonies and collective
intelligence. Gordon showed Johnson that in the ant colony there were no commands
from above and that learning emerged from the bottom up.
Benoit Mandelbrot showed in the 1970s that an object whose irregularity is
26
constant over different scales ("selfsimilarity") is a fractal. His books on fractals
appeared in 1975 and1977. It was even shown that biological systems such as the
branching of the circulatory and bronchial systems fit nicely into a fractal model. It was
around this time that Yorke (1975), who gave the science of chaos its name, studied
nonlinear systems. Lewin (1999) reported that, during this period, Chris Langton and
others at the University of Arizona began working with cellular automata and artificial
life. This work was built on British scientist John Conway’s “Game of Life” which was
developed in the 1960s
Schueler and Schueler (2001) wrote an online book on the connection of Jungian
psychology and chaos theory. Time does not permit an analysis of the connection to
psychology; but in this online book, they give a brief history of chaos theory from
Poincaré to the present. They reported that, by 1977, the first conference on chaos theory
was held in Italy. The most interesting finding to come out of this theory, they said, was
that order existed within chaos. Order, they said, came from chaotic conditions (Schueler
& Schueler, 2003, p.1). Among other things, Johnson (2001) also referred to two Nobel
prizes in the 1970s dealing with emergent, chaotic phenomena, one by a professor named
Gerald Edelman for his work decoding the language of antibody molecules (which lead
the way for understanding the immune system as a selflearning patternrecognition
device). Prigogine (one of the authors of Order out of Chaos) followed in 1977 with his
Nobel Prize.
With the 1980s, according to Johnson (2001), came the founding of the Santa Fe
Institute (1984), James Gleick’s book Chaos (1987) and two popular science books called
27
Complexity. Shortly after this, a Virginia commission developed a master plan, or vision
for higher education in that state, using chaos theory as its model (Cutright, 2001). By the
early 1980s at least indirect signs of chaos in this sense of the word had been observed in
all sorts of mechanical, electrical, fluid and other systems, and there emerged a
widespread belief, according to Wolfram (2002), that such chaos must be the source of all
important randomness in nature. Wolfram is a widely recognized scientist and author of
the book A New Kind of Science, which is over a thousand pages in length. In this book,
he covers everything from cellular automata to chaos theory.
Writing about the 1990s, Johnson (2001) informed readers of Will Wright’s
development of a game called SimCity. Becoming one of the best selling video game
franchises of all time, SimCity employed a selforganizing, emergent system. Now, web
sites use such technology to regulate their communities. The video game industry, using
the power of digital selforganization, has grown tremendously (Johnson, 2001).
Chaos Theory Defined
The University of Wisconsin research team of Reed et al. (1999, see sections on
theory and chaos theory) simplified the theory this way. Chaos is a state in which
extremely complex systems interact in such a way that they appear to be random. They
offered the weather as an example, where a variety of currents, eddies, temperature
differentials and several other factors combine to make the weather appear to be highly
random. Yet, all the underlying forces are explainable by fluid dynamics and chemistry.
They described order as the mathematical antithesis to chaos, where forces form
into a recognizable and understandable pattern. Order and chaos are said to exist on a
28
continuum where the most ordered states do not change and are frozen in time. Totally
chaotic states, they said, appeared to be completely random at all times and are not
favorable to prediction or understanding. They referred again to the weather, saying that
it existed somewhere in the middle. Again, this is the interesting point that will be
discussed later, the middle ground, or edge of chaos.
Meteorology, according to the Wisconsin team, allowed people to predict and
interpret global weather patterns within a few days with some correctness. Some patterns
can be predicted over the year. But the weather system as a whole is said to be an
example of a system poised on "the edge of chaos," where a seemingly miraculous
organization from many factors brings the system out of randomness and allows for
complex behavior (Reed et al., 1999).
Cutright (2001), in the writings on the use of Chaos Theory for higher education
said, however, that chaos was not the random activity that the term’s common use
suggests. Instead, it held that many seemingly random activities and systems, in fact,
showed complex, replicated patterns. The behavior of these systems was discovered to be
nonlinear, meaning that the behavior fed back on itself, thereby modifying the pattern.
What this means is that predictability of the system’s behavior is restricted to a relatively
short time frame. Later in the discussion, evidence will point to how our understanding of
the “feedback loop,” has potential benefits for education.
It is important to distinguish, as well, the differences between chaos and
complexity, as these terms are often mixed throughout the literature. Though the research
on the topic was helpful, it was not as clear and logical as an explanation offered through
29
personal correspondence with Todd Millick (2004). In addition to his work as a web
designer, Millick has studied political science, law, mathematics and computer
programming and received an M.A. from UC Davis in Political Science. Over the last
five or more years, Millick has studied chaos, complexity, emergence and consilience. In
a recent email (personal communication), Mr. Millick reported these differences. He
wrote that chaos theory dealt with nonlinear systems that displayed "random" behavior.
He described the randomness as simple, meaning that it could be described by one or
more mathematical equations. Examples included air molecules bouncing off each other
in a room, or a leaf blowing in the wind. It was possible, according to Millick, for order
to arise out of chaos, and this could be predicted by simple equations, an example of
which is fractals. Using Lorenz’s (1993) Butterfly Effect as the example, Millick said
that, because chaotic systems were random, they exhibited “sensitive dependence on
initial conditions” (e.g. a static, closed system – one without wind, heat and the general
complexity of the atmosphere may not respond to the butterfly flapping its wings, but a
complex system – dependent on initial conditions might). The “butterfly effect” says that
small changes can have large outcomes.
What is important, though, is the distinction between chaos and complexity.
Complexity Theory, according to Millick, deals with nonlinear systems that displayed
emergent, “higher order” behavior. This behavior was not random and could not be
predicted or described by simple equations. In Chapter Five, the need to embrace
complexity will be more thoroughly discussed. But here is the fundamental reason why
such a model offers a solution. Members of complex systems, Millick wrote, interact
30
according to simple, local rules and CAN (emphasis by Millick) be easily described.
Moreover, these simple, local interactions lead, paradoxically, to complex, global
behavior. The distinguishing feature of complex systems is that they are bottomup
processes, and characterized by selforganization, feedback and adaptation (Millick,
2004). One can see, according to Millick, these patterns in the economy, traffic, colonies
of ants, etc. When academicians study Complexity Theory, therefore, they are really
studying systems at the “edge of chaos.” This is supported by Langton in Waldrop (1993,
pp. 222235, cited in Millick, 2004).
Evidence in Support of a Phenomenon
How, then, does this tie in to education and other social systems? To make the
connection, educators must first understand the phenomenon itself. Later, one will be
able to extrapolate several applications from this. The underlying assumption is that
natural systems, whether human, insect, molecular, planetary, etc., will behave according
to the same rules. This paper is not meant to show proof that social systems, such as what
is found in education, will behave in the same exact way. It is to suggest that there are
similar patterns of order forming from chaos. Below, one might look for similarities and
differences and ask whether or not education is a complex adaptive system.
Evidence of selforganization is everywhere. Prigogine and Stengers (1984) in
their muchcited compendium Order out of Chaos said that the biosphere as a whole and
all its components existed in a state far from equilibrium. Based on this, they said, life as
part of the natural order was the “supreme expression” of a selforganizing process.
Prigogine and Stengers offer something even more important here: nonequilibrium as a
31
source of order. They reported that at equilibrium molecules behaved as essentially
independent entities. They ignored each other. Yet, nonequilibrium woke them up and
introduced a system that was foreign to equilibrium. Fluctuations drove processes
forward. Equilibrium produced “hypnons” and “sleepwalkers” (p. 181).
Kauffmann (1995) in At Home in the Universe described this in another way.
Using a Boolean light bulb network as an example (light bulbs that are interconnected in
various combinations on a grid), Kauffman reported that sparsely connected networks
exhibit internal order. Densely connected ones go into a state of chaos, and networks with
a single connection per element exhibit very uneventful, almost frozen behavior.
Kauffman, interviewed by Lewin in Complexity (1999) said that The Second Law
of Thermodynamics (systems tend toward disorder) might be inadequate to describe all
systems. According to Kauffman, some systems tend towards disorder, others toward
order. Kauffman, as it was brought out in the interview, revealed that he wanted to add
selforganization to the Darwinian theory.
Curious about the nature of selforganization, the search began in this project to
find out what propelled these systems to a state of relative order. Prigogine and Stengers
(1984) concluded that living systems (onecelled organisms to human beings, to groups
and social systems) were open systems in constant interaction with their environment. In
other words, nothing operated in isolation or without interaction. They discovered that
these systems were selforganizing, operating according to their own principles, patterns
and structures. Interestingly, their (living systems) behavior was determined by
responsiveness, creativity and dialogue with their environment (Karpiak, 2000). To grow
32
and change, therefore, they had to communicate and respond in a continuous feedback
loop. Furthermore, Karpiak pointed out (according to Prigogine & Stengers, and
Hayward, 1987) that through this dialogue with their environment, open systems have the
possibility to renew, evolve and even transcend themselves (Prigogine & Stengers;
Hayward).
Prigogine and Stengers (as cited in Karpiak, 2000) described the process of
transformation. When a system is in a state of disequilibrium or instability it is
inordinately sensitive to events from within or without. A small or even subtle trigger can
propel the system out of its current structure. At such a time a system is vulnerable to
break down into chaos, or, alternatively and dramatically, it can break through to a whole
new order.
Larger than even this, Gleick (1987) wrote that believers in chaos, sometimes
calling themselves converts, speculated about determinism, free will, evolution and the
nature of conscious intelligence. They had taken science from a trend toward
reductionism and analysis of constituent parts, looking inward at chromosomes and
neurons, and directed people to look at the whole (Gleick, 1987).
Specific Examples of the Phenomenon
Once familiar with chaos theory, a researcher or educator can turn away from
such constituent parts and see relevant patterns that can be helpful to the social sciences.
In fact, the beginnings of what might be more accurately labeled collective intelligence
seem to appear. Supporting this, Johnson (2001) provided examples in Emergence of how
chaos led to advancement. A New York Times Notable Book, Emergence is a
33
compendium of ideas and scientific theories relating to selforganization, adaptation and
emergence theory (Johnson, 2001).
Evidence gathered in the 1960s showed that entities found in nature exhibited
collective, organized behavior. Scientists observed that slime mold moved from one place
to another in search of food. Once thought to be a single organism, it was later discovered
to be thousands of distinct singlecelled units. These cells, which normally moved
separately, came together under the right conditions into a single, larger organism and
moved across a surface to consume its food (Johnson, 2001). This slime mold changed
between a single creature and a band of roving independent cells in response to
conditions. In effect, it went from a state of chaos, to one of order.
It can be argued that if a researcher were to somehow duplicate this same
behavior and apply it to a level millions of times its size, he or she would arrive at a
situation that happened in Manchester, England in the 1800s. Johnson (2001) noted that
Manchester grew from a city of 24,000 in 1773 to around 250,000 by the middle of the
1800s all without local government, “no city planners, police or public health authorities”
(Johnson, p. 34). Marcus, obviously amazed by what he saw there, said “It is indeed too
huge and too complex a state of organized affairs ever to have been thought up (italicized
by Johnson) in advance, to have preexisted as an idea (Johnson, p. 38). It was the
positioning, the network, the convergence of many things; the confluence of historical
rivers, the technology of the steam powered looms; the banking system; global markets;
labor pools, etc. that made Manchester the center of the technological and commercial
revolution that would affect the entire world (Johnson, 2001).
34
But more than this, like pheromone trails created by ants that self organize (trails
that enable ants to find routes) the excitement and energy created by this conglomeration
of things “attracted a steady stream of intellectuals and public figures in the 1830s,
traveling north to the industrial magnet in search of the modern world’s future” (Johnson,
p. 35). Yet, the order was not imposed on Manchester until well after this revolution had
taken place. The British government did not officially recognize Manchester as a city
until 1853. Top down implementation of ideas did not produce this phenomenon; it had
to come from below (Johnson, 2001). Of course now, with regulations on business,
growth, treatment of workers, pollution, etc., concerned officials and others can curtail
the bad side effects of such unchecked growth.
The Edge of Chaos
This is not a suggestion that educators and others abandon order, tradition and
other linear elements that have provided needed stability over the centuries. Simple
observation provides empirical evidence of the need for order to maintain civilization.
From governments to school districts to classrooms, structure has always been necessary
for protection, guidance, sense of purpose and security.
Wilson (1999) stressed the need for order. He said that order always “wins”
because that is the way the real world operates. But, he noted that it is the collision of the
two where progress takes place.
And to others concerned about the growing dissolution and irrelevance of
the intelligentsia, which is indeed alarming, I suggest there have always
35
been two kinds of original thinkers, those who upon viewing disorder try
to create order, and those who upon encountering order try to protest it by
creating disorder. The tension between the two is what drives learning
forward. (p. 47)
From reformers to those advocating “back to basics,” Democrats to Republicans,
Liberals to Conservatives, classical music to the dissonant fringes of modern music, it is
not hard to see this grinding, steadying process in motion everywhere. In her study on
evolutionary theory, Karpiak (2000) noted that society, like any system, struggled with
the urge to evolve on the one hand, and the will to adapt and maintain itself in its present
state, on the other. In her article, Karpiak researched the new science of chaos,
emergence, creativity and transformation as they relate to education (also to continuing
education specifically).
