Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2008, 27, 21-37 © 2008 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Complex Learning Theory— Its Epistemology and Its Assumptions About Learning: Implications for Physical Education Richard Light University of Sydney Davis and Sumara (2003) argue that differences between commonsense assumptions about learning and those upon which constructivism rests present a significant challenge for the fostering of constructivist approaches to teaching in schools. Indeed, as Rink (2001) suggests, initiating any change process for teaching method needs to involve some understanding of the theories supporting it. Although there has been considerable discussion about constructivism in the physical education literature over the past decade, there has been less attention paid to the assumptions about learning and knowledge that underpin it. This article makes a contribution toward redressing this oversight in the literature by examining the epistemology and assumptions about learning that constructivist theories of learning rest upon. Drawing on the work of Davis and Sumara (2003), I suggest that the term “complex” learning theories may offer a more useful description of the sometimes confusing range of constructivist approaches. I provide examples of, and suggestions for, the application of constructivism in practice and within which the body forms a prominent theme. Keywords: pedagogy, learning theory, constructivism, sociocultural, physical education, epistemology
The past decade has seen a marked growth in interest from researchers in constructivist theories of learning in physical education (e.g., see Grehaigne, Richard, & Griffin, 2005; Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Light, 2006; Light & Fawns, 2003; Rink, 2001; Rink, French, & Tjeerdsma, 1996), with this being particularly evident in research on Teaching Games for Understanding and its variants (e.g., Griffin & Butler, 2005; Light, 2005a; Rink, 1996, Rovegno, 1998). As Rink (2001) suggests is common with new ideas, it has generated excitement and enthusiasm among some researchers. Beyond the excitement of new ideas, these developments have also provided a valuable means through which researchers can engage in broader debate on the nature of learning to find common ground with Light is with the Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 21
22 Light
research in other school subject areas where constructivist approaches have risen to prominence over the past few decades (Fox, 2001). Although physical education teachers may not necessarily articulate clear beliefs about it, their practice invariably rests upon basic, unquestioned beliefs about learning. Their practice is typically based upon assumptions about learning that are deeply embedded in Western culture (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000) and that assume it to be an explicit linear and measurable process of internalizing knowledge. From this perspective, knowledge is conceived of as a preexisting, “out there” entity and learning as being a process of internally representing this reality in the mind of the learner (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch 1991). In physical education, this is evident in the teaching of predetermined “fundamental” motor skills seen as being a prerequisite for playing games and sport. Constructivism, however, rests upon very different epistemology, or conception of knowledge, to adopt a more ecological, holistic view of learning that challenges the dualistic division of mind from body, learner from learned, and subject from object. Implicit within this rejection of the division between mind and body is the importance of the body and its sensations in learning. Understanding these different conceptions of what knowledge is, and assumptions about how learning occurs, is essential for the development of constructivist approaches to teaching physical education in teacher professional development and teacher education programs. The differences between commonsense assumptions about learning and those that constructivism rests upon present a problem in implementing successful changes in teaching practice guided by constructivism. Initiating any change process must, therefore, involve some understanding of the theories supporting it and the sets of assumptions about learning that it rests upon (Rink, 2001). Even though some of the physical education literature addresses various aspects of this (e.g., Griffin, Brooker, & Patton, 2005; Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Light & Fawns, 2001, 2003; Rink, 2001), there has been comparatively little inquiry into the assumptions about learning and the epistemology upon which constructivism rests. Although diverse forms of constructivism exist, with significant differences among them, they do share some core ideas. This article begins by briefly examining constructivist approaches to learning and outlining three such core ideas identified by Davis and Sumara (1997, 2003). I then argue that the term “complex” learning theories may offer a more useful description of the various forms of constructivism that can and have been used in physical education, grounding this argument in practice by providing examples of complex learning theory in action.
