نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 شهید بهشتی

2 خوارزمی

چکیده

هدف اصلی این مقاله تبیین ماهیت، قلمرو و فرایند یادگیری بر اساس پارادایم پیچیدگی می‌باشد. بدین منظور، نخست نظریه‌های سنتی یادگیری با نظر به مبانی فلسفی آن‌ها مرور شده و نحوه شکل‌گیری نظریه ارتباط گرایی در پارادایم پیچیدگی بررسی شد. سپس، ماهیت، قلمرو و فرایند یادگیری بر اساس پارادایم پیچیدگی تبیین شد. در تبیین ماهیت یادگیری در این پارادایم، سه ویژگی یادگیری پیچیده شامل «مقارنه دانش و داننده»، «کلاس و فراسیستم‌ها همچون سیستم‌های یادگیرنده» و «وابستگی متقابل تدریس و یادگیری» تبیین شدند. سپس، قلمرو یادگیری بر بستر پارادایم پیچیدگی تبیین شد. دراین‌باره، استدلال شد که یادگیرندگان علاوه بر افراد فراگیرنده می‌تواند شامل گروه‌های اجتماعی و کلاسی، مدارس، اجتماع‌ها، بدنه‌های دانش، زبان‌ها، فرهنگ‌ها، گونه‌ها و غیره نیز باشند. ازاین‌رو، سخن گفتن از «سازمان یادگیرنده» در چنین زمینه‌ای معنای شفاف‌تری می‌یابد. همچنین، درباره فرایند یادگیری استدلال شد که یادگیری فرایندی «نوپدید» بوده و شامل «تکامل همگام» افراد، گروه‌های اجتماعی و جامعه گسترده‌تر است. به‌عبارت‌دیگر، در فرایند یادگیری تأکید بر روابط میان عناصر به‌جای خود عناصر است و ذهن انسان به‌عنوان یک سیستم انطباقی مورد ملاحظه قرار می‌گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Learning in Complexity Paradigm: Nature, Scope and Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • Reza mohammadi-chaboki 1
  • parvin Bazghandi 2
  • Saeid Zarghami-Hamrah 2

1 Shahid Beheshti

2 Kharazmi

چکیده [English]

The present study aims to explain the nature, scope and process of learning based on the complexity paradigm. To this purpose, the traditional learning theories were reviewed with regard to the philosophical foundations and the emergence of connectivism was examined in the complexity paradigm. Then, the nature, process, and scope of learning were explained on the basis of complexity theory. Three characteristics of complex learning including “conjunction of knowledge and knower”, “classroom and meta-systems as learner’s systems” and “the interdependence of teaching and learning” were addressed for explaining the nature of learning in complexity paradigm. Next, the learning scope was explained with regard to complexity paradigm. It is argued that learners could include social and class groups, schools, communities, body of knowledge, languages, cultures, species and etc. in addition to the conventional learners or students. Therefore, talking about “learner organization” could take on a clear meaning in this context. Additionally, regarding the process of learning, it is argued that learning is an “emerging” process and involves individuals, social groups, and broader community. In other words, in the process of learning the relationship between elements are emphasized over the elements and human mind is considered as an adaptive system.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Learning
  • complexity paradigm
  • connectivism
Bazghandi, P. (2015). Deducing of philosophy of science education based on the philosophy of science derived from complex theory. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
Biesta, G., & Osberg, D. (2007). Beyond re/presentation: A case for updating the epistemology of schooling. Interchange. 38(1), 15–29.
Comenius, J. A. (1654/1810). Vissible world: A nomenclature and pictures of all the chief things that are in the world and of men's employments therein. (C. Hoole, Trans). New York: T. & J. Swords.
Davis, B. (2008). Complexity and education: Vital simultaneities. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 46-59). New York: Wiley & Blackwell.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity & education: Inquiries into learning, teaching & research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dewey, J. (1902/1966). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Doll, W. E. (2008). Complexity and the culture of curriculum. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 181-203). New York: Wiley & Blackwell.
Emergence (2010). Encyclopædia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.
Eskandari, H., Fardanesh, H., & Sadeghzadeh, A. (2014). Contemporary Scientific Paradigms and Learning Theories. Journal of Studies on Educational Psycology. 11(20), 1-32. (In Persian)
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. London: Falmer Press.
Hirst, P. H., & White, P. (1998). Philosophy of education: Major themes in the analytic tradition. London: Routledge.
Jess, M., Atenciob, M. & Thorburna, M. (2011). Complexity theory: supporting curriculum and pedagogy developments, Scottish physical education, Sport, Education and Society. 16(2), 179-199.
Jörg, T. (2004). Complexity theory and the reinvention of reality of education. In Proceedings of the 2004 complexity science and educational research conference (pp. 121–146), September 30–October 3, 2004, Chaffey’s Locks. (http://www.complexityandeducation.ca)
Jörg, T. (2009). Thinking in complexity about learning and education: A programmatic view. Complicity, 6(1).
Kadivar, P. (2014). Educational Psycology. Tehran: Samt. (In Persian)
Martin, G. (2011). Understanding Motivation for Lifelong Education, Through Biography, Complexity and Control, PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham.
Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory & what are its implications for educational change? In M. Mason (Ed), complexity theory & the philosophy of education (pp. 32-45). New York: Wiley & Blackwell.
Mohammadi Chaboki, R. (2013a). Prerequisites of Complexity Inspired Educational Theory, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian)
Mohammadi Chaboki, R. (2013b). Educational Theory in Complexity Paradigm: An Epistemologic Perspective. Foundations in Education. 3(1), 65-92. (In Persian)
Mohammadi Chaboki, R. (2015). Educational Theory in Complexity Paradigm: An Ontologic Perspective. Foundations in Education. 5(1), 47-70. (In Persian)
Morrison, K. (2008). Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 40(1), 19-34.
Najarian, P. (2015). The Explanation of Philosophical Foundations of Complexity Theory and its Implications in Curriculum. PhD Thesis, Kharazmi University, Tehran. (In Persian)
Newell, C. (2008). The class as a learning entity (complex adaptive system): An idea from complexity science and educational research. Educational Review. 2(1), 5-17.
Osberg, D., Biesta, G., & Cilliers, P. (2008). From representation to emergence: Complexity’s challenge to the epistemology of Schooling. In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp. 204-217). New York: Wiley & Blackwell.
Osberg, D & Biesta, G (Eds). (2010). Complexity Theory and the Politics of Education. Roterdam: Sense Publishers.
Saif, A. A. (2007). Educational Psycology: Psycology of Learning & Instruction. Tehran: Agah. (In Persion)
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N. Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools That Learn. A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education, New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organization. Sloan Management Review. 32(1): 724-749.
Strong, K., & Hutchins, H. (2009). Connectivism: a theory for learning in a world of growing complexity. Journal of Applied Researchin Workplace E-learning. 1(1), 53-67.