Emergent Learning: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning

Dr Elena Korosteleva & Mr Giles Polglase6 June 2011

Emergent Learning: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning

• This research explores the concept of ‘Emergent Learning’

• Hussey & Smith (2003, 2010) define emergent learning as ‘...what happens in classrooms between learners, teachers and the curriculum’

• Using a complex adaptive systems (CAS) approach, this research integrates aspects of Hussey & Smith’s thinking in a scientific framework

• Using Dooley’s (1996: 2-3) nominal definition of a CAS it is noted that:– A system’s history is predetermined and cannot be altered– Order is emergent– The future state of a the system is (relatively) unpredictable

Emergent Learning: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning

• Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) advocate a rigid linear framework for learning which does not acknowledge complexity.

• This study contends that students do not learn in a linear and ‘intentional’ manner and the ‘value attached’ to the ILOs by the ‘students who appreciate the clarity they have brought to the overall purpose of their programme’ (QAA 2007:13) offers just that: clarification of a programme.

• The role of the university lecturer is not to ‘programme’ students with intentions, but to ‘educate’ them liberally; in other words, to develop a ‘liberal learner’, who is more adaptable and reflexive; and who is with not more but better (more integrated) knowledge and understanding of their received education.

Emergent Learning: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning

• This study argues that although academics may attempt to pre-specify and constructively align an individual student’s learning to meet the stated learning outcomes – in reality this is impossible.

• Each student has a different educational and experiential history which should be acknowledged; learning emerges through the student’s engagement with formal and informal learning; what the student may actually gain from the learning experience (future state) may be greater than and different to (or less than and different to) the ILOs.

• Therefore, what an individual student learns is unique and different to that of the other students’ within the same module or programme.

Emergent Learning: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning

• Summative assessment methods, which are tailored to evaluate traditional ILOs, fail to capture the complexity of the learning process. Therefore, swathes of useful, ‘other’ or ‘emergent’ learning may simply be ignored because this different learning does not fit the constraints of the programme.

• The question is how this ‘emergent learning’ - which can have a far more profound effect on the individual student than the intended learning – can be effectively acknowledged and assessed.

• It is impractical (and impossible) to overturn the current system which focuses on summative assessment. To formally award credit students require examination of received learning.

• Therefore the focus should be on formative assessment.

How to ‘liberate’ the learning process: project hypotheses?

1. Focus on formative rather than summative approaches to learning.

2. Attempt to understand students’ ipsative (student-defined) learning intentions:

Why have they decided to take your module? Does it fit with previous learning or experience? Do they predict this learning to ‘lead’ them towards a personal goal (e.g. job/further study)?

3. Attempt to understand student history at the beginning of the module.

4. Use formative assessment and feedback during teaching to promote unpredicted but desirable emergent learning.

Project’s activitiesThree phases of the project:

1) Benchmarking: to assess the ILOs for six European Politics modules, in relation to the QAA guidelines and pedagogic theories

2) Student voice: 1 UG and 1 PG modules, International Politics Initial online surveys; Formative feedback/assessment Citizens’ juries

3) Analysis and dissemination Memorable experience: satisfaction and enjoyment levels of students higher; Student performance higher (mode, median and mean) Better aligned learning: cumulative knowledge and the use of other theories New learning: shift from ‘describing, reporting’ to ‘applying’ and ‘interpreting’ Purposeful learning: student-defined for personal use (ownership)

ConclusionsLiberated Learning: adaptable, ipsative, reflexive and ‘better’ integrated (cumulative):

Intended learning outcomes are useful for outlining the learning process but should not dictate the assessment process

ILOs should be developed into ELOs during the learning process and should be predicated on student histories/intentions and recognition of individual ways of learning

Greater focus on must be placed on formative (and pre-formative) assessment and feedback during the teaching process

Detailed but adaptable assessment criteria are essential in order to recognise and reward emergent learning.