Langton, who began researching the phenomenon in the 1970s, said that being at
the transition point between order and chaos allowed that small input would amount to
big changes. This, he said, provided exquisite control so that information processing
could become part of the dynamics of the system (Lewin, 1999).
Kauffman (1995), adding to this, saw the edge as a compromise between order
and surprise and said that this area was best able to coordinate complex activities, best
able to evolve. He found it attractive that such “genetic regulatory networks” existed near
the edge of chaos (Kauffman). It is not hard to see that this concept applied perfectly to
democracy where competing interests always rubbed up against one another, pushing
36
towards progress.
Kauffman continued, saying that the edge of chaos may even provide a deep new
understanding of the logic of democracy. After all, the best compromises appeared at the
phase transition between order and chaos.
Before there even was a chaos theory, the mathematician John Nash (as cited in
Nasar, 1998) proved on page six of his thesis that every noncooperative game with any
number of players had at least one equilibrium point. Dixit and Nalebuff (as cited in
Nasar, 1998) reported that it was this interdependence (between players) that was the
distinguishing feature of games of strategy. Nash used mathematics to find this phase
transition [referring, it is believed, to the area between competition and cooperation].
Now, the patterns appear evident in all forms.
At least metaphorically, the two areas of space known as chaos and order have
forever been alluded to. S. Capell of the Courant Institute of Mathematics (as cited in
Nasar, 1998) stated that:
All mathematicians live in two different worlds. They live in a crystalline
world of perfect platonic forms. An ice palace. But they also live in the common
world where things are transient, ambiguous, subject to vicissitudes.
Mathematicians go backward and forward from one world to another. They’re
adults in the crystalline world, infants in the real one. (p. 99)
Though researchers use terms such as “struggle,” when referring to the edge of
chaos, they are really pointing to scientific fact. Looking more deeply into the edge of
chaos and emergent, steadying phenomena, Kauffman alluded to what is called an
37
“attractor.”
In The Origins of Order: Selforganization and Selection in Evolution, Kauffman
(1993) defined an "attractor" as "a set of points or states in a state space to which [various
factors] within some volume of the state space converge asymptotically over time" (p.
177). He said that these attractors pulled the factors together in meaningful ways, thus
helping to define the area that he described as the edge of chaos. For example, in the
weather, an attractor might be a mountain range, where temperature, winds, rain, clouds
and other elements of the system alter their "random" actions and converge to an ordered,
predictable system, generating desert on one side and forest on the other (Kauffman,
1995).
A much simpler experiment that demonstrated attractors was the famous artificial
life cellular automata simulator referred to as "The Game of Life” developed by Conway
in 1982. The game employed a large grid of cells that operated under a Boolean system
of logic. Going back to the earlier definitions of chaos, remember that small degrees of
differentiation or agitation resulted in larger, more profound changes as the system
progressed. The beginning of this process (Boolean) involved logical operators of
“AND,” “OR,” and “NOT” to determine relationships between entities (Encarta World
English Dictionary, 1999). Observation of the grid revealed some areas that acquired a
steady, “frozen” state, while others erupted into endless combinations.
Roger Lewin described the process here:
Cellular automata, the computer jock’s equivalent of a menagerie, are a
kind of complex dynamical system. Imagine an infinitely large grid of squares,
38
like endless graph paper. Each of the squares, or cells, may be either black or
white, depending on the activity of neighboring cells. Simple rules govern the
state of each cell, such as, if four or more of a cell’s contiguous eight cells are
white, then the central cell changes state. Like Boolean networks, cellular
automata progress through a series of states, at which each cell examines the
activity of its neighbors, and reacts according to its rules, …. Notice that global
structure emerges from local activity rules, a characteristic of complex systems.
(1992, p.46)
Researchers have analyzed this game in depth and have discovered higher order
“organisms” that operated within the game’s rules but showed signs of being neither
purely orderly nor purely chaotic. Catching the attention of researchers, these organisms
were given names such as “gliders" and "puffer trains," and were known to live within
the realm called the "edge of chaos" (Kauffman, 1995).
The university of Wisconsin researchers of Reed et al (1999) described on their
website the activity taking place in Conway’s Game of Life. They pointed out an area of
the grid which was frozen, referred to as the steady state “organisms.” This area
fluctuated between a finite number of states, or simply did not change over a long period.
But, the shape and form remained constant.
There was another area on the grid that appeared to be a highly chaotic realm.
Here, the complex set of interactions among the squares held no meaningful order.
Interestingly, the blue “sub space” area would normally be steady, but because it was
close to the chaotic region, it was said to be in danger (Reed, et al., 1999).
39
According to Reed et al. (1999), it was on this literal edge of chaos that the most
interesting and complex organisms were born. They either ventured away from other
interactions or were left alone as the edge pulled back to become their own identity. The
researchers noted that these “sliders” were capable of moving diagonally across this
space into new realms!
It is hoped that in the course of a classroom simulation, a similar group of
“sliders” would be created, a group that would “move diagonally” to make important
discoveries. It is now believed that this can happen at the intersection between a chaotic
and orderly region, one that can easily take place in an openended, interactive game.
Sometimes the sliders ventured into steady areas, igniting a fury of activity and causing
"extension events" to the safe areas of the system. Sometimes they took a path that led
them through all the other activity and completely away from other interactions. More
complex creatures in this world left a trail, or "fuse" behind them as they moved about
(Reed et al., 1999). This is interesting, because it effectively replicated what Wilson and
others observed in ant and slime mold behavior, that they produced pheromone trails.
The "Slider" itself is a chaos attractor, a semi chaotic collection of meaningful
interactions that has predictable characteristics and thrives on the edge of chaos (Reed et
al., 1999). By thriving, one might believe the researchers to be suggesting that the actions
became predictable, took on meaning, seemed to be heading in definite directions, and
that this movability would not have taken place had they not been positioned on this
“edge.”
Prigogine and Stengers (1984) described the process of transformation in the
40
following way. When a system is in a state of disequilibrium or instability it is
inordinately sensitive to events from within or without. A comparatively small or even
subtle trigger can propel the system out of its current structure. At such a time, a system
is vulnerable to break down into chaos, or, alternatively and dramatically, it can break
through to a completely new order (Karpiak, 2000).
More specifically, Prigogine and Stengers (1984) demonstrated a chemical
system’s transformation. They reported that at the point of intense flux and stress the
simple chemical system appeared to hover. At times, it would appear to be “sickly and
starved,” but it would suddenly and unpredictably recover from imminent chaos,
“leaping” instead to a new, more complex whole. By discovering this, they showed a
system’s capacity to spontaneously reorder itself. The process became known as “order
through fluctuations,” as well as “order out of chaos” (Karpiak, 2000).
Inherent Problems with the ScientificDeterministic Model
Now that a new model is presented, one would think that educators are faced with
a choice; continue on a linear path by adhering to the scientificdeterministic model,
embrace the chaos model or find some point in between. It is important to note, however,
that it is not necessary to make a black and white choice. Making such a choice would be
antithetical to complexity. The research will point out that structure will still exist, but
will present itself differently. The argument is not to replace top down methods
altogether, as there will still be a time and place for it. For example, in introducing the
base of a unit of instruction and in laying down the “code” that students might operate
41
under in a complex system, this is appropriate. But, by looking at the scientific
deterministic model one can see that changes are necessary.
Also, there is a disconnect between the structures of school systems and that of
industry and the world outside of school. Though industry is adopting more cooperative
team and job motivation programs, education, in some areas, seems to favor a scientific,
deterministic model. The focus is on objectives and the time required to meet those
objectives. It is about domination and control (Iannone, 1995). Though this is orderly and
measurable, teachers and administrators ought to ask if it is ultimately the most
appropriate and effective model.
Simply put, current models do not account for complexity. This problem extends
to society as well. Society’s resources and opportunities do not always match individual
talents and abilities. If the environment is unsafe and boring, individuals may lose their
ability to develop a more complex consciousness (Karpiak, 2000).
Changing this model could, in effect, change the definition of what a learner is.
From the perspective of the evolutionary vision, creativity and transformation that are
part of the new sciences, said Karpiak (2000), the learner is seen as one who is always
becoming, always a work in progress, destined to change and grow.
Applications
With the earth’s population at over six billion and communication existing at all
levels like at no time before, the possibility for thoughtful, productive interaction could
inspire great, imaginative progress. One does not need to live in a coastal city to
42
experience contact with other peoples and ideas any longer. The Internet, email, text
messaging and other wireless communications have made possible a world of interaction
from any place at any time of the day or night. The point of this paper is to help in
understanding these interactions and facilitate the building of a new model based on the
findings. Towards this end, such descriptions will allow educators and social scientists to
see how systems can evolve out of chaos into meaningful interactions at the edge of
chaos.
Irene Karpiak (2000) described a universe ready to adopt this new model, one
significantly different from that described in seventeenthcentury classical
science. It is not the logical, linear world of prediction and control, nor the
mechanistic world of equilibrium and stability. Our stable, unchanging, and
predictable universe appears to be fading, and in its place is emerging one that is
bursting with energy, teeming with life, emergent, dynamic and always on the
verge of recreation and change. (p. 30)
Consilience
Assuming that meaningful interactions are important for the development and
evolution of a system, one might look to change what is involved in the interaction. In
terms of education, interactions take place within department by classification.
Disciplines are divided conveniently into math, science, English, social studies, etc. At
the base level of instruction, this is important so that the student can see the elements that
constitute an area of study. But, after this, is it important to remain in classified areas to
find answers to life’s perplexities? Is there any reason why the physicist can’t work with
43
the biologist and artist in order to find answers? According to Wilson (1998), there are
underlying truths and a unity of knowledge (consilience) that ought to be explored.
One possibility in this world of potential energy, described by Karpiak (2000)
above, is to begin removing preexisting, dated models of classification and organization.
Biologist E.O. Wilson suggested humans could solve many of our worldly problems
through thoughtful combinations of things. In Chapter Two of the book Consilience
(1998), he introduced the concept of “consilience” and theorized how to merge fields of
study. Wilson, a former Harvard professor, was the author of the Pulitzer Prize winning
books On Human Nature (1978) and The Ants (1990, with Bert Hölldobler). According to
Wilson, William Whewell first used the term “consilience” in The Philosophy of the
Inductive Sciences in 1840 and explained it as a “‘jumping together’ of knowledge by the
linking of facts and factbased theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork
of explanation” (Wilson 1998, p. 8). Wilson went on to explain how to make use of this
philosophy to solve some of our current problems such as ethnic conflict, arms
escalation, overpopulation, abortion, the environment and poverty. He proposed solving
these problems by “integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the
social sciences and humanities” (Wilson, p. 13). Perhaps this philosophy can be used by
educators to apply knowledge from the natural sciences to the social sciences. Later, it
will be shown how easy it would be to make such changes, using the new model.
Application to Education
The question must have come up before as to whether Chaos theory could be
applied to education. One need only examine the “slider cells” in Conway’s Game of
44
Life, their ability to move diagonally as a subset in a sea of confusion; the activity and
energy as the mountain “attractor” brings on the swirling winds and rain of a storm; the
grain of sand that nudges the tipping point creating an avalanche to wonder how other
systems can derive benefits from being at the edge of chaos.
Stuart Kauffman, a researcher at the Santa Fe Institute has done extensive
research on complexity and selforganization. One of the many experiments he conducted
consisted of a Boolean network of light bulbs on a lattice like grid. The bulbs were
connected and tested using various mathematically driven combinations. Many of the
results have a significant relationship to life in the classroom: (a) sparsely connected
networks showed internal order; (b) densely connected networks go into chaos; (c)
networks with a single connection tend towards a frozen, dull kind of behavior, and
finally; (d) a chaotic system is very sensitive to small changes. One possible application
here is the type of system teachers use to arrange students in the classroom.
The authors of one study examined various arrangements of groups based on
different thinking styles. They wanted to see which type of combination would yield the
greatest results. Specifically, the experiment examined different configurations of groups,
dividing MBA students into 49 teams of four members each. Teams were split into
heterogeneous, widely dispersed groups (on one end of the spectrum) to homogeneous
with three cognitive styles completely missing (on the other). In every category of
assessment, it was determined that the heterogeneous team satisfaction was the lowest,
but the hypothesis was proven correct: that the heterogeneous blend of Cognitive
Problem Solving (CPS) performed better than the more homogeneous group (Basadur &
45
Head, 2001). In short, the group with the greatest degree of variance, range and most
potential combinations out performed the homegenous teams.
Again, it is probably the combination somewhere between the two regimes that
does the best. Ionnone (1995) suggested that a good teacher or curriculum designer is like
a jazz musician, reacting and improvising to the sounds surrounding him or her at critical
points in the music (Iannone). They recognize that in the frenzy of sound swirling around
them, that order can be created. Using an acute sense of timing and understanding, they
can manipulate and interpret what they hear and create something pleasing even to the
untrained ear.