Constructivist Learning Theory Behaviorism has formed the dominant view of learning for much of the twentieth century and, despite being largely displaced by constructivism over the past few decades in most teacher education programs, continues to have a strong influence in physical education. It is underpinned by a view of the cognizing agent as being isolated from the world and mental activity as being distinct from physical experience. This division of thinking from experience leads to a range of dualisms that have particular significance for physical education. These include the separation of thought from action, self from other, knower from known, and subjective from
Complex Learning Theory 23
objective. Behaviorism sees thinking as being inaccessible and focuses instead on the body in terms of observable, gross bodily behavior to emphasize cause and effect in behavior and the influence of environmental circumstances (Davis et al., 2000). Concerned with the effect of reward and punishment on behavior, behaviorist approaches to instruction typically take a “training” approach to teaching, emphasizing the use of feedback and reward systems to change and modify behavior. The idea of filtering or internalizing objective knowledge that is so prominent in behaviorism requires a highly structured and technical pedagogical approach. Behaviorists conceive of cognition and learning as being mechanical processes and strive to understand learning by reducing it to its simplest components. Although behaviorism focuses on the body, it sees it as being separate from, and governed by, the mind. Constructivism adopts a holistic view of learning and cognition that extends beyond the mind as a separate entity to include the body and all its senses. From a constructivist perspective, cognition occurs not only in the mind, but is embodied. Learning is not reduced to simple components but is instead seen as being essentially complex. Nor is learning restricted to what is consciously apparent, but rather it is seen to include the immense range of implicit learning and knowledge that is enacted. In constructivism, knowledge includes the unformulated knowledge enacted in daily life that is captured in the suggestion that, “we know more than we know we know” (Davis et al., 2000, p. 66). A constructivist view of learning sees it as a process of adapting to and fitting into a constantly changing world. Understanding thus arises from the learner’s engagement in the world through perception, motor action, and bodily senses. The biological body is seen as being more than a just a structure through which we learn. Instead, the body itself is seen to learn.
Knowledge and Knowing in Constructivism Complex learning theory rejects divisions between the knower and the known, the view of knowledge as an object and learning as a process of internalizing knowledge. This perspective is underpinned by a philosophic position that departs from Cartesian traditions. It is part of a growing challenge to dualistic Western conceptions of human existence that separate mind from body. Widely regarded as the most influential educational theorist of the twentieth century, Dewey is very explicit in expressing his concern with the effect of this dualism on education: “It would be impossible to state adequately the evil results, which have flowed from this dualism of mind and body” (1916/97, p. 141). In a discussion of cognition in games, Light and Fawns (2001) argue that thinking is not restricted to a disembodied mind but that the body actually thinks. In an attempt to explain the links between action in games and speech in reflection after it in Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), Light and Fawns (2003) suggest the metaphor of learning in TGfU as an ongoing conversation or dialogue, as opposed to the monologue of directive teaching. They argue that this helps to see how action in games and discussion among students in between bouts of action are linked to integrate the mind expressed in speech and the body expressed in action as an ongoing conversation. Such conceptions of learning in physical education reflect a constructivist view of knowledge as being inseparable from the learner and of cognition as being both embodied and distributed across groups of people
24 Light
and not restricted to the individual mind. To know something from a constructivist perspective is different from what it means to know something from a behaviorist perspective. In constructivism, learning involves adaptation and change in the learner. As Light and Fawns suggest, knowing something, whether it is how to pass a ball in a basketball or the meaning of a word, means being able to enact it or use it. In this way, knowledge is not an object but inseparable from the knower. In all learning, even what is claimed to be purely intellectual, there is always some engagement of the body and its senses in cognition and learning through the act of perception (Lackoff & Johnson, 1999). The body’s senses are employed in all learning, including sight, hearing, hands, motor responses, and other senses such as what some refer to as a “sixth sense.” There are more ways of knowing than through rational thought and language, and perception is more than merely a biological function of the body. Processes of perception involve interpretation shaped by experience (Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Varela et al., 1991). The preschool child learns through his or her eyes, ears, tactile sensations and combinations of senses (including thinking), and nonverbal social interaction well before the development of language. This learning involves the use of “organs of the process of doing something from which meaning results” (Dewey, 1916/1997, p. 142). Language is seen as the chief instrument through which learning is achieved in schools. We cannot deny the importance of language in learning, but the importance of language in schooling and formal processes of education makes a pivotal contribution toward the unquestioned belief in education as a process involving the transmission of objective knowledge in which the body is excluded. Before a child enters formal schooling, he or she has learnt the “habits of language” that are absorbed through “the intercourse of life” (Dewey, 1916/97, p. 17). Indeed, by the time children begin formal schooling they have already become competent in the complex tasks of language and locomotion through the interaction of their biology and their engagement in their immediate sociocultural environment. This implicit way of learning, and the nature of knowledge, is recognized in recent attempts to understand how we learn, not just in schools and universities, but also across our lives (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Varela et al., 1991).
