A conceptual framework of complexity

One of the central features of complexity theory and complex systems is the relationship or connectedness between multiple agents and elements (Mason, 2008). Connectedness has been a key focus in the literature of complex educational change (Haggis, 2008; Davis et al, 2012; Davis and Sumara, 2006) in which complex systems have been described as ‘nested systems’ where there are ‘trans-level’ (Davis and

54

Sumara, 2006) interactions and interrelationships. This ‘nestedness’ can be seen in the layers of interwoven complex systems within the bigger system of education. So, for example, a language lesson is a complex system (Tudor, 2003) and is embedded in other complex systems of the teacher (Mercer, 2011a; 2011b; Zheng, 2015), the curriculum (Doll, 2008; Osberg and Biesta, 2008), the school and district (Davis and Sumara, 2006), and so on through the educational system hierarchy. The connectedness of a complex system can also be seen in the nature of its ‘openness’, in the sense that it is shaped by its environment and in turn the environment is shaped by it (Cilliers, 2000).

However, while the interconnectedness of the different levels has tended to be viewed as a hierarchical relationship, this has dangers of reinforcing the top-down, controlled and deterministic view of educational change that complexity thinking is attempting to move away from. Rather than levels, Wedell and Malderez (2013) conceive of the notion of layers, similar to the inside of an onion, which are identifiable in terms of the people operating in them and where the boundaries of the layers are permeable so that there are (potentially) multiple interactions happening within and across layers. This can be seen in Figure 3.1, where the permeability of the layers is highlighted by the dotted lines.

55

Figure 3.1 Interconnected, permeable layers of a complex system (from Wedell and Malderez, 2013, p.218)

The multiple interacting layers in Figure 3.1 are similar to Levin and Fullan’s (2008) idea of “permeable connectivity”, where there is mutual interaction and influence across the different layers. The people-focused notion of connectedness fits with a ‘complexity thinking’ view of educational change and allows for a recognition of multiple roles involved in sense-making, as discussed in section 3.4.

Section 3.3 highlighted how in contexts such as Vietnam, where new pedagogies such as CLT have been introduced into curricula, change usually demands some kind of cultural change. This means that individuals in all layers of the system need to acquire new skills and new learning in order to carry out new roles and responsibilities. In this sense, change can be viewed, as O’ Day (2002) and Davis and Sumara (2006) suggest, as a learning system dependent on the flow of ‘information’ or learning between and within layers. New behaviours that emerge from new learning will be influenced by how individuals within the system interact in relation to the ‘information’, and ultimately how they interpret the ‘information’. Indeed, Levin and Fullan (2008, p. 298) remark that

[t]he nature of human interaction requires constant efforts to communicate and never more so than when some significant change from the status quo is being attempted.

56

This would seem to be the case in the context of this study in Vietnam.

Perceived failure of change implementation may be linked to connectedness (or lack of it), and may suggest that the educational system has not sufficiently adjusted to complexity, or that the agents within it have not fully recognised the complexity of the change that the particular system is undergoing (Nordtveit, 2010). Connectedness then is an important part of complexity since the behaviour of the system is determined by the nature of the interactions and relationships and not the content of the components of the system (Cilliers, 2000).

3.5.2.2 Feedback

Linked to the connectedness of a system is the idea of feedback and two-way communication. As has already been mentioned, relationships are crucial to complex systems. However this does not mean all communication must be positive (Cilliers, 2000), and indeed feedback between and within different layers of the system requires both information about what is working and what is not working so that the system can adapt and adjust. Feedback and information flow are the drivers of emergence and help move actors in the desired direction of, for example, a curriculum change (Davis and Sumara, 2006). So, as Wedell and Malderez (2013) suggest, (in a ideal world) where a system is undergoing curriculum change, each of the different layers of actors and roles as shown in Figure 3.2 will need to obtain information about what others are doing and thinking in other layers so that as far as possible coherence across the system can be maintained. As the discussion of the literature in section 3.4 highlighted, this coherence is particularly important for sense-making across the layers whose behaviours most directly affect what happens in classrooms.

The extent of these “knowledge networks” (Davis and Sumara, 2006, p.97) can help the system to reach a critical mass where a phase transition occurs and emergence of new behaviours and practices can be seen. I discuss this further in the next sub- section. Of interest to my research is the nature of feedback that exists between different implementers in different layers of the system and how this feedback and communication influence what sense they make of the new curriculum.