A system poised on the edge, between order and chaos, might just be able to
coordinate the complex behavior associated with life (Kauffman, 1995). Such a system, if
transferred to curriculum, would be flexible, open, disruptive, uncertain and
unpredictable. Accordingly, both teaching and curriculum actually need to experience
disorganization, inconsistencies and gaps in order to grow and evolve. Routine, which
arrests growth, is the opposite of such a system and ought to be avoided (Iannone, 1995).
In 1994, Hannay, Smeltzer and Ross began a project to see if chaos theory could
be applied in the context of secondary schools. They found, generally that schools
functioning as living organizations, with evolving and emerging organizational structures
were responsive to school goals (Hannay et al., 2001).
The Ontario School District Case
In 1994, a reculturing and restructuring process began in one Ontario school
district when the district encountered difficulties in assigning department head positions
46
(following a decision to integrate the departments). It was deemed that the status quo was
unacceptable and that a site based approach would be tried. Hannay, Smeltzer, and Ross
(2001) got involved in the project by providing data from a previous study, and by
interviewing participants as the process took place. They looked at change capacity in
this district and related it to research in the field of chaos theory.
Hannay et al. explored the topic of chaos theory and “living organizations,” and
related this to their findings at the school district level. They compiled their results into
an article that appeared in School Leadership & Management (2001).
One of the most noticeable things to come out of the study was the feeling
amongst participants that they were a part of the whole. One participant described it this
way: “I think part of what I like is that it seems as if we’re selfgoverning almost. Things
are run now by committees. It’s not so much everything run by the department heads.
Everybody is part of a committee, part of something that’s going forward” (Hannay et al.,
2001, p. 283).
Another described the changes in this way:
We’ve all had input into it at staff meetings. I like that it isn’t a decision
from the top that it seems to be a decision that’s made in the ranks, the
people who are actually doing the work are making the decisions in the
direction that you’re going. If you can’t share in that process then you
can’t take ownership with the decisions so you’re not going to make any
changes. If the changes are forced upon rather than you having some
choice in the matter it’s not going to happen, so I like that. (Hannay et al.,
47
2001, p. 282283)
Put another way, this participant said: “I think that’s probably the biggest thing about the
school culture is a sense that you can have input, that you can create your own empire,
that you’re not in a school with a great big science department, a big math department,
and you’re a little wheel” (Hannay et al.).
Administrators noticed the change too, saying: “I think there are more teaching
staff involved in shaping and initiating school change.” Another principal stated “there
are more partners now in the decisionmaking than there had been in the past.” This has
resulted in “more sharing in who has power and what’s going on in the school” which,
according to one administrator, resulted in “a lot more of buying in of everybody, in
terms of having a say and really taking ownership for how things are done here” (Hannay
et al., 2001).
For some schools such new relationships not only changed the power balance but
supported new ways of interaction and new structures (Hannay et al., 2001, p. 283).
New ways of interaction and new structures are precisely the aims of chaos theory,
building complexity and then shaping that new order. In order to achieve such a living
organization, the study continues, their needs to be a climate of “continual organizational
learning, acceptance of divergent perspectives, incessant adaptation to contextual needs,
and the means of collaborator interaction” (p. 285).
The same principles seemed to apply equally well at the college level. Mossberg,
writing in Chaos Theory and Higher Education (2001) explained that chaos serves
leadership well. This model provides a vision that enlarges the sense of what is possible
48
organizationally. Chaos theory makes it possible for the institutions to behave more as
nature does, by having a vision that provides for the capacity to act chaotically.
Though more study is needed, one might suggest that a complex adaptive system
of education could prove to be more of a working organism, producing adaptable,
selfmotivated teachers and students who are capable of creative and critical thinking.
The addition of students like this to the economy and world at large could have wondrous
effects.
Chaos and Creativity
Equally important to a study of education, and especially curriculum is the need
for creativity. A common thread throughout is the notion that between order and chaos
lays an area suited perfectly for creative pursuits. Karpiak (2001) supported this by
saying that the process of selforganization is an inherently creative process. It would be
hard to look at organisms coming together for a common purpose, great societies
emerging, fractals, evolution and life itself and see a creative process. According to
Johnson (2001), “there is great power and creative energy in selforganization, to be sure,
but it needs to be channeled toward specific forms for it to blossom into something like
intelligence” (p. 119). Global Challenge was and is one such attempt to channel the self
organization process into a curriculum. If students become aware of the “power” of this
process they could effectively duplicate it in their personal and professional lives
following school. This paper may be the first attempt to apply a complex adaptive system
to curriculum and the classroom.
49
Many times in science, math and the creative arts, the idea preceded the structure
that supported it. The idea emerged first, followed by the order, and it is important to note
that it was not the other way around. Global Challenge (an interactive, emergent, social
science game described in Chapter One), as an example, emerged from the idea that
students could work and develop a project continually throughout the year, creating it as
they went along. The game did not preexist. It emerged into a crosscurricular,
interactive game, all the while, teaching history, geography, personal finance and
interpersonal communication skills.
John Nash, made famous by the movie A Beautiful Mind (Nasar, 1998), was the
mathematician who developed Game Theory and the Nash Equilibrium. He provided an
example of order arising out of chaos.
These insights typically came early on, as was the case, for example, with the
bargaining problem, sometimes years before he was able, through prolonged
effort, to work out a series of logical steps that would lead on to his
conclusion. Other great mathematicians – Riemann, Poincaré, Wiener – have
also worked this way. One mathematician, describing the way he thought
Nash’s mind worked, said: ‘He was the kind of mathematician for whom the
geometric, visual insight was the strongest part of his talent. He would see a
mathematical situation as a picture in his mind. Whatever a mathematician
does has to be justified by a rigorous proof. But that’s not how the solution
presents itself to him. Instead, it’s a bunch of intuitive threads that have to be
woven together. And some of the early ones present themselves visually.
50
(Nasar, 1998, p. 129)
Perhaps seeing the power of metaphor, great scientists have often turned to other
disciplines to find their answers in their own chaotic, emergent way. The work of
scientists such as GellMann (1994) Damasio (1999), or Feynman (Goodstein &
Goodstein,1996) cite their use of philosophy, literature, art, music, history, and other
disciplines as important to their discoveries (Cutright, 2001).
Further evidence exists that order naturally arises out of chaos, and in the process,
leads to creative development. In Emergence, Johnson (2001) explained that cities
function as information and storage retrieval devices. In fact, thousands of years before
digital computers, cities were serving as userfriendly interfaces, capable of retrieving
information. Had there been only linear transmission of content through lecture, such
memory by association would not even be possible. Cities, according to Johnson, had a
way of putting people into coherent slots. Ideas and goods would flow between various
clusters, leading to “productive crosspollination, ensuring that good ideas don’t die out
in rural isolation” (p. 108). Ideas and people, after all, need a medium in which to
operate. Mumford, according to Johnson (2001) went so far as to say that “the city may
be described as a structure specially equipped to store and transmit the goods of
civilization” (p. 107).
Johnson describes this process as a way that cities learn. Similar businesses
cluster in “economies of agglomeration,” because of all the incentives to do so. Artisans
and others were able to share their knowledge and services that they would not have been
able to do on their own certainly. The earliest settlements on the Sumerian coast and the
51
Indus Valley showed signs of this data retrieval system. Johnson noted that all the great
inventions of the first civilizations, grain cultivation, the plow, the potter’s wheel,
abstract math, etc. all began appearing within centuries of the beginning of these urban
settlements (Johnson, 2001). It is arguable that not many great inventions arose out of
totalitarian regimes. Given free reign in the United States the likes of Einstein and Von
Neuman were able to greatly advance their areas of science. Could the Soviets have lost
the cold war because they reversed the patterns of nature ineffectively, imposing order
instead of allowing market and social forces to take their own course? Adherence to a
chaos model would have allowed ideas to emerge from the bottom up, perhaps allowing
for more progress.
Another example of a highly productive emergent process took place at the
RAND Corporation in the 1950s. As Nasar told the story in A Beautiful Mind (1998),
people drifted into each other’s offices, or would just chat in the corridors. Designed by
John Williams, the grids and courtyards were set up ‘to maximize chance meetings.’ The
interchanges would lead to new research and colleagues exchanging challenging
problems with one another. In this informal way, RAND memoranda would often start
out simply as a handwritten paper being handed over to a math department secretary
(Nasar). The formal work of determining the possible interactions for war and, therefore,
American foreign policy was being handled in an informal way. Making the set up even
less traditional, Williams later insisted that the building be open 24 hours a day rather
than the usual eight to five schedule. He set up coffee stations that had their own special
full time maintenance crew. As Nasar put it, the engineers and Air Force generals
52
“wondered why the hell the mathematicians had to be allowed to be themselves” (Nasar,
1998). Similarly, by increasing the number of possible interactions, teachers would be
allowing for the formation of creative “sliders.”
Can such principles apply to the social system of education, and more particularly
to curriculum and the classroom? If so, is it possible to now construct a complex adaptive
theory of education? Can such a theory be realistically put into practice? To answer such
questions, it is important to look to a sound methodology to interpret the data that will be
presented in this paper. If certain truths emerge from the data, such concepts could be put
into a useable theory.
53
Chapter 3
Methodology
What follows is an explanation of the random, if not chaotic, way that ideas and
information emerged into a useable theory. Of course, by the end of this thesis, a
workable model will have been developed. Researchers now understand that grounded
theory, developed in 1967, makes such a system of inquiry legitimate. Because of the
nonlinear nature of this inquiry, it is necessary to explore the principles and procedures
used towards building the theory (see “methodology” in WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton
University). In doing so, one might ask whether Grounded Theory can help in putting
together information from a variety of sources. After all, there is scientific data as well as
qualitative (historical) records to take into consideration.
Chapter 1 established the reason for using grounded theory. Because of its
emergent nature, it fit best with the themes addressed in this paper. The idea, at first, was
to use a research methodology based on chaos, complexity or other emergent theory.
When it was discovered that none formally existed, grounded theory was used.
It is notable, however, that even though 37 years have passed since the
introduction of this theory, it is, by no means a guaranteed, scientific measure. Locke
(2001) stated that even though the discovery book was widely known and had achieved
great importance, it was not an uncontested theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) noted,
however, early in their book that it works and provides “relevant predictions,
explanations, interpretations and applications” (p. 1).
Before explaining the procedure used in building the emergent classroom theory
54
brought forth in this paper, grounded theory needs to be explained. First, the data forms
the theory and not the other way around. In The discovery of Grounded Theory, Glaser
and Strauss (1967) noted that an effective strategy is to ignore the literature of theory and
fact on the area of study. They believed that preexisting concepts might contaminate
categories that are yet to emerge.
This fit very well with the methods employed in this thesis, since at the beginning
of Global Challenge (1992) the emergent concepts being observed were not in any way
affected by what was known then about chaos, complexity or emergence. The
phenomenon was taking shape but was not categorized or related to any theories other
than general teaching methodologies and what was known about the multiple
intelligences. Readings on the subjects of consilience, emergence, and chaos did not
begin until after a sevenyear run of the game. Furthermore, it was not known that such
theories were being applied to education at all until work began on the thesis in 2003.
The theories, therefore, followed observations and readings. Glaser and Strauss (1967)
noted that comparisons with the literature could take place after the core categories have
emerged.
After the readings mentioned above, it became clear that the phenomenon
observed in my class was essentially emergent and complex and matched other
phenomena in science and nature. As readings and research on these theories continued,
it became clear exactly how one could apply this model of behavior to education. The
idea that I might be on to something new and undiscovered only lasted briefly, as I soon
discovered the Santa Fe Institute which was dedicated to the study of these phenomena.
55
Feelings of originality faded again as it was discovered that studies had been undertaken
as early as the late eighties on the relevancy of chaos theory to education. A book called
Chaos Theory in Higher Education was published in 2001 (Cutright), indicating that
there was a large field opening up on the topic.
Grounded theory, though, is not just a collection of ideas; it is also a process. In
1967, Glaser and Strauss discussed the operation as including collection, coding, and
analysis of data. They noted that all three operations should be done together, “blurring
and intertwining continually” (p. 43) from the start of the operation until conclusion.
In 2001, Karen Locke, in Grounded Theory in Management Research, gave a
more specific explanation of how to perform these operations. This confirmed Dick (of
Action Research Resources of Southern Cross University, 2002) in his online explanation
of the procedures, but was far more specific. Locke’s analysis is true to Glaser and
Strauss’ book and serves as an excellent framework for the methodology used here.
As each step is listed, it will be pointed out how these methods were followed in
the development of this thesis, and this model.
Stage 1: Comparing incidents applicable to each category
This stage includes naming, comparing, and memoing. In Global Challenge,
students were given basic or generic instructions and parameters in which to operate. It
was up to them to create a structure that would permit the game to flow smoothly. The
details of this will be examined in Chapter 4. For now, it is important to note that a
higher, complex order followed from this. The name for this, as stated earlier, was not
known until categories and theories were revealed in the research. Seven years of notes,
56
memos, tests, essays, comments from administrators and students, and anecdotal
evidence will be named and compared in Chapter 4. Clearly, though, a memo technique
was used just in the fact that records were kept and notes were written by both the teacher
(me) and students. Locke acknowledges that one can, in fact, use archival material during
this stage on page 46 of her book.