Forms of Constructivism Forms of constructivism, drawing on various streams of thought, are discussed later. There are, however, two main types: psychological constructivism and social constructivism (Phillips, 1997). Psychological constructivism—which is sometimes referred to as personal constructivism, or cognitive constructivism—is influenced most strongly by the ideas of Piaget. Rather than learning being a process of just adding on new knowledge, psychological constructivism sees learning as being a process of the learner constructing unique knowledge through the interaction of his or her previous experience and knowledge and new experiences. This assumes that knowledge is not merely received or taken in but is actively interpreted by the learner through exploration and discovery (McInerney & McInerney, 1998, p. 5). Psychological constructivism emphasizes the intrapersonal dimensions of learning and personal meaning making. It sees the construction of knowledge as involving “the activation and reorganization of existing knowledge to make a unique understanding of the world” (Chen & Rovegno, 2000, p. 357). It suggests that thinking
Complex Learning Theory 25
and learning are not restricted to the mind but extend to the body and its senses (Davis et al., 2000) Social constructivism is most strongly influenced by the ideas of Vygotsky (1978) to see cognition occurring beyond the body. From a social constructivist perspective, cognition is seen not as an individual process but instead as a collective process spread across the individual’s world. The understandings and capabilities that emerge from social interaction with a group are greater than those that are possible at an intrapersonal level. Social constructivist approaches to teaching thus emphasize social interaction and dialogue, such as when children work in groups to share ideas and solve mathematical problems collectively. In physical education, TGfU provides a good example of a social constructivist approach; TGfU emphasizes collaborative problem solving between the whole class and between teams in small-sided games, in which they are encouraged to come up with tactical solutions and develop strategies collectively. As Light and Fawns (2003) suggest, this extends beyond verbal interaction to include the embodied dialogue that is possible in games as an ongoing conversation between players or students.
Constructivism in Physical Education Significant interest in constructivist theory in the physical education field has been evident over the past 15 years or so (e.g., Pissanos & Allison, 1993), with a marked expansion of writing over the past 10 years (e.g., Griffin et al., 2005; Kirk & Macdonald, 1998; Rink, 2001; Rovegno & Dolly, 2006). Much of this interest arises from recognition of the TGfU approach (and its variations) as being consistent with a social constructivist approach to learning. It has also been suggested that learning in TGfU can be understood through Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of situated learning (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998). Although interest in the theory of constructivism in physical education is a recent development, approaches to teaching and learning that are consistent with constructivism have a longer history. The student-centered movement approaches of the 1950s and 1960s had many elements of a constructivist approach. Elements of constructivism are also evident in physical education texts of the 1970s (Rovegno & Kirk, 1995). For example, the teaching styles at the student-centered end of Mosston’s (1972) spectrum of teaching styles are consistent with a constructivist approach. When Bunker and Thorpe (1982) developed the TGfU model, it was not theorized from a constructivist perspective, but the approach to learning that underpins it provides a good example of a social constructivist approach to learning in physical education (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998). Siedentop’s (1994) sport education model is also consistent with the learning theory of constructivism.