3.5.2.3 Self-organisation and emergence

A complex system is dynamic and therefore constantly evolving and adapting and ultimately learning (Byrne, 1998; Cilliers, 1998). This suggests that a mandated change policy will not be implemented along a determined, predictable trajectory since

57

sub-systems evolve in different ways depending on the nature of the relationships among their constituent parts. Therefore, components may self-organise in response to change and the changing external environment, meaning different emergent behaviours may appear at different places and times across the system (Larsen- Freeman and Cameron, 2008). In the case of curriculum reform, while there might be a centrally planned and controlled curriculum policy, complex systems in different layers of the bigger system modify and adjust their behaviour according to local conditions. Self-organisation and emergence are key concepts in complexity and it is through the connectedness and a flow of learning and information that a system will self-organise and emerge with new properties and behaviours.

The significance of self-organisation and emergence is that they emphasis the unpredictable nature of educational systems and that a reductionist approach to reform focusing on specific individual elements and predetermined outcomes may not be the best means of understanding curriculum change (Mason, 2008; Morrison, 2008).The implications for my study lie in how actors make sense of change and how this sense-making process might lead to self-organisation and the emergence of new curriculum practices and behaviours.

Systems, such as education systems, are naturally conservative and tend to lean towards the status quo in an attempt to ‘survive’. Complex systems are embedded in their history and so what has happened in the past will affect the behaviour of the system in the present (Mason, 2008). In the context of English language education, this historical aspect can be seen in the persistence of traditional norms and values surrounding teaching and learning in the wake of the introduction of new pedagogical practices.

For change to occur, or for transformative learning, an education system needs to reach a tipping point between the order of the status quo and the potentially chaotic embrace of change. This has been described as a ‘phase shift’ (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron, 2008, p.57), which occurs when a ‘system’ moves from one attractor state to another. For example, in the case of curriculum change, this may be a move from a traditional pedagogy to a new pedagogical approach. The term ‘phase shift’ is similar to Kuhn’s (1962) notion of a ‘paradigm shift’ (as already mentioned in section 3.3.2.). Thus, through the connectedness of the system and the flow of information between and across layers, actors, such as teachers, may begin to question and examine previous teaching practices (Cameron, 2004). This questioning of current practice and behaviours is likely to create turbulence in the system and actors may choose different

58

paths to follow depending on particular forces or ‘attractors’. Thus, different parts of the system will emerge in new ways. Similarly, control parameters can have a significant influence on actors and the trajectory they choose to follow and aim to keep the system in equilibrium by maintaining the status quo. These parameters may be certain structural parts of the system, the rate of the flow of information or the degree of connectivity (Cameron, 2004). McQuillan (2008) adds that where a complex system comprises of humans, such as an education system, one of the control parameters acting to maintain existing ways of working is likely to be that of culture.

To make change sustainable there needs to be significant momentum (Mason, 2008; 2009), or a ‘critical mass’ (Markee, 1997), heading in the same direction towards a new attractor state. This suggests a need for some harmony or coherence in the understandings and contributions of the many individuals involved in a curriculum change (Carpay et al, 2013) in order for a tipping point to be reached. However, while some degree of congruence may be necessary, it is, as Cilliers (2010, p. 4) points out, the very differences and diversities in the relationships and interactions between and among the different actors of the system that creates richness, meaning and complexity. This difference becomes important in situations of curriculum change where actors are trying to make sense of new pedagogical ideas and concepts. Hiver (2015) suggests that change in teaching practices and behaviours is unlikely to happen without a major disturbance or dissonance that acts a trigger. As was discussed in section 3.4.3, such a trigger could be a reflection on existing practices in the light of new ideas and conceptual thinking aided by ‘expert’ others in zones of enactment or learning spaces. Osberg and Biesta (2008) use the term ‘space of emergence’ in a similar way in relation to the curriculum. They argue that in a classroom, the teacher needs to create enough dissonance to allow a transformation and emergence of learning. Applying spaces of emergence in a more general sense to curriculum change, suggests learning spaces where groups of actors are grappling with making sense of a new pedagogy and where their beliefs, values and ideas about existing conceptions of teaching and learning are questioned.

Of interest to the investigation in this thesis is what these attractors and control parameters may be and how they may influence the change process.