Coding or naming, according to Locke, takes place when researchers create
conceptual categories that provide a new way of looking at the world. The development
of such categories took place in Chapter 2 and will congeal even more in Chapter 4.
Phenomena from one set of data (e.g. slime mold) was held against classroom analysis
for possible similarities and differences. Locke noted that this process is helpful in
determining what is uniform and stable in the data (p. 48).
Most importantly, Locke noted that the process of free form writing on the topic,
which happens after the observations, is important in solidifying and coming to terms
with what one has learned. The phenomena observed is limited by the parameters of this
paper, the writing of it will, with hope, solidify a trend and form a useable model.
Stage 2: Integrating categories and their properties
Again, according to Locke, one provides an organization for the categories during
this stage. This stage involves formulating a conceptual scheme (p. 51) Locke even
recommends visualizing the set of categories by creating a diagram. I began developing
such a scheme four or five years ago through the drawing of a simple, three symbol
diagram (see appendix). The diagram showed in the simplest expression possible that
order forms from chaos. Once chaos was contained or “harnessed,” one could then go
57
about molding it into workable, nonthreatening, and creative categories. This diagram
provided an overall theme to the research. Simply put, it provided a visual to the Chinese
proverb that “out of chaos, comes brilliance.”
The integration took place by comparing themes and definitions from scientific
data with that of social data and vice versa. The test would be to see how similarly these
agents behaved. The categories of order forming from chaos, emergence, consilience,
attractors and complexity were compared from their scientific origins to social situations
such as what was observed in Global Challenge and other school scenarios.
Stage 3: Delimiting the theory
This is the stage, according to Locke, that one ends the analysis. One develops the
categories at this stage to the point where they explain the observed data. Each data set, in
other words, matches the category created for it. Residents of Manchester, England in the
1800s and students playing Global Challenge would both, for example, fit in the category
of emergent behavior. Both sets of agents came together out of necessity to form order,
and headed towards unknowable goals. A collective intelligence, of sorts, formed. The
category of emergent, complex behavior is sufficient to explain the data. At the point
where new data fails to require new categories, one has achieved what Locke refers to as
theoretical saturation.
One interesting category did come up during the course of this research, and that
was the phenomena known as the “edge of chaos.” It is hard enough for one doing
research on cellular automata to know with precision where and when this phenomena
takes place. Apply it to social organization, and one has an even harder question to
58
answer and one that, certainly, is beyond the scope of this paper. Metaphorically,
however, it still stands to symbolize the area, somewhere between order and chaos that
provides a good balance for complexity and, therefore, for the formulation of a higher
order. Complexity, by definition, is that area between order and chaos, and is still
emergent. The category of emergent behavior, therefore, was not affected. At the time of
the writing of the theory, no new data presented itself that would overturn the categories
of complexity or emergent behavior. In referring to the title of this thesis, the category
“edge of chaos,” is still relevant since that data supports that this area produces great
change and progress. To know the exact spot where that takes place would be the
equivalent of knowing at what point an avalanche begins. This, however, should not deter
one from examining the nature or power of an avalanche.
On this note, Locke says a theoretical framework will come to be at some point in
the research process. Analysts at this stage, according to Locke, will have something
substantive to say about the phenomena (p. 54).
Stage 4: Writing the theory
The information contained herein provides a perfect example of order arising out
of chaos. No particular method was employed, at first, other than responding to my
personal curiosity in the field, random searches, crossreferencing, all driven by a desire
to find a better model for personal and educational needs. I started with books from my
personal collection and took note of whom they were referencing and where their
research came from. In addition to looking up those sources, I performed random
searches using mostly ERIC, EBSCO Host, Psych Info, Eureka, (from the CSUS library)
59
and Google. Not surprisingly, Google seemed to reference in some way or another all the
listings covered in the other search engines. Amazon.com and its amazing search engine
was also useful in finding out the most read books on the topic (i.e. people who read this
book also read such and such). A last minute search, encouraged by the instructor of one
course, produced one of the most useful articles – found in EBSCO Host. It provided the
necessary link between chaos theory and curriculum.
The process described above is one of theoretical sampling. Locke wrote that this
process should be an open ended and flexible process. It will probably be modified and
rearranged during the course of the study. It is all part of the process of refining the
conceptual scheme of the theory. Locke also noted the importance of different samples as
a way of testing the theory under different conditions.
This research stayed very close to these conditions as examples and research was
compared at many different levels. Johnson referred to cities, slime mold, software, etc.,
while Wilson discussed a unified theory of knowledge emerging by scientific synthesis.
Chaos and complexity were also studied on several levels to include cellular automata,
chemical systems, fractals, and various social interactions (to include educational
organizations.)
Perhaps, the most cogent point is one made by Locke in referring to her study of
Glaser and Strauss. She noted that theoretical sampling across groups, even ones that
appear to be noncomparable, is useful in developing a theory that is more general and
formal (p. 58). More than this, though, is a reference to personal involvement in the
study. Locke makes clear Glaser and Strauss’ understanding that the subjective personal
60
experience is a measure of credibility.
Grounded theory was very useful for all these reasons because it lends credibility
to allowing for the emergence of a theory. Often, insights do not make sense at first.
There is no way to put certain thoughts and feeling to words. If one goes searching for a
theory too quickly, this will taint or contaminate the research. A good example lies in the
work of the great mathematician John Nash. Sylvia Nash wrote,
These insights typically came early on, as was the case, for example, with
the bargaining problem, sometimes years before he was able, through
prolonged effort, to work out a series of logical steps that would lead on to
his conclusion. Other great mathematicians – Riemann, Poincaré, Wiener
– have also worked this way. One mathematician, describing the way he
thought Nash’s mind worked, said: ‘He was the kind of mathematician for
whom the geometric, visual insight was the strongest part of his talent. He
would see a mathematical situation as a picture in his mind. Whatever a
mathematician does has to be justified by a rigorous proof. But that’s not
how the solution presents itself to him. Instead, it’s a bunch of intuitive
threads that have to be woven together. And some of the early ones
present themselves visually. (Nasar, p. 129)
Perhaps seeing the power of metaphor, great scientists have often turned to other
disciplines to find their answers in their own chaotic, emergent way.
61
Chapter 4
Analysis of a Curriculum
What follows is the brief story of how the curriculum Global Challenge came into
being and how I came to embrace this new model for learning.
I began my first teaching assignment at a high school in Reno, Nevada. Classes, at
this school were overcrowded, some approaching 50 students. To deal with this problem,
I was hired and students in the social studies department were given the option to sign up
for the new classes. Therefore, instead of starting with students from a random pool, my
classes were filled with students who signed a piece of paper or otherwise asked to be in
a new class.
There were some “serious” students, but there were also a great number who
demonstrated behavioral problems. I entered the profession with a feeling of confidence,
an attitude that I could do this job well because I had a good education, public speaking
background, and a diversity of experience. That feeling unraveled in about an hour and
continued to erode over the next two weeks. Realizing that I did not have the type of
hard, authoritarian personality necessary to control my classes, I knew it was time to be
creative, or it was time to leave.
62
Going over some notes from a class I had taken from Dr. Meggin McIntosh at the
University of Nevada, Reno, I decided to create a game loosely modeled after the game
of Risk. The game went through many changes and additions and resulted in the
following: Students would answer questions in several categories in order to either
defend or attack one of the 190 UN member nations. The game evolves from nomadic
tribes through the present, as students change teams, form strategies, and answer
questions from required curriculum. Questions might be, for example, about Hammurabi
in the “people” category, or the Tigris River in “geography,” or the approximate date of
the establishment of Sumer in “history.” All questions correspond directly to whatever
section the classes are covering at the time. A more detailed explanation of the game will
come later.
My thinking was that there might be a way to teach that did not seem like
teaching (e.g. top down instruction, lecture, etc.) to either the students or the teacher. It
would be learning by or through experience. What if the teacher were to take a simple
game, but let it expand to include new things and ideas? What if students had a part in
constructing the ideas of the game, so that they would more likely buy in to their
creations and additions? What if the game had a builtin ability to expand and evolve
each semester as it became increasingly sophisticated? What if the by product of this
game was that students would learn everything or most everything in the curriculum (e.g.
the districtrequired content for world history), but would also be engaged in critical
thinking and challenged so much so that they were unaware of the passage of time?
This is how Global Challenge started.
63
Little did I know at the time that “order” was forming from “chaos,” that we were
experiencing an effect similar to nonequilibrium thermodynamics and that the second
law of thermodynamics (that all things in the universe are subject to entropy) was turning
upsidedown. In fact, during the seven year run of Global Challenge, borders between the
disciplines began to “break down” as a new, higher order took place, one where learning
transcended traditional lines. Later, empirical evidence will demonstrate this.
I was at a school that was adopting innovative principles of teaching such as
interdisciplinary studies, thematic units of instruction, block scheduling and the use of
Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences. I was given free reign to experiment with the
idea and created an “open system” which took into consideration the opinions and ideas
of students and colleagues.
At the beginning, I did not realize it would grow beyond initial expectations. At
one point, all my classes and at least two other classes in history were using the concept.
Other teachers from the community showed interest as well. The game was featured on
our local PBS affiliate, a local TV station and aired for a short time on community TV
(Sierra Nevada Community Access Television) in the form of a TV game show for
students.
In 1998, I was in New York City and stopped by one afternoon at the United
Nations. While I was there, I decided to see if they would have interest in Global
Challenge as a way of teaching world geography and international relations. I spoke with
an information officer named Hasan Ferdous, who later ended up working in Kofi
Annan’s office. Following the trip, I continued correspondence with Mr. Ferdous, and
64
was later to be invited to attend a UN teacher conference and possibly present the idea. I
declined as I did not feel the project was ready for such a presentation.
A Brief Explanation of How the Game Works
(Excerpted from Chazen, 2003)
In Global Challenge (a curriculum for 6th – 12th grades) students answer questions
in seven different categories in order to earn points, money and political influence.
Before this begins, they put together a map, are distributed different countries, and are
required to do a great deal of research. They must know the per capita income,
population, major industry, capital and something of interest for each country they are
given. Also, before the game even starts, they must put together a philosophy or guide to
how they will play the game.
Students read each chapter of an assigned text, and formulate their own 20
questions each week – divided into vocabulary (4), historical fact (5), geography (4),
people (4), trivia (1) and something from another core class (math, science, English or
social studies) (1). These questions become the basis for the game and for future tests. In
other words, they will need to write out as many questions as are specified above. These
questions can be turned in to the honors students for quick review, then over to the
teacher. Points will be awarded if the questions are correct and useable. United Nations
members will be required to review these, make adjustments, and then turn them into
official game questions. Every new unit the teacher introduces results in the making of
new questions. At the end of the unit, the teacher may devise a test or quiz over the
material covered by game questions. This way, if a student does poorly during the game,
65
she or he can compensate by scoring high on quizzes and tests. These should be handed
in each week, and turned into useable cash upon being graded (1 pt. = $1,000).
Students sit in a horseshoe configuration facing the map. Game play progresses
clockwise as students or teams (depending on phase of the game) are asked three
questions. Each question has a value of 5 points or $5,000. If the student gets two of the
three correct, she or he has the opportunity to declare peace on or take over the country in
question. This continues for a specified number of rounds until game play stops (usually
20 rounds). At this point winners are declared in several categories:
1. Most number of countries taken
2. Greatest square miles conquered
3. Greatest wealth based on per capita incomes of conquered countries or GDP
4. Most number of countries maintaining peace
5. Greatest diplomat / peace maker
6. Overall winner
7. etc.
Game play moves the students through four stages of history: Nomad, citystate,
nation State, and SuperPower. Each stage is symbolically represented by number of
students in a team (to represent the state of world history that is being studied). The
classroom will steadily evolve (order out of chaos) as allegiances are formed, until they
reach the SuperPower stage. Just as in the cold war, the two sides square off. There is an
optional fifth stage, which opens the class up to creative discussion of where they think
the world is headed.
66
Game play can stop at anytime, either by peaceful treaty between players or when
50% or 90 countries of the world have achieved the status of peace. Peace is declared on
a country after the player correctly answers two questions and decides not to attack
anyone. At various points during the game, the teacher may wish to insert a unit plan or
engage the class in discussion about the relevance to history or current political
conditions.
Teams research their countries, paint and piece together a giant world map and
study textbook and other relevant reading material in preparation. If they answer their
questions correctly, they will earn $5,000 in Global Challenge money, and will
potentially achieve peace or the takeover of another country.
Every country taken over in Global Challenge earns the player or team the current
Per Capita Income of that country. There are equal bonuses to work for peace. As a result
of all these incentives, students study furiously in an attempt to do well at the game. They
also and this one is somewhat hard to believe ask to do extra work. On a weekly basis,
students will come up with all kinds of ideas and the teacher may find them asking to
compile data, create a chart, do detail work on the map, compile new game questions,
create theme songs, or banners, make anthems or team logos.
Students engage in a fury of activity communicating facts, ideas and plans to one
another both at school and at home. There is never a question of homework as it is an
ongoing activity. Students can easily access and exchange all kinds of information at all
hours of the day and night, by use of the Internet. This is an ongoing, emergent,
crosscurricular phenomenon (Chazen, 2003).
