Exploring the application of an evolutionary educational complex systems framework to teaching and learning about issues in the science and technology classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the world through a complex systems lens has recently garnered a great deal of interest in many knowledge disciplines. In the educational arena, interactional studies, through their focus on understanding patterns of system behaviour including the dynamical processes and trajectories of learning, lend support for investigating how a complex systems approach can inform educational research. This study uses previously existing literature and tools for complex systems applications and seeks to extend this research base by exploring learning outcomes of a complex systems framework when applied to curriculum and instruction. It is argued that by applying the evolutionary dynamics of variation, interaction and selection, complexity may be harnessed to achieve growth in both the social and cognitive systems of the classroom. Furthermore, if the goal of education, i.e., the social system under investigation, is to teach for understanding, conceptual knowledge of the kind described in Popper's (1972; 1976) World 3, needs to evolve. Both the study of memetic processes and knowledge building pioneered by Bereiter (cf. Bereiter, 2002) draw on the World 3 notion of ideas existing as conceptual artifacts that can be investigated as products outside of the individual mind providing an educational lens from which to proceed. The curricular topic addressed is the development of an ethical understanding of the scientific and technological issues of genetic engineering. 11 grade 8 students are studied as they proceed through 40 hours of curricular instruction based on the complex systems evolutionary framework. Results demonstrate growth in both complex systems thinking and content knowledge of the topic of genetic engineering. Several memetic processes are hypothesized to have influenced how and why ideas change. Categorized by factors influencing either reflective or non-reflective selection, these processes appear to have exerted differential effects on students' abilities to think and act in complex ways at various points throughout the study. Finally, an analysis of winner and loser memes is offered that is intended to reveal information about the conceptual system—its strengths and deficiencies—that can help educators assess curricular goals and organize and construct additional educational activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".