pp 1–20 | Cite as

Sustainable Transdisciplinary Future for English Majors in Iran by Implementing a New Paradigm

  • Vida DehnadEmail author


In order for English majors in Iran to be sustainable for the future world of emerging dynamic changes, moving towards the paradigm of complexity (CP) seems to be a promising option for academic settings. However, any renewal should be carefully studied before it is ready to be implemented. The present analytical paper, therefore, elaborates on some key characteristics of CP, suggests a type of instruction that may be best compatible with the goals of CP: creativity and sustainability, and considers some positive and negative aspects of putting CP into effect. In addition, CP is shown to be a future-focused, transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, open, dynamic system in which anti-monopolistic ideas, and cross-cultural tolerance and peace are highlighted. On the other hand, it is capable of raising some arguable sociocultural and psychological concerns such as national identity issues and information overload that need to be carefully addressed. Finally, it is proposed that CP is a novel research niche that invites future researchers, material developers, and language policy makers to explore it from different perspectives.


The complexity paradigm Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Project-based instruction Creativity 



The author expresses her sincere appreciation to Dr. Roghayeh Farsi who helped her with her comments and opinions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author, here, declares that she has received no project funding for the current study from any agency and has no conflict of interest.


  1. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Babran, S. (2008). Media, globalization of culture, and identity crisis in developing countries. Intercultural Communication Studies (ICS), 12(2), 212–221.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, R., Appleman, D., Fecho, B., & Simon, R. (2016). How can I engage students in responding to poetry and spoken word? In Teaching literature to adolescents (3rd ed., pp. 157–159). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43. Scholar
  5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2008). Toward research-based innovation. Innovating to learn, learning to innovate (pp. 67–85). Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bettina, M., & Léglise, I. (2007). Language and colonialism. Applied linguistics in the context of creole communities. In M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (Eds.), Language and communication: Diversity and change. Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 297–338). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Boccardo, R., & Lloveras, J. (2010). A model of creativity from the paradigm of complexity. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity. ICDC (2010) 29 November–1 December, Kobe, Japan, pp. 1–6.
  8. Brady, P. (1990). Chaos theory, control theory, and literary theory or: A story of three butterflies. Modern Language Studies, 20(4), 65–79. Scholar
  9. CALPRO. (2007). What are authentic materials?
  10. Cambers, G., Chapman, G., Diamond, P., Down, L., Griffith, A., & Wiltshire, W. (2008). Presentation. In U. Miura (Ed.), Teachers’ guide for education for sustainable development in the Caribbean (pp. 8–9). Santiago: UNESCO Regional Bureau for Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, D. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains: The cognitive domain.
  12. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1993). The evolving self: A psychology for the third millennium (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. D’Ambra, L. N. (2014). A case study of project-based learning in an elementary school setting. Open access master’s theses. Paper 428.
  14. Day, J. (2016). Four key innovation stages to get your ideas off the ground.
  15. Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Delic, K., & Dum, R. (2006). Ubiquity: On the emerging future of complexity sciences. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Derrell, T. (2015). Formative vs. summative assessment: What’s the difference?
  18. Fahim, M., & Dehghankar, A. (2014). Teaching literature from chaos/complexity theory perspective. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 7(1), 167–178.Google Scholar
  19. Fajardo-Ortiz, G., Fernández-Ortega, M. Á., Ortiz-Montalvo, A., & Olivares-Santos, R. A. (2015). The dimension of the paradigm of complexity in health systems. Cirugía y Cirujanos (English Edition), 83(1), 81–86. Scholar
  20. Feher, J. (2007). Features of creativity | Teaching English | British Council | BBC.
  21. Filipović, J. (2015). Transdisciplinary approach to language study: The complexity theory perspective. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finch, A. E. (2001). Complexity in the language classroom. Secondary Education Research, 47, 105–140.Google Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ghaffarzadegan, N., Larson, R., & Hawley, J. (2016). Education as a complex system. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34, 211–215. Scholar
  25. Gibbs, P. (2017). Transdisciplinary thinking: Pedagogy for complexity. In P. Gibbs (Ed.), Transdisciplinary Higher Education (pp. 45–56). New York: Springer. Scholar
  26. Goodman, S. (2014). Fuel creativity in the classroom with divergent thinking.
  27. Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2008). Chaos/complex theory in second language acquisition. Novitas Royal, 1(1), 10–17.Google Scholar
  28. Hashamdar, M. (2012). First language acquisition: Is it compatible with chaos/complexity theory? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1503–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heylighen, F. (1999). Change and information overload: Negative effects.
  30. Heylighen, F. (2002). The global brain as a new utopia. In R. Maresch & F. Rötzer (Eds.), Zukunftsfiguren. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  31. Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., & Gershenson, C. (2007). Complexity and philosophy. Retrieved May 5, 2017, from
  32. Hill, K. A. (2003). Quantum linguistics: A response to David Mallows. ELT Journal, 57(2), 175–178. Scholar
  33. Hookes, D. (2010). Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm—P2P Foundation.
  34. Horn, J. (2008). Human research and complexity theory. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 124–136). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hulting, N. (2017). Brainstorming, brainwriting, ideation, and the structured process of idea generation.