67
When studying the data of several years of this project, the primary question was
whether or not order formed from chaos. Was the classroom a complex adaptive system?
Did trends, patterns and categories emerge during the seven year period, enough so that a
useable theory could be derived? Are such theories universal and useable?
Data Analysis and Findings
According to grounded theory, the researcher notes the formation of categories as
research continues. Chapter 4 is a summary of the findings from an historical study of the
curriculum Global Challenge (see appendix) and examines whether or not it revealed
patterns similar to chaos and related theories. During the process known as theoretical
sampling, categories began to emerge, that were similar to scientific findings in the field
of chaos and related theories. These are listed below in eight phases that follow the
chronology of the Global Challenge Project.
Data Sources
The sources used to extract the data for this paper included the following:
1.
Papers written while a graduate students at California State University,
Sacramento
2.
Papers written while a student at the University of Nevada, Reno.
3.
Personal notes and observations while a teacher at Galena High School in Reno,
Nevada.
68
4.
Personal correspondence with colleagues.
5.
Promotional literature written about Global Challenge
6.
The Global Challenge Booklet (2003).
7.
Student and professional evaluations.
8.
Student Journals (voluntary)
9.
Classroom handouts
10.
Student essays and various work handed in associated with Global Challenge
Note: For clarity purposes, spelling and punctuation were corrected on some of the
student work. This did not effect the meaning of their writings.
Phase I: Visualization
In 1993 or 1994 Jackie Jones, Principal of Galena High School, said, “we want a
school of creative, free thinkers.” The door was clearly open to some new ideas to try out
in the classroom. Ideas began emerging on the concept of an interactive classroom. These
ideas are summarized in what was later written down in the Global Challenge booklet
(Chazen, 2003).
What if I didn’t have to stand up in front of the class at all? What if
students’curiosity and imagination drove the learning process? What if
students were involved in an everexpanding project or game that just kept
growing and changing? Maybe they would be forced to control themselves
if they wanted the game to continue. Maybe their learning would not be
content driven but driven by the experience and the content of the course
would be absorbed as a result of being involved in the project.
Phase II: The Experiment Begins
In the fall of 2002, I pieced together notes and information from the entire run of
the Global Challenge Project in order to put a final booklet together for use by teachers.
69
This was handed in for a final report for a class at California State University. The
booklet had a section describing the beginning of the project:
I began flipping through my notes from my university classes trying to
come up with anything that might work. Then, I remembered an idea that
surfaced for me one summer in Dr. Meggin McIntosh’s class (University
of Nevada, Reno). The class was a good place for brainstorming. The idea
was to take a board game –like Risk (one of my favorites from when I was
a kid) and turn it into something more. There was no way I was going to
hold the attention of this class – so it was worth a try (Chazen, 2002, p. 4)
Instead of a yearlong project, as it became later, it was just a unit of study. I used
a Risk board and had students play as a way of learning their way around a map. As we
began to play, I wanted them to make observations about warlike behavior through
history. Some rules were added on as gameplay continued. I had them state facts about a
country that they were attacking. It was a good initial step to get students thinking
critically about trends throughout history. This once rebellious group of classes seemed to
respond to the new format.
Phase III: Chaos
During the beginnings of this project, my role began changing from lecturer to
facilitator. Teachers might admit that there are times when the authority, the discipline
and the order are nice. One’s command of the content, however, must be certain. I was
not a content area expert where world history was concerned, so I knew from the start
that this was not possible. As facilitator, I began a dialogue with my classes on where to
70
go. The world of possibilities was open and students could begin creating a “world” or
microcosm in which to live. In the beginning, therefore, there was chaos. One student, in
his or her essay (looking back at the beginnings of the game) wrote:
In the beginning, most people didn’t understand for sure what their role
was, or what exactly they could do. Most people went for peace in the first
rounds. They were busy establishing themselves like the early
civilizations. There were a few people eager for war. Even though they
weren't quite sure how the process worked, (even the U.N. wasn't for sure,
yet) they still went for war. These wars were unsuccessful. They didn't
know how to attack successfully. (student essay)
The information contained in this section does not show a positive image, but
does show the “real world” challenges the students faced. Some did extraordinary work
to get us out of this phase and into a more workable format. One student noted:
With the end of the game upon us I am glad to say I am very happy I am
done. For the past two years I have gone through the crying, whining, and
bitching, and I’m done. My role in the game is one of the majority of the
students you will have. I just sat back protected my self and let everybody
else kill each other. My objective for the game was to stay alive. (student
essay)
The general trend, though, was optimistic. Students were actively engaged in
classroom activity, and no one was really left to wonder off mentally in the back of the
class. However, it is fair to say, that for some, the class left them with a pessimistic view
71
of humanity. A common theme in final essays was that the world was heading for more,
not less, conflict. This student wrote, “I think that this world is going to have WW III and
that will be total destruction with all of the technology that we have today.”
Perhaps this view was developed by what they saw in class. It is important,
however, to interject at this point that there is a difference between the curriculum and the
teacher. The curriculum may have safeguards in place, but the personality of the teacher
is important when it comes to enforcing such rules. I never felt I had the right personality
for a disciplinary approach and admitted that classroom management was not my forte.
One student noted the chaotic atmosphere:
In the class we also proved where society is headed. As the game progressed,
the class became more and more violent, to each other and to the teacher
(namely you). It ended in huge conflicts and screaming matches as everyone
fought for control. Such as has happened in the world, with more and more
terrorist strikes and more and more wars. (student essay)
Indeed, some classes had it tougher than others did. Two or three rebellious or
over active students could send the entire class into chaos. Clearly, this was a trouble area
for Global Challenge and created the need for more safeguards. This student wrote:
Actually, I kind of wish the game was over. I am getting real sick of it.
There is so much cheating & unfairness that it makes it messed up. I am
also tired of the pressure the UN gets. I often times get frustrated. I don’t
want to totally be down on the game because it is cool and different. But I
have just been having a hard time with it. (student essay)
72
Theories of total disintegration of the system continued. This student added:
First let me say that I like the idea of the game, it is a great idea, but in our class I
don’t think we can go on. The class is already split and everyone is taking
everything way too seriously. Everyone is at everyone’s throat and it is only a
matter of time before the whole place blows. (student essay)
I encouraged students to take such frustrations and compare them to items they
would read in the newspaper, watch on TV, or read in their textbooks. My hope was that,
emotionally, they would be able to understand erratic behavior in world history. As this
student pointed out in 1995:
Some people win. Some people lose. And if you tried at it you learned history
too. The only problem with the game is that there are too many loop holes.
People could not do anything and still do well. But for the most part the game
went well and repeated history. Even when it was out of control, it was
repeating life. (student essay)
Looking back through such notes, I realized there was an ongoing phase from the
beginning, that could only be labeled:
Phase IV: The Need for Order
From the teacher’s perspective, there was a definite need for bringing structure to
chaos. On February 28, 1994, I put together this memo for our administration:
Three years ago, I began working on an elaborate version of the game
RISK, which could be adapted to social studies classes. I am now in the
second year of using this idea at Galena, and am convinced that it
73
embodies many of our themes; cooperative learning, heterogeneous
grouping, and a hands on approach to learning to name but a few. (Mr.
Yoxsimer has worked many hours with me in developing the idea. His
classes continue to play every day.)
The only problem at this point, is that the game has become so
complex, so massive in scope that it may be beyond one person’s (the
teacher’s) ability to manage and control it. The game forces students out
of their comfort zone, and makes them think. But at the same time, a mass
load of work for the teacher is generated. If this can be managed and
organized, however, this project will turn out to be a truly unique
classroom experience.
What I would like to propose, is an independent study for students
who would like a hands on learning experience (memo, 1994).
Personal notes at the time, also revealed a desire to solve the problem of chaos:
New rule ideas to avoid conflict
1. Class votes on rules of behavior
2. Read behavior code in history from Hammurabi to the present.
3. UN can call mediation at any time.
4. Sanctions and embargoes
5. Self governing classes.
6. Study peace (personal notes, n.d.)
The final exam given to students often asked them to compare what had happened
74
in the game to events in history. Shogo, an exchange student from Japan, made such a
comparison to Napoleon following the completion of Global Challenge. He said,
“Napoleon, his greatest work was comprehensive code of laws known as the Napoleonic
code. I think we need something like that, to be a good ruler. Make laws to restrain
ourselves.” Other students, took it upon themselves to become better organized. This
student, around the same time, noted:
When we actually started to play the game, I tried to attack every round,
but it was a lot harder than I thought. I knew that if I was to win the game,
I would need to study and carefully plan out what I would do next.
(student essay).
Wanting to bring more structure and organization to the project, I began work on
a rulebook in 1994. Students were told to prepare themselves organizationally for what
was about to happen. Early in the booklet, it said:
Get off to a good start: In the first five rounds, you will be playing as nomads,
or by yourselves. How you do in these first five rounds will determine the rest
of the game. You will be placed into groups later based on your points
accumulated and the area of your intelligence. Two words: BE PREPARED.
An emphasis at our school during this time was the use of Gardner’s multiple
intelligences. Seeing this as a possible way to organize students into different roles, I put
the following guideline together (in rough form) for Honors students:
Honors: committees
1.
75
Linguistic
set up mtg. to write up role of UN
each person must write out ten functions
meet and type up rules by
2. Math logic
create exchange system
create values for armies, weapons, points for attendance
Ans. quest. how do countries trade? use an historical example.
each person write a paper on how this will work
one group paper by
3. Spatial
one person per class
instructionsdue for completion of maps
4. musical
for each song. author, title
what was happening in history at the time of the song
one must be classical
must all be on tape by
Mrs. Tanner?
5. bodily
do black outlining & touch up work on map by
in change and supplies paint clean upetc.
design game pieces & scoreboard by
6. interpersonal
report due on sanctions. and tariffsuse examples from three time periods, out of your
history books
work. in groups numbering oneten
Table 1.
76
7. intrapersonal
strengths and weaknesses of each group work. w/ each grouptake notes
one page analysis of what’s good, bad, and what we still need to do.
whose philosophy should we use in this gamewho is a model for excellence and why
what ideas can we use from this person
Example of Honors Work (Circa 1996)
Later, as classes were preparing to bring this project to a community television program,
an administrative team was put together. The following note was given to students:
Table 2.
Example of Administrative Tasks
Global Challenge has become so complex over the years that we now find it necessary to have a group
of “super organizers” just to keep everything in line. Your jobs will be a lot like the jobs of running a
major corporation – so I want you to look at this as real job training. Remember that old complaint:
“what does this have to do with anything” or “how will this help me in the real world?” Well, now you
will not be able to say that anymore. Just like any of the other committees and projects, you will have
to complete five hours of work either in class or at the job sight, or at home. When you complete an
assignment mark down on your project sheet the date, a description of what you did, the skills and
information that you learned, and then have two people sign the form. (a fellow student and supervisor
for example.)
Since I believe there is great value in doing these skills, and since I believe this is a good way for
some people to learn I will give 100 points (maybe more) for the successful completion of this project.
Success is defined here as a smooth running, well organized, well prepared six weeks of Global
Challenge. Remember, the word challenge is in the name because this is not expected to be easy. After
all, do you really learn anything from easy tasks? The correct answer is no. Since this is worth a test
grade, I know you’ll take this seriously. Right?
Here are some sample jobs that you can do.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
write up rules packet and photocopy
make a grand to do list for the show
create filing system for tracking everything
work on developing charts and graphs for tracking in class game developments
5. put together a list of supplies for the game and the show and make sure we have them ready to go.
supervise the other committees
create a check list and forms to assist the other committees
ask the teacher and honors students for a list of things that need to be done
ask the students in each class if they have everything they need to compete or play the game
look in the supply basket and see if we need photocopies of checkbooks, registers, odds charts, etc.
produce chance cards based on the odds chart
call Carl at SNCAT to see if he needs anything (8281211)
Here’s a suggestion: give yourself a job description and title and take pride in what you do. Much of
the success of this game and your overall experience in this class will depend on what you decide to
do. Most importantly, I hope you have some fun.
77
After a presentation of Global Challenge to an education class at the University of
Nevada, Reno around 1997, I put forward the following questions (formatted to fit this
page) as a way to get university students thinking about the role of facilitator and
administering an interactive project in the classroom:
Table 3.
Questions for Workshop Participants:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
78
What teaching philosophies can you incorporate into Global Challenge?
What is the best way to cover all the curriculum?
How can homework assignments be organized?
What is a good homework assignment that can be used repetitively in Global Challenge?
What instructions can you offer to the student on how to prepare for Global Challenge?
What instructions can you offer to the teacher on how to prepare for Global Challenge?
What advice do you have for parents on how to get their child ready for Global
Challenge?
What are the winning categories for the project?
What should students be awarded for winning in each category?
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
How should winning effect a student’s grade?
How can students be awarded for their multiple intelligences?
What is the purpose of the checkbook, and how should it be setup?
How should scorecards work?
How should students keep track of what is going around them in the game?
What are some general principals of organization and study skills that students can use?
How can the teacher appeal to both the right and left brain of the student?
What does it mean to teach to the whole student, and how can this happen through Global
Challenge?
