Using Complexity Theory to explore Communities of Philosophical Enquiry: A Rationale and some Implications for Facilitation and Research. Cape Town August 2013

Two Paradigms Similarities Both consider that learning is promoted through enquiry. Both uphold the laws of physics and chemistry as underlying the natural systems, and; Both likely to oppose the idea that all explanation is reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Two paradigms Differences Traditional (T-paradigm) – The world is objective, constructed, discoverable. Pragmatist (P-paradigm) – The world is intersubjective, reconstructive, transactional.

Enquiry is about T-paradigm: the search for truth. P-paradigm: working with warranted assertions.

Complex phenomena T-paradigm: explained using different language from lower-level phenomena but ultimately predictable if enough information is gathered. P-paradigm: exhibit the emergence of higher- level patterns of behaviour the precise details of which are unpredictable. Such patterns are surprisingly restricted in their scope.

Causal triggers and unpredictability – the sand pile (Antichaos, 1992)

A complexity model

The scope of Complexity Theory Open systems – those in continuous interaction with their environment Complex Learning Systems (CLS) Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

The following are some of the key features of CLSs as described by Davis and Sumara (2006) Self-organized Bottom-up emergent Short-range Nested structure (or scale-free networks) Ambiguously Bounded Structure determined Far from equilibrium

Figure showing comparison of centralized, diverse and distributed control, reproduced from Davis and Sumara 2006, p 52

What promotes emergence (learning) within complex systems? Important factors according to Davis and Sumara are: the levels of redundancy and diversity appropriate to the situation the CLS finds itself in; translevel interactions, decentralized control with a certain density of significant interactions between neighbouring participants; a tight/loose structure, ‘enabling constrains’, promoting self- reference; rich connectivity and healthy information flow including positive and negative feedback.

Implications for teaching and facilitation Classrooms are knowledge-producing networks rather than either teacher-centred or pupil-centred. Learning/progress as recursive elaboration, not linear development. We are meaning-makers first and rational thinkers second. Learning events involve co-emergence rather than individual development. Collective ZPD?

Facilitation About developing a community of learners within a learning community. The importance of different levels Facilitators attend to optimization of emergence: diversity, redundancy, decentralized control, density of big ideas, triggers to transformation of learning and positive and negative feedback – raising the stakes, pulling the threads together.

Implications for P4C Maintain and defend key elements of P4C structure, stimulus, question forming and choosing, concept-stretching, 4C thinking. Consider ways of optimizing the density of important interactions. Utilize a wider range of modes of expression? Explore ways of documenting what happens in a CoPI with a view to developing a theory of learning in CoPI in the P4C model.

Implications for research Experimental approaches likely to be very limited. Need to focus on nodes, linkages, multiple-level influences, emergence. Study effects at level of emergence rather than using reductionist techniques. The researcher is ‘complicit’ in the process and also a CLS. Use multiple, pluralistic, participatory and partnership-based approaches based on case studies, interactionist and interpretative accounts.

A research agenda? Identify key activities and components – histories, levels Establish linkages and causal loops Note positive and negative feedback leading to emergence. Assess overall pattern of the system. Compare with same CLS and others over time. Hart 2009 Haggis 2009