Advertisement

A Mind with a Mind of Its Own: How Complexity Theory Can Inform Early Science Pedagogy

  • Heidi KloosEmail author
  • Heather Baker
  • Talia Waltzer
REFLECTION ON THE FIELD

Abstract

In the current paper, we develop an approach to early science pedagogy that is based on insights about how complex adaptive systems function. Complexity approaches have an important advantage over traditional information-processing approaches: They anticipate the proverbial ‘mind with a mind of its own’ without having to postulate exclusively mental constructs. They also offer insights about key determinants of learning and effective pedagogy, again without postulating exclusively mental constructs. For complex adaptive systems, learning depends on the presence of sufficiently salient novelty (i.e., variability), and it depends on the presence of sufficiently salient repetitions or ordered patterns (i.e., stability). Science learning, therefore, requires science-relevant novelty and science-relevant patterns of order. Equipped with these insights, we address two challenges of early science pedagogy: (1) how to combine children’s self-guided explorations with teachers’ strategic interventions, and (2) how to minimize the chances of generating misconceptions about science. The answer lies in creating a learning context that maximizes science-relevant variability and science-relevant stability. If both aspects are abundantly available, a child’s self-guided explorations are effective. Conversely, if either aspect is missing, efforts must be made to add them strategically to a child’s experience. Adding science-relevant stability is particularly challenging, yet crucial to avoid science misconceptions.

Keywords

Complex adaptive systems Science taxonomy Preschool science learning Early childhood education 