How can heterogeneous grouping of students be incorporated into Global Challenge?
How can the interactive aspects of Global Challenge be better explained?
How can more cooperation be built into Global Challenge?
How can Global Challenge work better in terms of teaching across the curriculum?
How can Global Challenge teach students to use their emotional intelligence?
How should arguments be settled in Global Challenge?
What kinds of real world examples can be used to teach lessons in Global Challenge?
How can the rules be better explained so that anyone teacher and any students can
participate in Global Challenge?
What history lessons should be built into Global Challenge?
What extra readings should be required during Global Challenge?
How can a nontraditional or creative student find a place for himself in Global
Challenge?
What are some physical game pieces or cards are needed to play Global Challenge?
What is the role of the teacher during Global Challenge?
what is the role of honors student during Global Challenge?
What are some extra components that can be added into the game such as music, sound
effects, props, lighting, humor, etc.?
Global Challenge and the Teacher’s Role
79
Phase V: Parameters Put in Place
Instructions became more specific over time. Looking back on previous problems,
I knew better what was needed to keep relative order. Students had, in previous years,
thought critically about what they needed to do to make the project work. Here is an
example of what the honors program was beginning to look like by 1995.
Table 4.
THE DAY HAS ARRIVED: GLOBAL CHALLENGE ’95
WORLD HISTORY
Mr. Chazen
HONORS PROGRAM
By now you should have read the rule book, decided on your areas of intelligence, read the section
from the Global Paradox and completed your first project. From this point forward, there will be many
things to do, and it will be hard to tell who is doing what. The honors grading system will work on an
individual basis. There will be a threshold of points over the next six weeks – probably 250 points or so.
You will be graded on your desire to learn, your leadership, optimism and your initiative.
Every time you complete a project of whatever size, you will need to see me so I can record points
for you. Each small effort will be worth around 10 points. As the game progresses, I will be observing you
to give you points even when you think you may not have done anything. Remember, a great deal of the
success of this project relies on you.
You honors grade will be averaged in with the rest of your scores. Remember, you cannot skink
below a B average, since that would disqualify you from being in honors. Below is a check list so you can
make sure you are ready to go. Look at this list and decide which items relate to your area of intelligence.
80
Whey you finish each project see me and I will give you your points.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Is there someone who can organize game pieces?
Are we ready to total individual checkbooks and add up the class score?
Do we have an expert on the rules – and someone to enforce them?
Are we ready to keep track of armies and weapons?
Are we ready to read off game questions?
Will we be able to cover all the questions up to chapter 17?
Do you have a back up system in case someone does not show?
Is the historian ready to record classroom events?
Do we have a way to check the current PCI of countries?
Do we have a way to check facts about each country?
Do we understand how to use the dice?
Do we understand the rules of attacking and defending?
do we have all the game cards that we’ll need?
Is someone ready to keep track of treaties?
Are you prepared to defend yourself against possible corruption and destruction of the UN?
Are you putting together a plan for the fourth and fifth phase?
Have you organized your notebook to keep track of all these things?
The Role of the Honors Student
81
Phase VI: Emergent Phenomena Took Place
In 2002, as stated earlier, I created a booklet explaining Global Challenge.
This booklet accounts for some emergent behavior taking place during the project,
as is indicated in this segment:
In the second year of the project, the game began to take on more form.
Within weeks I had students asking if they could start compiling extra
information. Others came up to me with notebooks filled with facts on the world
and asked me if it was o.k. to have this? I wanted to say, “No, there will be no
extra learning going on in this classroom!” Are you kidding? This was great news.
There was something about the game that just appealed to students, especially at
the high school level. I saw another student in the public library looking over
different maps. He turned to me and said, “I bet you’re surprised to see me here.”
Yes, it was a surprise. Before this game ever started, Jacob never seemed to care
about world history. Some wanted to build systems on the computer to keep track
of all the information and numbers being generated by the game. Discussions
started. People, who ordinarily were withdrawn, began to get involved. It was
happening. The project began taking on a life of its own! The game itself began
taking on new dimensions, growing in an emergent process like a city –
82
responding to new needs and demands. In its second year it needed a name to
match its size and intensity. Global Challenge was born.
Around 1995, I acknowledged the chaos, but said it could be a good experience.
This was written in a note to students called “Preparation sheet for the final stages of
Global Challenge:”
Yes, it’s true, this can be a wildly chaotic experience in this
classroom. But there’s a difference between the kind of chaos where
anything goes and the kind where you are so involved in this game
that you do everything you can just to be part of the experience.
I wrote to educators and others around the same time as a way to promote Global
Challenge and its concepts. In one piece, I explained:
The nature of the attack forces or compels students to be ready,
organized. There is no escaping reality. I always tell my students
that "there is no way out of the simulation. We will all work our
way through it. Much like the holodeck on Star Trek, they have
entered the simulation to accomplish something (personal
correspondence).
Subtle realizations took place as well, revealing how dynamics were changing in
the class and how this favored academics. I made note of this in a note (circa 1995),
saying “As the rounds move faster and as the world becomes more civilized, more
material is covered – faster.”
By emergent phenomena, I mean to say that there was a trend towards progress,
83
making improvements and creating a workable system. There were some who were
disillusioned, but most saw this as a project that they could get involved in. It was
presented not as a finished product, but a work in progress. Like a giant piece of clay,
everyone got to “mold” their section.
Recognition of Patterns
More important than teacher observations were the patterns recognized by
students. One student in 1995, reflecting in an essay said:
As an honor student my role was key. The honors acted like a world
government. Some of us got a free ride while others were afraid to
delegate work and authority. In the end we began to lose our original
purpose. Some hated us, but all were dependent on us. It reminds me of
the U.S. government. How many people claim their independence yet are
so dependent on the structure.
Another (in one of the most important observations) commented in a way similar to the
themes of chaos theory:
I theorize that these four stages will be played out again. Only this time as
in a recurring geometric pattern the numbers will be larger. By the time we
reach the second nation state stage there will only be one power, a world
government.
Student observations in the end of the year surveys revealed recognition or
anticipation of patterns. One student noted, “My least favorite part of the class was not
being able to finish the game and go into the future to see how our world would end up.”
84
This student, too, noticed trends and patterns of change:
In the Global Challenge game, the players eventually started to catchon.
They knew the rules, and therefore could expand their territories.
Although at this time the class was divided into many groups of two, but it
seemed to me that there were also bigger groups that existed. These
"bigger groups" weren't official, but there was [an] unofficial attitude
towards them. People wouldn’t attack other groups if they were part of
their bigger, unofficial, group. .... Major "civilization" were starting to
form. Once it was clear who the strong civilizations were, people wanted
to join them to be a part of something successful.
Another student revealed the emergence of strategy, saying “We based our
decisions on what the per capita of the country was, where it was located in the case of
strategic moves, and if it would basically be worth the trouble it took to get it.” This
student noted his realization of certain economic truths, saying “Every once and a while
you would need a good war to raise your income so you could hang on with the rest of
the world.”
The passage below, excerpted from a paper written in 1995 for a graduate course
in statistics at the University of Nevada, Reno, revealed other general emergent trends:
Many compiled huge, 100 page notebooks, downloaded and printed
information from CDROMs, studied maps at the library and read way
ahead in the book. Others formed deals and alliances in the hallway.
Some of the other welcomed behavior included staying after hours
85
to study, preparing strategies, and otherwise getting organized to
participate in the game.
But as the game evolved, students looked for ways to get ahead.
The subject matter became less important, and the human element of
competition became more important. The rules, and the reasons for the
rules diminished in importance. Consideration for other people’s thoughts
and feelings dwindled. Winning, revenge and glory for one’s self or one’s
team became the game.
Rumors circulated that one student had run off copies of secret information, and
was selling it on the black market, in the halls for a dollar a page. Other UN members
were being paid off to treat certain nations favorably – in other words to give them the
easy questions. Students put money into their checkbooks that they had not legitimately
earned. Students entered into conspiracies to “knock off” other players. Students thirsted
for money to the point where they would crank out a homework assignment in the first
few minutes of class, or they would request additional work to make money.
But it reached a peak when I, as their teacher, became an obstacle to them in their
desire for power and control. I was the only thing getting in their way of supreme power.
They challenged my authority at times, questioned my judgment, and tried to manipulate
me wherever possible. I began to feel like judge Lance Ito.
In the end, many students ganged up to challenge the honors students. One girl,
who many looked up to and who was not considered to be the top student in the class,
took on an active role. In fact, she had Attention Deficit Disorder with hyperactivity and
86
was being treated with Ritalin. She was determined and had put together an incredible
notebook. She was prepared to take on the honors students, and had gathered a lot of
support.
On the final day, it came down to one last question. It was her turn and she had 30
seconds to come up with an answer. As she was furiously looking in her notes for the
answer, she was being taunted by the honors kids and I was being accused of actually
giving her too much time, as if in that instant, I lost my ability to look a the clock
correctly. She said the answer, but the class was too loud to hear it. I slammed down my
book, and almost called the game off. She read the answer and it was correct. She had
prevented the world from being taken over.
One student, below, wrote in her final essay of 1995 that students eventually
learned the process involved in learning by this new method:
Mr. Chazen introduced us to a new way of learning that made it easier,
quicker, and less work to learn. At first we didn’t think it would work and
we were all completely confused, just as the people trying work the cotton
gin when it was first invented, but we soon got the hang of it and were glad
that we were doing it.
Assuming complexity did exist in Global Challenge (see definition in Chapter 1),
did learning take place under such a complex system? This student below, presumably
using higher order thinking, was able to compare development during Global Challenge
with that of early civilizations in history:
In the beginning of civilization, people were for the most part not very
87
aggressive. They were busy establishing their culture. Hunting was on the
top of their list of priorities. They didn't hunt for pleasure like we do
today, early man hunted for food. Other groups were of no importance.
Who really cared who controlled the east part of the valley or the west
part? They were only concerned with finding food for themselves and
their families.
There also existed the impetus to learn, as this student pointed out: “I hope to
learn where these countries are located, just so if someone talks about a place Ill know
where it is. Also, to learn better ways to execute foreign policy and keep peace.
One administrator at our high school made professional observations on the
following dates: 12/95, 3/18/96, 3/22/96, and followed with these comments:
The Global Challenge game that he has developed (see planning) is
designed to give a wide variety of experiences to the students, with each
student or group of students being able to use strategies that they feel most
comfortable with.
While participating in the learning opportunities the game
provides, students gain experience in decision making, thinking,
teamwork, critical analysis of world events, and development of ability to
use their strengths and the strengths of others to advantage. In his
classroom, Lee has had the students create and mount a very large world
map that covers the entire back wall.
Other students followed with positive comments about being able to learn through
88
Global Challenge.
I enjoyed this game immensely. I learned more than I ever would have
from a textbook. I guess actions do speak louder than words.
1. Now that stage one is over, do you want to continue playing? Why or
why not?
Yes, I do. This is so much better than lecture notes. I'm still learning the
stuff, actually I think I've learned more. There’s more reason to do the
work [and] learn
the stuff besides the grade. Grades don't matter to some people so this way
is definitely better for them.
Same student: 2. Would you prefer a more traditional way of learning
history? Why or why not?
No, No, No. Too boring. I can't sit and take notes that long and I hate
reading the section and then answering questions. You do the work to get
it done, not to know it. That way is stupid.
I learned and remember more from this game than I ever could
have from lectures, quizzes, & notes. I understand history and how and
events took place and now I know geography.
Students were prompted to believe that learning took place under complex
89
circumstances. I wrote this description within the first few years of the game.
Students prepared charts, graphs, and did their own research in the library
at lunch and after school. They used computers, developed strategies,
wrote up their own questions, completed a detailed world map – all with
very little external motivation. After all, taking over the world, at least in
the fictional sense, was something to be proud of. Of course, since there
were several categories to win in, everyone ended up being proud of
something. And if they didn’t do well at the game, [they]applied what they
learned to do well on quizzes and tests (promotional literature).
Sure, this was a competitive atmosphere, generating tribal and regional conflicts,
but this only served to make the microcosm more real. And the debriefing and discussion
periods that followed were more interesting and meaningful. Cause and effect
relationships in history were easier to see when students felt as thought they were part of
it.
Substitute teachers were often a good measure of whether the project could work
with minimal knowledge of the rules and little supervision. This substitute confirmed that
the atmosphere was good for learning. His note said:
Richard A. Cobb, sub. retired after 26 yrs as speech/debate/forensics and soc.
studies. U.S. and world history teacher at Glendora High, southern cal "Global
Challenge" each period was super! p.s. The game has Geography, Economics,
Current Events, Historical Dates, etc. and all students seemed involved and
participating. Group interaction at each table too!
90
Below, is an example of how complex interactions could lead to higher order
assignments. This one asks students to reflect on their experience.
91
Table 5.
THE CAUSES OF WAR
One of the reasons we played Global Challenge was to see for ourselves how the world came to be
as it is today. For some, it has been peaceful. For others, it has been turbulent, violent or plagued by war,
famine or depression. Everyone had a different experience in the game… all depending on location,
alliances, preparation and a hundred other factors. Even though some have lived in the twentieth century
free from all these terrible things, some did not escape. Our job here is to look at what went wrong.
