Gough (2013) covers some useful points on complexity, what it is, how we (in education) feel about it, how we deal with it. The paper does however lean towards strawman arguments at times. It concludes suggesting a way between the extremes is possible (of course) but this is a little less satisfying when preceded by almost worst case scenarios.
For instance,
- That an overly simplified system is not always representative of the ‘real’ one; yes, is true but not unique to education research or any field. The question of whether or not a study is scalable, is one that should be asked arguably before research begins (lest it is not a good use of your time).
- That constructive alignment could be used to be oppressive and privilege certain values; yes, and so might any design framework.
- That researchers can overstate or even deliberately manipulate evidence; yes, this does happen but that is surely not an excuse to reject the concept entirely, just to be more critical.
- That evidence can have many meanings; yes, I think that this is already accepted and why when one uses this term it should be accompanied by an explanation (obviously, law are way ahead of us here). Frameworks such the UKPSF use the term evidence but ask applicants to define it and to consider for themselves what is appropriate for their context.
The paper did have some important things to say:
- If education research borrows from other fields it should justify this and likewise why it does not update this as those theories are updated;
- If complexity is being reduced, why, by whom and for what purpose;
- Studying only a simplified system, even if scalable, should not let us miss out on examining the larger system and what’s more (though this wasn’t said here) in a multidiscipline/cross-disciplinary way.
Many of us are designing in an environment where constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2012) is expected, at least to some degree (though it may not be mentioned explicitly). There can be many reasons for this (beyond anyone’s idea of managing the institution like a factory, of that is ever the case) but though the paper is implicitly against it, as it has to admit ‘…even if a curriculum is planned to function as a simple system we can choose to interpret it as an element of a complex system…’ (Gough; p.1223).
If we have interpreted constructive alignment as a recipe for a one-size-fits-all experience, that might be more a reflection on our own view of the curriculum; it still leaves scope for some complexity.
References
Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2012) Aligning the Curriculum to Promote Learning. Encyclopaedia of the Sciences of Learning: pp.198-199.
Gough, N. (2013). Towards deconstructive nonalignment : a complexivist view of curriculum, teaching and learning. South African Journal of Higher Education 27(5), 1213-1233.