Notes

Funding

Support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation (DLS 13138890; Kloos).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allesina, S., & Bondavalli, C. (2003). Steady state of ecosystem flow networks: a comparison between balancing procedures. Ecological Modelling, 165(2-3), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: a simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Ashiabi, G. S. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: its socioemotional significance and the teacher’s role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barab, S. A., Cherkes-Julkowski, M., Swenson, R., Garrett, S., Shaw, R. E., & Young, M. (1999). Principles of self-organization: learning as participation in autocatakinetic systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 349–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brenneman, K., & Louro, I. F. (2008). Science journals in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 113–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101–108.Google Scholar
  10. Caldarelli, G., & Catanzaro, M. (2012). Networks: a very short introduction (Vol. 335). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carey, B. (2014). How we learn: the surprising truth about when, where, and why it happens. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. Castillo, R., Kloos, H., Richardson, M., & Waltzer, T. (2015). Beliefs as self-sustaining networks: drawing parallels between networks of ecosystems and adults’ predictions. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). Nonlinear pedagogy: learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, A., & Collins, S. (2007). Complexity science and student teacher supervision. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 160–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2008). Knowledge embedded in process: the self-organization of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science, 11(2), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook, C., Goodman, N. D., & Schulz, L. E. (2011). Where science starts: spontaneous experiments in preschoolers’ exploratory play. Cognition, 120(3), 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30034903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: inquiries into learning, teaching and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, C., Nikolić, I., & Dijkema, G. P. (2009). Integration of life cycle assessment into agent-based modeling: toward informed decisions on evolving infrastructure systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deacon, T. W. (2011). Incomplete nature: how mind emerged from matter. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  22. Diamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on A-not-B. Child Development, 56(4), 868–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, A. (1990). Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of inhibitory control in reaching. In A. Diamond (Ed.), The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions (pp. 637–676). New York: National Academic of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the Education of Adults, 35(2), 123–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2003.11661478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenwick, T. (2008). Responsibility, complexity science and education: dilemmas and uncertain responses. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(2), 101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-008-9099-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fine, C. (2008). A mind of its own: how your brain distorts and deceives. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  27. Fisher, K. R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Newcombe, N., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Taking shape: Supporting preschoolers’ acquisition of geometric knowledge through guided play. Child Development, 84(6), 1872–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., & Flavell, E. R. (1998). The mind has a mind of its own: developing knowledge about mental uncontrollability. Cognitive Development, 13(1), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleer, M. (1991). Socially constructed learning in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fleer, M., & Beasley, W. (1991). A study of conceptual development in early childhood. Research in Science Education, 21(1), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fodor, J. A. (1981). Representations: philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fullan, M. (1994). Coordinating top-down and bottom-up strategies for education reform. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum: Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: Association for the Supervision of Curriculum and Development.Google Scholar
  33. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2004). The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  35. Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based in teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Golbeck, S. L. (2001). Psychological perspectives on early childhood education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gopnik, A. (1996). The scientist as child. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 485–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children: theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gross, T., & Blasius, B. (2008). Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 5(20), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hadley, E. (2002). Playful disruptions. Early Years, 22(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–831.Google Scholar
  43. Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holland, J. H. (2000). Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  45. Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19(1), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11424-0060001-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hunter, J., Monroe-Ossi, H., & Fountain, C. (2008). Young Florida naturalists: concept mapping and science learning of preschool children. In A. J. Cañas, P. Reiske, M. Åhlberg, & D. Novak (Eds.), Concept maps: Connecting educators. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Concept Mapping. Tallinn, Estonia & Helsinki, Finland: University of Finland.Google Scholar
  47. Iberall, A. S., & McCulloch, W. S. (1969). The organizing principle of complex living systems. Journal of Basic Engineering, 91(2), 290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2012). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Kagan, S. L. (1990). Children’s play: the journey from theory to practice. In E. S. Klugman & S. Smilansky (Eds.), Children’s play and learning: perspectives and policy implications (pp. 173–187). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  52. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT press.Google Scholar
  53. Kauffmann, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kelemen, D. (1999). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70(3), 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kello, C. T., Beltz, B. C., Holden, J. G., & Van Orden, G. C. (2007). The emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 551–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kelso, J. S., Dumas, G., & Tognoli, E. (2013). Outline of a general theory of behavior and brain coordination. Neural Networks, 37, 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling: Constructing, using, evaluating, and revising scientific models helps students advance their scientific ideas, learn to think critically, and understand the nature of science. Science and Children, 46, 40–44.Google Scholar
  58. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kloos, H., Baker, H., Luken, E., Brown, R., Pfeiffer, D., & Carr, V. (2012). Preschoolers learning science: myth or reality? In H. Kloos, B. J. Morris, & J. L. Amaral (Eds.), Current topics in children’s learning and cognition (pp. 45–70). Rijeka: Tech - Open Access Publisher.  https://doi.org/10.5772/54119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kloos, H., Waltzer, T., Maltbie, C., Brown, R., & Carr, V. (2018). Inconsistencies in early science education: can nature help streamline state standards? Ecopsychology, 10(4), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. La Cerra, P., & Bingham, R. (2002). The origin of minds: evolution, uniqueness, and the new science of the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  65. Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, 40, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444307351.ch1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mendes, J. F. F., & Dorogovtsev, S. N. (2003). Evolution of networks: from biological nets to the internet and WWW. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Michaelian, K. (2005). Thermodynamic stability of ecosystems. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 237(3), 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: educating our preschoolers. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1989). Exploring complexity: an introduction. New York: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
  73. Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: how the mind overrides experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Human learning. London: Pearson Higher Education.Google Scholar
  76. Pantaleone, J. (2002). Synchronization of metronomes. American Journal of Physics, 70(10), 992–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child (Vol. 5001). New York City: Basic books.Google Scholar
  79. Posner, M. I., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: conflict, target detection, and cognitive control. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2016). How does a word become a message? An illustration on a developmental time-scale. New Ideas in Psychology, 42, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2002). Variability and determinism in motor behavior. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34(2), 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  84. Schulz, L. (2012). The origins of inquiry: inductive inference and exploration in early childhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 382–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Shtulman, A. (2017). Scienceblind: why our intuitive theories about the world are so often wrong. London: Hachette UK.Google Scholar
  86. Shtulman, A., & Valcarcel, J. (2012). Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition, 124(2), 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: the insides story. Cognition, 56(2), 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Spencer, J., Thomas, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (2009). Toward a new unified theory of development: connectionism and dynamical systems theory re-considered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sporns, O., & Zwi, J. D. (2004). The small world of the cerebral cortex. Neuroinformatics, 2(2), 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Strogatz, S. (2004). Sync: the emerging science of spontaneous order. London: Penguin UK.Google Scholar
  91. Swenson, R. (2000). Spontaneous order, autocatakinetic closure, and the development of space-time. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 901, 311–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tanaka, J. W., & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tumer, E. C., & Brainard, M. S. (2007). Performance variability enables adaptive plasticity of ‘crystallized’ adult birdsong. Nature, 450(7173), 1240–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (2012). On intelligence from first principles: guidelines for inquiry into the hypothesis of physical intelligence (PI). Ecological Psychology, 24, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A third window: natural life beyond Newton and Darwin. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  96. Ulanowicz, R. E. (2012). Growth and development: ecosystems phenomenology. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  97. Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: a study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Weber, B. H. (2010). What is life? Defining life in the context of emergent complexity. Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, 40(2), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Weisberg, R. W., & Reeves, L. M. (2013). Cognition: from memory to creativity. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  102. Whitchurch, G. G., & Constantine, L. L. (2009). Systems theory. In P. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 325–355). New York City: Springer US.Google Scholar
  103. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: when should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205–239). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Excel Development CenterHamiltonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations