System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective

Gary G. Fogal

doi:10.1515/iral-2021-0027

Article

System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective

Gary G. Fogal

Published/Copyright: February 18, 2021

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Volume 60 Issue 1

Abstract

The claim that educational contexts are dynamic, complex spaces is hardly a novel one. Yet, to date limited explicit treatment in the literature engages L2 classrooms as such. This paucity is partially explained by methodological concerns with investigating diverse and contextually dense places in ways that capture the richness of these environments. While no single method can mitigate this concern, system mapping can help researchers explore system dynamics through a mapping technique that diagrams system variables through the interpretive lens of relevant stakeholders. Stakeholders engage with variables relative to a guiding statement, question, or objective meaningful to the system’s development or maintenance, thus providing insights into interactions across and beyond the conventional teacher–student interface. System mapping is particularly useful for problem solving and developing in-depth understandings of relations across system components. After describing and expanding on system mapping and its uses in education research, this work moves through a sample study in the L2 writing context to demonstrate its utility.

Keywords: co-adaptation; emergence; L2 writing; simplex systems; system mapping

Corresponding author: Gary Fogal, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Sophia University, 7-1 Kioicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-8554, Japan, E-mail: ggfogal@sophia.ac.jp

References

Berthoz, Alain. 2012. Simplexity: Simplifying principles for a complex world. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.12987/yale/9780300169348.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bruce, Peter & Andrew Bruce. 2017. Practical statistics for data scientists. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Search in Google Scholar

Byrne, David & Gill Callaghan. 2014. Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203519585Search in Google Scholar

Byrnes, Heidi. 2020. Envisioning L2 writing development in CDST under a curricular optic: A proposal. In Gary G. Fogal & Marjolijn H. Verspoor (eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development, 241–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.54.10byrSearch in Google Scholar

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Fiona Ell, Larry Ludlow, Lexie Grudnoff & Graeme Aitken. 2014. The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record 116(5). 1–38.10.1177/016146811411600407Search in Google Scholar

Davis, Brent & Dennis Sumara. 2006. Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ell, Fiona, Mavis Haigh, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Lexie Grudnoff, Larry Ludlow & Mary F. Hill. 2017. Mapping a complex system: What influences teacher learning during initial teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 45(4). 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2017.1309640.Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Jo-Anne & Lisa Ryan. 2013. Working the system: A model for system-wide change in pre-service teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(12). 29–45. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n12.3.Search in Google Scholar

Fogal, Gary G. 2020. Unpacking ‘simplex systems’: Curricular thinking for L2 writing development. In Gary G. Fogal & Marjolijn H. Verspoor (eds.), Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 writing development, 271–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.54.11fogSearch in Google Scholar

Gallagher, Colin H. & Garry Robins. 2015. Network statistical models for language learning contexts: Exponential random graph models and willingness to communicate. Language Learning 65. 929–962. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12130.Search in Google Scholar

Goldspink, Chris. 2007. Transforming education: Evidential support for a complex systems approach. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 9. 77–92.Search in Google Scholar

Goldstein, Jeffrey. 2011. Emergence in complex systems. In Peter Allen, Steve Maguire & Bill McKelvey (eds.), The SAGE handbook of complexity and management, 65–78. New York: SAGE.10.4135/9781446201084.n4Search in Google Scholar

Hiver, Phil & Ali H. Al-Hoorie. 2020. Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/HIVER5747Search in Google Scholar

Holland, John H. 2012. Signals and boundaries: Building blocks for complex adaptive systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9412.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hollenstein, Tom. 2013. State space grids. Boston: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-5007-8Search in Google Scholar

Horn, James. 2008. Human research and complexity theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(1). 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00395.x.Search in Google Scholar

Jörg, Ton, Brent Davis & Goele Nickmans. 2007. Towards a new, complexity science of learning and education. Educational Research Review 2(2). 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.09.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kane, Mary & William Trochim. 2007. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.10.4135/9781412983730Search in Google Scholar

Koopmans, Matthijs. 2020. Education is a complex dynamical system: Challenges for research. The Journal of Experimental Education 88(3). 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1566199.Search in Google Scholar

Kostoulas, Achilleas, Juup Stelma, Sarah Mercer, Lynne Cameron & Susan Dawson. 2018. Complex systems theory as a shared discourse space for TESOL. TESOL Journal 9(2). 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.317.Search in Google Scholar

Kowch, Eugene. 2012. Towards leading diverse, smarter and more adaptable complex organizations. In Joel Lewis (ed.), Technology as a tool for diversity leadership: Implementation and future implications, 11–34. New York: IDEA Books.10.4018/978-1-4666-2668-3.ch002Search in Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In Dwight Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 60–84. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2017. Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In Lourdes Ortega & ZhaoHong Han (eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman, 11–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.48.02larSearch in Google Scholar

Ludlow, Larry, Fiona Ell, Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Avery Newton, Kaitlin Trefcer, Kelsey Klein, Lexie Grudnoff, Mavis Haigh & Mary F. Hill. 2017. Visualizing teacher education as a complex system: A nested simplex system approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 14(1). 36–79. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct26053.Search in Google Scholar

Norris, John M. & Rosa M. Manchón. 2012. Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In Rosa M. Manchón (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives, 219–245. New York: de Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781934078303.221Search in Google Scholar

Osberg, Deborah & Gert Biesta. 2010. The end/s of education: Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education 14(6). 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802530684.Search in Google Scholar

Polio, Charlene. 2017. Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching 50(2). 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444817000015.Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz-Primo, Maria & Richard J. Shavelson. 1996. Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(6). 569–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::aid-tea1>3.0.co;2-m.10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199608)33:6<569::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-MSearch in Google Scholar

Silva, Tony. 1990. Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In Barbara Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 11–13. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524551.005Search in Google Scholar

Staples, Shelley & Douglas Biber. 2015. Cluster analysis. In Luke Plonsky (ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research, 243–274. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315870908-11Search in Google Scholar

Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Search in Google Scholar

van Geert, Paul & Henderien Steenbeek. 2014. The good, the bad and the ugly? The dynamic interplay between educational practice, policy and research. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education 11(2). 22–39. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct22962.Search in Google Scholar

Watts, Simon & Paul Stenner. 2012. Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation. Los Angeles: SAGE.10.4135/9781446251911Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2021-02-03

Accepted: 2021-02-03

Published Online: 2021-02-18

Published in Print: 2022-03-28

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0027

Keywords for this article

co-adaptation; emergence; L2 writing; simplex systems; system mapping