The Twentieth Century has been especially turbulent from the Russian Revolution up to the
Persian Gulf War. Rather than become more peaceful in the Twentieth Century, events became more
violent. Why do you think that is?
That is the point of this assignment… to look for reasons. The other point is to help us learn what
is required for this class and to prepare us for the final and for American History next year.
I.
We will examine six wars or revolutions:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
I.
The Russian Revolution
World War I
World War II
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
Persian Gulf or other conflict that you are interested in
For each war, you will write out
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
a brief description of the purpose of the war and where it was fought
a list of countries or people involved
a list of the primary causes
your thoughts about the causes of this war.
Each group will report on one conflict with the emphasis on the causes. Each person will receive
participation points for the work they put into this and for the presentation. Each person should report
to the class on just ONE cause of the war (at least).
II. On the final page you will demonstrate what you learned IN AN ORIGINAL WAY. WITH NO HELP
FROM ANYONE. Your choices are to
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
make a Venn diagram showing how many causes of war are the same
write a one page, in depth description of something new that you learned
make a graph showing trends of the Twentieth Century
make a graph displaying twentieth century war statistics
write a comparison to Global Challenge
??????>>>>>}}}}}}}}@@@@ your idea.
Critical Thinking Assignment
92
Phase VII: Transformation of the Student
Students began demonstrating early on their willingness to participate in this
curricular experiment. Observations I made in the 19931994 school year confirm this.
I knew the game would work when students began showing me their
notebooks, with hundreds of pages of information and asked, actually
93
asked if it was okay to use this.
Jeff called in from Disney World during the 9394 school year and
left a message in the office that he wouldn’t be in class that day. My vision
of this was that he was at a pay phone somewhere in between the
Matterhorn and the spinning teacups. But I was never able to confirm this.
He also left instructions for people in his treaty on what to do on that day
to protect his holdings in Central America. Jeff eventually became the
Global Challenge champion for his class in that year.
Scott and Bryce were the first to take this game to the extreme.
Without being asked to do so, Scott and Bryce compiled notebooks with
several hundred pages of information on every country on the planet. They
knew that if they wanted to conquer all of these countries they would –
according to the rules – have to state facts about these nations before each
attack.
The expectations were set from the beginning on how the student needs to
transform. This was excerpted from the instruction booklet (Circa 1994).
Get off to a good start: In the first five rounds, you will be playing as
nomads, or by yourselves. How you do in these first five rounds will
determine he rest of the game. You will be placed into groups later based
on your points accumulated and the area of your intelligence. Two words:
BE PREPARED.
In that same year, a government student who was also participating in the project
94
said the following in a final essay:
One thing that I learned is the significance of current events. To be
conscious of my world is vital because my future depends on its future. I
must adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Already, my opinions
and thoughts have been greatly influenced over the course of this
semester. Just recently did I discover that I am more of a liberal than a
conservative; a candidate’s right to privacy should be acknowledged;
Congressmen get paid too much; if communism works in some places, it
can't be all bad; playing the role of God through genetic engineering is
immoral and very dangerous. My position on subjects tell me more about
myself, adding to the interminable sculpturing of my character.
This student noticed her transformation when she said,
I[n] the beginning of the game my role was nothing. But when we got into
groups of 2 I change. I found myself going from nothing to a leadership
role. I took control I organized my partner & my notebook, balanced and
basically controlled the checkbook. I went home and I made a list of all
the countries in Asia and then something big happened I started doing my
homework.
The people in this class have evolved. From nomad to civilizations.
Every one has made changes and sacrifices in this game. Some lost
everything they had. Others won many prizes.
This student became aware of how others perceived him:
95
I think that through this game I was able to get rewarded for doing my
homework, getting good grades on test, and answering questions about
what we were studying, I think that I was the guy that nobody wanted to
attack or be attacked by.
Others may have changed socially or emotionally as is suggested below. Some
might say they were aware of the complexity around them.
Many friendships were tarnished, but in the end, after everything was
over, our class realized that it just was a game & friendships were mended.
There is a lot of good and evil, hate and love, hope and despair in
the world today, but only the future can tell us what is to be.
Others transformed by realizing more about their character. This person said, “I
think being one of the only peacemakers in the game has taught me a little about standing
up for what I believe in” (1995).
Global Perspectives
Reading through student essays at the end of the year, one might get the
impression that students were taking on a larger view of complex world relationships.
This student wrote:
By presiding over negotiations and enforcing the rules of the game, the
simulated United Nations team gains a perspective of the real
responsibilities of this group. Unfortunately, it seems as if the authority of
the actual UN does not equal that of the simulated one. Instead, if the U.N.
wishes to act, it usually requires the spearheading efforts of a powerful
96
nation to carry out the operation, such as in Somalia.
Despite the many different ideologies around the world, foreign
policy's number one priority is national security.
This student went on to list other ways that he was affected:
One thing that I learned is the significance of current events. To be
conscious of my world is vital because my future depends on its future. I
must adapt to the rapidly changing environment. Already, my opinions
and thoughts have been greatly influenced over the course of this
semester. Just recently did I discover that I am more of a liberal than a
conservative; a candidate’s right to privacy should be acknowledged;
Congressmen get paid too much; if communism works in some places, it
can't be all bad; playing the role of God through genetic engineering is
immoral and very dangerous. My position on subjects tell me more about
myself, adding to the interminable sculpturing of my character (1994).
Others were very sincere about what they saw as the possibility for world disorder:
Just imagine such a world. A world with no rules, freedom more than we
can handle. Freedom so extreme, that its not really freedom at all. Would
you really want to live in such a world as this. I think not. (1996)
Some students chose the words of others (George Marshall in this case) to represent their
views. In this assignment, memory informs me that it (making reference to someone
notable) was required:
It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to
97
assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which
there can be no political stability and no assured peace (1998).
One student, in the final year of the project summarized his thoughts in a journal
titled “GLOBAL CHALLENGE: AN OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE ACTIONS OF THE
SP.C.T.R.E. [student’s spelling] ORGANIZATION” that he kept throughout the game. It
was put inside an envelope and sealed in wax with the instructions to not open until the
beginning of next year’s game. This journal provides a view into the mind of a student
who participated in the project. His introduction stated the reasons for the journal:
The following journal of events experienced and caused by the
SP.E.C.T.R.E. organization, has been compiled as an official record of the
groups actions for the generations of future players. It has been written as
a possible strategy guide for players who wish to succeed. It contains the
successes, victories, failures, and mistake of SP.E.C.T.R.E. and may (I
hope) shed some light on the nature of world conquest.
Some might argue that the comments below show how students transformed
within a complex system.
Talk of the alignment with ‘THE MAFIA” grows more serious. I hope,
that for the sake of world conquest, that the SP.E.C.T.R.E organizations
acts on its intent to align with the only group, that seems to match us in
wits, ferocity, number of countries, wealth, and force. The Mafia’s armies
are undoubtedly as numerous and as widespread as ours. I will soon
arrange two contracts, one, a treaty of unofficial alliance, and the second,
98
an official alliance contract, stating that the Mafia and SP.E.C.T.R.E. will
align under the official name of SP.E.C.T.R.E, that is, unless, the name is
not agreeable. In which case we (both teams) will align under an agreed
upon name. Once aligned, the new world power will crush Tanya’s puny
countries.
Transformation took on many forms. This student, one might argue, became
intent on revenge. This was one of many emotions experienced in the project:
May 7, 1999: The approval came through today, I met with Marlys in the
hall and confirmed it. I have been given permission by team captain of
SP.E.C.T.R.E to purchase three nuclear weapons, for use against The
Mafia. I am happy that our turn will be in the next phase of Global
Challenge. Since we are first, we naturally get the first crack at opening a
nuclear arsenal. This will buy us some time before the inevitable counter
attack that The Mafia, will undoubtedly unleash upon us.
The lucky number of “NUKES’ is three. I have come to this figure
by making an educated guess as to how many it will take to kill off the
armies that were placed on France and The United States. I have come to
the conclusion that it will most likely require two nukes to annihilate the
United States, and one to overthrow France. Come the 10th, SP.E.C.T.R.E
will have its REVENGE!
Another area of possible transformation was the incentive to do one’s homework
during the game.
99
May 7: I have deposited into our cash supply $20,000 for extra work that
Marlys performed. I have returned home with my history book to study
chapters 2021. Hopefully the information within, will help me to answer
questions correctly.
May 13: A project is due tomorrow, a news report that if
preformed with effort and enthusiasm, will land us a sum of money
amounting to $700,000. This will more than compensate for the $4,000 in
counterfeit cash that he will no doubt confiscate. I have to work on this
project tonight, otherwise we may have to close the door on hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
Awareness of personality types is, yet, another area of realization for the students:
Our group has more than one major flaw. Marlys worries that the single
worst quality in our group is sloth, or even ignorance. While those are
problems that we struggle with on an almost daily basis, I know, that our
group is most guilty of arrogance that makes us “too cocky.” This quality
may bring about an end to the groups if we have no knowledge or skills to
back it up. If we were smart, fast, and had any work ethic, then we would
have a reason to be cockily. No. The other members are content to sit
back, and let the “smart kids” do the work. SLACKERS!
A Greater Understanding
Elevating the game above what was expected, this student, perhaps came to a
greater understanding of himself and others.
100
May24: I was disappointed that the two superpowers which both Erick
(team captain of a rival group) and myself have worked so hard to create,
would never clash together, in a vicious nuclear war. Perhaps it was better
that way after all, what’s the world worth when it’s filled with smoldering
craters that were once mighty cities. But still, knowing that I destroyed a
group that has so menacingly threatened my group with the words “your
dead” would have filled me with pride for my intellect and
decisionmaking skills. I boasted that I would horribly destroy the Mafia
for their arrogance. I am content to believe that I should have conquered
the world. It probably wouldn’t have happened like that. I was facing a
force to be reckoned with, and they would have horribly crushed me like
an insect.
I have lost, and in losing, I leave future generations of players only
this journal of a terrorist leader in the game of Global Challenge.
As I read about chaos and complexity, I looked back at such experiences in a new
light. It seemed to explain what was happening in my classroom throughout the entire
run of Global Challenge. Both personally and professionally, I began to think that chaos
theory offered hope and an optimistic solution to a common view that life and situations
are too complex. Putting the solution in the form of a theory, PHASE VIII: The Complex
Adaptive Teaching Theory, will be discussed in Chapter 5.
101
Chapter 5
A COMPLEX ADAPTIVE THEORY OF EDUCATION
What is the strongest argument for a complex adaptive system of education? How
can teachers use this everyday in their classes? What are some other uses for this theory
and lastly, what aspects of this theory need further research? All these questions will be
answered in this chapter.
The Argument for Structural Change
First, one might look to the biosphere, where living things inhabit the earth’s
surface, atmosphere and sea (Encarta, 2004) as the best proof that a complex adaptive
system works well. Assuming that sustaining life, progress and evolution are important,
the biosphere has done (by most accounts) remarkably well. The biosphere is an open,
adaptable and changing system, and, according to Prigogine and Stengers (1984), is far
from equilibrium.
Second, a larger, more comprehensive model might serve education well. Such a
model would allow educators to dismiss minor theoretical and philosophical differences
102
to, instead, look at the whole. Rather than examining differences between individual
teachers, questions such as whether students as a whole are learning, growing,
transforming and adapting might dominate discussions. School, district, state and national
trends would be as important as whether teacher “A” is adequately preparing her or his
students well for upcoming tests. How the system is moving as a whole might enter into
the discussion. This could allow departments to work with one another in a flexible,
adaptable way. As a result, cooperation or “coopetition” might become the order of the
day instead of rivalry and competition.
A section of Roger Lewin’s book Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos (1999) is
aptly Entitled The Death of Competition. The traditional model of winlose (if one
company wins their competitor must lose) is well known. However, in the more complex,
coevolutionary environment described by Lewin, the model becomes winwin. In other
words, an emergent environment may allow for more productive, mutually beneficial
interactions. Of course, the tone of business would have to change in order to
facilitate this. The notion of competition would have to be allowed to go, making room
for thinking in terms of whole systems (Lewin, 1999).
Third, at some point, the scientific world had to make changes in their models and
theories in order to explain phenomena that people could not understand using linear
concepts. Newtonian physics alone could not explain the orbital behavior of planets.
Poincaré used more modern mathematical procedures to solve the “three body problem.”
Engineers, similarly, use imaginary numbers in order to apply negative numbers to
practical situations where negative numbers simply cannot work. It seems logical, then,
103
that education should be doing the same to interpret changing and sometimes chaotic
conditions in the schools. Theories must change to accommodate changes and new
discoveries.
Fourth, one can also look to the edge of chaos (existing in complex environments)
as a place where great progress takes place. Both Wilson (1999) and Kauffman (1995)
acknowledged an area between order and chaos where progress took place. One can
observe the “gliders” and “puffer trains” of the artificial life experiments and hope to
create similar areas where there are signs of a higher order. Perhaps, Eric Jensen (1998)
was speaking of just such an area when he said: “Gone are the days in which any teacher
could justify a barren classroom with oneway lecture as the only input. Today, the
evidence is overwhelming that enriched environments do grow a better brain” (p. 40).