  36. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the learning sciences, 15(1), 11–34. Scholar
  37. Joffe, H., & Elsey, J. W. (2014). Free association in psychology and the grid elaboration method. Review of General Psychology, 18(3), 173–185. Scholar
  38. Kim, K. H., & Pierce, R. A. (2013). Convergent versus divergent thinking. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 245–250). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klein, J. (2004). Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. Emergence Complexity & Organization, 6(1–2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  40. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013a). Chaos/complexity theory for second language acquisition/development. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA. Scholar
  42. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013b). Complexity theory: A new way to think. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 369–373. Scholar
  43. Lawrence, R. (2010). Deciphering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contributions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(1), 125–130.Google Scholar
  44. Lunenberg, F. (2010). Schools as open systems. Schooling, 1(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  45. Mabit, R. (2002). Education and training for the year 2010. In A. Corbett & B. Moon (Eds.), Education in France: Continuity and change in the Mitterrand years, 1981-1995 (p. 30). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (1996). Psychological uses of complexity theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 465–475. Scholar
  47. Mason, M. (2016). Complexity theory and systemic change in education governance. In T. Burns & F. Köster (Eds.), Governing Education in a Complex World (pp. 41–53). Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  48. Matthews, K. E. (2018). Stop treating students like customers and start working with them as partners in learning.
  49. McLeod, S. (2014). Psychoanalysis.
  50. Mital, P., Moore, R., & Llewellyn, D. (2014). Analyzing K-12 education as a complex system. Procedia Computer Science, 28, 370–379. Scholar
  51. Mitchell, M. (2017). How can the study of complexity transform our understanding of the world?
  52. Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  53. Mukherjee, I. (2008). The complexity paradigm: Implications for information systems and their strategic planning. Journal of Computer Science, 4(5), 382–392. Scholar
  54. NECSI. (2011). Concepts: Adaptive.
  55. Rouse, M. (2016). What is chaos theory?—Definition from
  56. New World Encyclopedia. (2018). J. P. Guilford.
  57. Nicolescu, B. (1997). The transdisciplinary evolution of learning.
  58. Novotna, J., & Sarrazy, B. (2014). Complexity in stem processes and structures. In D. Ambrose, B. Sriraman, & K. M. Pierce (Eds.), A critique of creativity and complexity: Deconstructing clichés (pp. 22–250). Rotterdam: Sense Publishes.Google Scholar
  59. Ozturk, I. (2008). The role of education in economic development: A theoretical perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal. Scholar
  60. Peha, S. (2011). Teaching grammar: There has to be a better way (and there is!).
  61. Pennycook, A. (2007). ELT and colonialism. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 13–24). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Predborska, I. (2013). E. Morin’s complexity paradigm in the context of informational challenges to education. Systema: Matter, Life, Culture and Technology, 1(3), 68–82.Google Scholar
  64. Queen, S. (2015). Divergent thinking workshop. NC State University.
  65. Robinson, K. (2011). Do schools kill creativity?.
  66. Safari, P., & Rashidi, N. (2015). Language learning as chaos/complexity system: Evidence based on Iranian EF learners’ backgrounds. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 6(4), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schafer, M., Ohlhorst, D., Schon, S., & Kruse, S. (2010). Science for the future: Challenges and methods for transdisciplinary sustainability research. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Development, 2(1), 114–137.Google Scholar
  68. Seyyedrezae, S. H. (2014). The application of chaos/complexity theory in classroom teaching, task design and lesson planning. Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics, 2(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  69. Shea, N. (2015). Distinguishing top-down from bottom-up effects. In S. Biggs, M. Matthen, & D. Stokes (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 73–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Smillie, L., & Antinori, A. (2017). People with creative personalities really do see the world differently.
  71. Soleimani, H., & Farrokh Alaee, F. (2014). Complexity theory and CALL curriculum in foreign language Learning. IJALEL, 3(3), 19–25. Scholar
  72. Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 223(4), 205–214. Scholar
  73. Stinson, D., & Powell, G. (2009). Teachers reflecting differently: Deconstructing the discursive teacher/student binary. Georgia State University website.
  74. Susikaran, R. S. (2013). Teaching grammar with playful poems. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1(4), 17–21.Google Scholar
  75. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). The redundancy effect. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 141–154). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thatcher, A. (2015). HFSD definition working paper 19 08 2013.
  77. Thompson, G. F. (2016). Interdisciplinary complexities. Journal of Cultural Economy, 9(3), 322–329. Scholar
  78. UNESCO. (2013, May 10). Education for sustainable development.
  79. Viafara González, J. J., & Ariza Ariza, J. A. (2015). From awareness to cultural agency: EFL Colombian student teachers’ travelling abroad experiences. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17(1), 123–141. Scholar
  80. Vintiadis, E. (2018). Emergence. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  81. Warren, K. (2013). Chaos theory and complexity theory. In R. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Scholar
  82. Weaver, W. (1947). Science and complexity. American Scientist, 36(4), 536–544.Google Scholar
  83. Wulun, J. (2007). Understanding complexity, challenging traditional ways of thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(4), 393–402. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.English Language and Literature DepartmentUniversity of NeyshaburNeyshaburIran

Personalised recommendations