Jensen and others might agree that an environment such as this would exist
neither in a purely orderly state, nor in an absolute chaotic one. The teacher, acting in
some cases like a jazz musician, would be in tune with the nuances of learning and all the
various shades that accompany it. The challenge would not be to attain perfect order,
where Prigogine and Stengers (1984) discovered “hypnons” and “sleepwalkers,” but to
search for that area of slight discomfort known as learning.
In Emergence, Johnson (2001) told us to look at the slime mold as being like a
team of investigators. Send a few out, and their pheromone trails evaporate quickly.
Discoveries remain on the “shelf” like an unread book or journal article. Very few learn
of the great steps forward. But, establish a research center or publish a best selling book
about these discoveries, and “before long the system arrives at a phase transition: isolated
104
hunches and private obsessions coalesce into a new way of looking at the world, shared
by thousands of individuals” (p. 64).
Fifth, these ideas do not just exist in the abstract. There are many examples of
where a complex adaptive system worked, from the chance interactions at the Rand
Corporation to the growth of cities, to emergent phenomena on the Internet and at
software companies like Microsoft. It is not hard to see that collective intelligence thrives
in complex systems, not in orderly topdown environments. One can even look to
unprecedented political participation via the Internet and democracy itself as evidence
that complex adaptive environments equate to progress, opportunity and change.
Sixth, in an overly hierarchical system, one voice or idea may die a quick death.
However, in a complex environment, a student’s idea, a teacher’s comment or random
interaction in the hallway can send a catalytic shockwave through the system, propelling
it to a higher order. This leads to, perhaps, the greatest benefit of such a theory; the
teacher’s job can be forever changing, dynamic, creative, cooperative and interesting.
Lastly, certain group formations assist contextual memory (Johnson, 2001). Had
there been only linear transmission of content (during Global Challenge) through lecture,
such memory by association would not even be possible. Cities, according to Johnson,
had a way of putting people into coherent slots. Ideas and goods would flow between
various clusters, leading to “productive crosspollination, ensuring that good ideas don’t
die out in rural isolation” (p. 108). Ideas and people, after all, need a medium in which to
operate. Lewis Munford, according to Johnson (2001) went so far as to say, “the city may
be described as a structure specially equipped to store and transmit the goods of
105
civilization” (p. 107). Similarly, a complex environment like a class project or game
could possibly store and transmit content. The teacher is no longer the sole distributor of
information. She or he yields, instead, to a larger organism to help with the job.
Using the Complex Adaptive Theory of Education
How, then, can the teacher incorporate the Complex Adaptive Theory of
Education to the typical classroom? Here are some ideas:
Turn your classroom into an open system, allowing for energy and ideas to have
random interactions. Avoid a closed or thermodynamic system that limits such
interactions and is subject to lack of interest and onesided delivery. The teacher can do
this by having broad units of study, with simple rules and high expectations. The teacher
would act more like a facilitator and mediator and would randomly interact with students,
encouraging them (but not defining) the process towards selforganization.
As in Global Challenge, students would be in constant interaction, changing,
evolving and providing the necessary details on their own to form systems. Like a
satellite, the teacher encircles this complex system, sending down occasional messages
and reminders, keeping parameters in place (though broad) to keep students in line and
prevent anarchy.
During the course of Global Challenge, students were given the broad
responsibility of converting points to dollars, keeping a personal checkbook, researching
countries, forming groups based on multiple intelligences, dividing up readings, keeping
track of per capita income, landmass, population, number of armies, treaties and
preparing 20 questions a week. As time went on, it was eventually determined how all
106
this would be done. The students and I would watch how things were done and form
systems to accommodate all the interaction. Students usually took it upon themselves to
make spreadsheets, design checkbooks, divide responsibilities, compile notebooks and
prepare strategies. Micromanaging such a system would have taken ownership away from
the students. The more I removed myself from these tasks the more they wanted it to
continue.
Patterns replicate or reoccur over time, much like a fractal. Applying this in a
behavioral context, the educator could anticipate the type of order that will inevitably
arise out of certain combinations. Therefore, the educator can hope that the change and
progress that comes from new curricula will eventually ascend to understandable patterns
over time. In the midst of the snowstorm, one can still look to the snowflake and see
amazing order in the form of a fractal. Describing the pattern to students, the teacher
establishes an “attractor” and sets an ideal for students.
In terms of behavior, the teacher will need to look towards general progress and
resist the urge to step in as order is forming. Students will look to the teacher to bring the
class to order if things get chaotic. Though this is an easy temptation, avoid (unless
absolutely necessary) taking back complete topdown control of the class. Instead,
provide suggestions, place hints and return the onus of learning to the students.
The teacher can do this by using an advance organizer. Before the beginning of
Global Challenge, as an example, I would introduce an anger management unit, prepare
them for a “World Knowledge Test” and get the students thinking about the situation they
were about to enter. On some occasions, I would have them watch movies like Dr.
107
Strangelove or Failsafe to get them to be aware of life during an international crisis or set
a tone of high alert and intensity.
Other ideas the teacher could use might include documentaries about the UN or
watching congress in action on CSpan to get them to see organizational behavior.
Watching Lord of the Flies, or reading the section on Manchester in Emergence (2001)
might get them to realize that selforganization is possible. A discussion of Gardner’s
Multiple Intelligences may provide inspiration to them to recognize different student
abilities when it comes to putting their groups together.
Specifics of these organizers should get students thinking about teamwork, the
need for order, the potential for chaos, the nature of humans, the growth of cities and
civilizations, warfare, peace, negotiating, communication, motivation, selfcontrol, etc.
Like sun entering the biosphere, ideas like these can generate a complex array of
interactions.
There are other ways to create a complex adaptive system in the classroom. Get
students out of rows and into arrangements to increase the chance for encountering
divergent ideas and opinions. Within groups, as an alternative, make sure there are at
least slightly diverging ways of thinking and that a slight degree of friction exists. Warn
them of this phenomenon ahead of time so they will not see this as an exercise in futility.
Let them know ahead of time that there will be disagreements but that “friction makes the
pearl.” Create a goal at the beginning of the school year to find where the “edge” is for
each student and each class and strive towards new discoveries, student breakthroughs
and great, classroom accomplishments. Let all that are involved know that you may end
108
up on terra nova, a place that is new and different even to their teacher. They will
probably respect the teacher more for even wanting to take such a risk. Make sure ahead
of time, though, that parameters are in place on either side of order or chaos. Educators,
however, should embrace the middle ground as a place of transformation.
Work with colleagues to rid the school of rigid, black and white thinking where
ideas of perfection or failure and winners and losers exist. Cross imaginary departmental
barriers to work with new people from different disciplines, creating crossdisciplinary
themes or units of study. Jointly, create new expectations free from traditional, rigid
grading systems, embracing instead, the middle ground where the learning process takes
place. Student empowerment will ultimately relieve the pressure on the teacher, and
teacher empowerment will likely remove the micromanaging tendencies of many
principles. A new ethic of camaraderie, cooperation and collegiality could very easily
transfer to highly adaptable students, capable of selforganization after graduation.
Other Applications and Future Research
Using the biosphere as the perfect example of a complex adaptive system, any
organism with random variables should, theoretically, be able to make use of this model.
Whenever humans come together to achieve common goals; in schools, universities,
clubs, political action groups or corporations, they can make use of the principles of a
complex adaptive theory of education. Much has already been written about the use of
heterarchy (lateral distribution of power) for use in corporations.
Not yet a precise or definitive answer to problems plaguing education, the
complex adaptive theory of education will need more research. Just as the teaching
109
methods above recommend, broad parameters have been established so that new ideas
can emerge into the theory and become part of it. With hope, the ideas contained herein
can provide a jolt to the system.
Future researchers might attempt to test the use of these ideas versus a control
group (using a scientific deterministic approach) and look for differences in grades,
ability to think critically and creatively (though a hard area to measure) or in success
following high school. Again, these are qualitative areas and it is suggested that
researchers use methodologies such as Grounded Theory. It should be considered,
though, that a Complex Adaptive Theory of Education may not make it necessary to even
make such comparisons. As an open, emergent system, the theory is large enough to
include some scientificdeterministic approaches where necessary. Along these lines,
some may want to research other models and how they “relate” to a complex adaptive
theory.
Other researchers might attempt to adopt such principles for use in the entire
school and qualitatively measure differences against more traditional schools. The idea,
though, of attempting to limit the theory to five precise points (hypothetically) so that it
could be more easily understood and used would be antithetical to the philosophy and
theme of the theory. Because of this, researchers and educators may wish to create new,
more qualitative systems of measurement. In addition to standardized tests, concerned
parties may want to look at student engagement, participation, decreased drop out rates,
employability and student approval ratings for their teachers, classes and schools in
situations where this theory is used. Other research may help to define more precisely
110
where the “edge” of chaos exists or what comprises a “complex classroom” environment
so that others can approximate the findings.
References
Basadur, M., & Head, M. (2001). Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive
style within a process framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 227248.
Bristol, M., Gauger, N., Giesler, B. Harrison, N., Hoffman, E., Reed, C., & Waltman, S.
(2003). Optimization and automation through dynamic environment reaction and
genetic evolution. Retrieved November 22, 2003, from
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~creed/TheoryCT.html
Capra, F., SteindlRast, D. & Matus, T. (1991). Belonging to the universe: Explorations
111
on the frontiers of science and spirituality. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
a graduate school paper entitled, The Global Challenge Curriculum:
Chazen, L. (2003). The application of chaos theory in the classroom. Unpublished
manuscript.
Chazen, L. (2002). Global Challenge: The Ultimate Classroom Project. Unpublished
manuscript.
Crutchfield, J., Humphrey, T., & Vella., Z. (1996). Jules Henri Poincaré (18541912),
Retrieved April 1, 2004, from
http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/poincare.html
Cutright, M. (2001). Chaos theory and higher education: Leadership, planning & policy.
New York: Peter Lang.
Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making
of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Dick, B. (2002) Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch. Retrieved on August 9, 2004
from http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html
Dixit, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1991). Thinking strategically, New York: W.W. Norton.
Dolence, M., & Norris, D. (1995) Transforming higher education: A vision for learning
in the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.
Encarta World English Dictionary. (1999). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
GellMann, M. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar. New York: Freeman & Co.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
112
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin.
Goodstein, D. & Goodstein, J. (1996): Feynman’s Lost Lecture. The Motion of
Planets Around the Sun. New York; W.W. Norton & Co.
Gordon, D. (1999). Ants at work: How an insect society is organized. New York: Free
Press.
Groove Salad (an Internet radio station that synthesizes complex rhythms and musical
sounds, providing an excellent background for thinking on this topic) (2003).
Retrieved November 23, 2003, from http://www.somafm.com/
Haig, B. D. (2004). Grounded Theory as scientific method. Retrieved June 11, 2004
from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PESYearbook/95_docs/haig.html
Hannay, L., Smeltzer, C., &. Ross, J. A. (2001). Building change capacity within
secondary schools through goaldriven and living organisations, School
Leadership & Management, 21, 271–287.
Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and
science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hayward, J. W. (1987). Shifting worlds, changing minds: Where the sciences and
Buddhism meet. Boston: Shambhala.
Iannone, R. (1995). Chaos theory and its implications for curriculum and teaching.
Education, 115(4), 541547.
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
113
Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Karpiak, I. E. (2000). Evolutionary theory and the new sciences: Rekindling our
imagination for transformation. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 2944.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for the laws of
selforganization and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.
Lorenz, E. (1993). The essence of chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Mendelson, J., & Blumenthal, E. (2003). Chaos theory and fractals. Retrieved November
22, 2003, from h ttp://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/
Nasar, S. (1998). A beautiful mind: The life of mathematical genius and Nobel laureate
John Nash. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Popper, & Hawking. (2004). Scientific determinism. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_determinism
Prigonine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature.
NewYork: Bantam Books.
Reed et al. (1999). Optimization and automation through dynamic environment Reaction
and genetic evolution. Retrieved June 30, 2004 and July 26, 2004 from
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~creed/ExMap.html
114
Ruelle, D. (1991). Chance and chaos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Schueler, G. J. & Schueler, B. J. (2001) A brief history of chaos theory. Retrieved
December 12, 2003 from
http://www. Schuelers.com/ChaosPsyche/part_1_3.htm
Stark, D., Lane, D., Padgett, J., Powell, W., Sabel, C. (2002). Research focus area,
economic and social interactions, Heterarchies: distributed intelligence and the organization of
diversity. Retrieved August 7, 2004 from
http://www.santafe.edu/research/heterarchies.php
Waldrop, M. M. (1993) Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and
chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster, Touchstone Paperback
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Random House.
Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, Illinois: Wolfram Media, Inc.
Wolfram, S. (2004). Wolframscience.com, The Official Website of Stephen Wolfram’s A
new kind of science. Retrieved November 22, 2003, from
http://www.wolframscience.com/reference/notes/971c2002
WordNet 1.6 (1997). Princeton University. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PESYearbook/95_docs/haig.html
Yorke, J., & Li, T. (1975). Period three implies chaos. American Mathematical Monthly
82, 985992.
115
Lee Chazen