Teaching and Theory Teachers and preservice teachers often fail to see the relevance of theory for their work or studies, typically expressing a preference for practical, hands-on learning/teaching, which they consider more useful. However, all teaching is based upon some sort of theory about how we learn. Typically, it is underpinned by commonsense beliefs about learning that are rarely articulated or questioned. As Rink (2001, p. 112) suggests, all pedagogy has its “roots in particular learning theory”
26 Light
and it is necessary for teachers to be aware of the assumptions about learning that underpin any method of teaching. This is particularly important when such assumptions challenge the beliefs about learning that teachers or preservice teachers hold. For example, research on teachers’ interpretations of TGfU indicates that it can challenge their beliefs about learning and what good teaching is (Butler, 1996). Thinking about theories of learning can unearth teachers’ previously unquestioned beliefs about learning and help in recognizing the importance of the assumptions that inform particular pedagogy. In the development of TGfU, the different pedagogy and epistemology upon which it is based challenge the established practices and beliefs of many physical education teachers and preservice teachers (e.g., Butler 1996). They can also challenge entrenched cultures within physical education teacher education programs (e.g., Light & Butler, 2005). Teachers and preservice teachers typically have problems fully grasping and successfully implementing constructivist approaches in physical education (e.g., Rovegno, 1998), but this is not limited to physical education. Davis and Sumara (2003) suggest that even though many teachers use the language of constructivism, they do not actually teach in a constructivist way. They suggest that this is due to differences in the sets of assumptions about learning that guide their teaching and those that underpin constructivism. Constructivist approaches to learning are based upon epistemologies and ontologies (views of the world) that are different from those upon which traditional, commonsense views of learning are based. This epistemological gap is what Butler (2005), drawing on Festinger, refers to as cognitive dissonance in the case of teachers struggling to adopt the TGfU approach to games teaching. Teacher education programs and professional development courses that seek to develop constructivist approaches to teaching thus face a considerable challenge in addressing differences in preservice teachers’ embodied, unarticulated beliefs and constructivist assumptions about learning. Developing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning in physical education thus requires more than just rational explanation and justification. As Davis and Sumara (2003) argue, it requires getting preservice teachers to consciously think about and discuss their own beliefs about learning and the ways in which they relate to the assumptions about learning that inform constructivist practice and theory. Davis and Sumara’s (2003) research on mathematics teachers in the United States highlights how teachers can adopt its language yet continue to teach in ways that are informed by a traditional objectivist approach to learning. They suggest that this is largely due to the fact that the vocabulary used by constructivists aligns so well with commonsense understandings of learning. The etymology of constructivism, with its references to “building” and “constructing” knowledge, emphasizes the deliberate over the accidental, the explicit over the tacit, and the planned over the contingent. In this, Davis and Sumara (p. 127) suggest that it “compels misunderstanding” because constructivism is more about selecting, discarding, and knitting together information. Ironically, this misinterpretation of constructivism, rather than prompting a break from deeply entrenched habits of thinking about learning, can be co-opted to support what Davis and Sumara (p. 126) refer to as a “regressive embrace of Platonic and Cartesian assumptions” about learning. The dissemination of constructivism, unfortunately, seems to have involved a loss of the links with the epistemologies upon which it rests.
Complex Learning Theory 27
Rovegno (1998) suggests that for in-service physical education teachers to successfully implement constructivist approaches to teaching they need a sound knowledge of its principles. Rink (cited in Kirk & MacPhail, 2002) supports this contention by arguing that, in order for physical education teachers to achieve their intended learning outcomes, their teaching needs to be based upon a clear understanding of learning theory. When the teaching approach adopted is based upon assumptions about learning that conflict with those of teachers or preservice teachers, this requires a critical analysis of their own deeply held beliefs about learning (e.g., Butler, 2005). This then allows them to see the fundamental differences between the assumptions about learning upon which different approaches are based and can help foster a deeper understanding of constructivist approaches to teaching physical education.
Complex Learning Theory The term constructivism is now commonly used in the physical education literature, but there is actually quite a diverse range of constructivist approaches that draw on many different sources. For example, as identified earlier in this article, psychological constructivism and social constructivism have significant differences between them. Indeed, Davis and Sumara (2003) argue that there is no one “constructivism” but rather, diverse discourses clustered under the banner of constructivism. Phillips (1997) suggests that the range of approaches now labeled as constructivist are so diverse and confusing that the term provides no useful information. In an attempt to “bring some order” to this confusion, Phillips (p. 85) delineates the two broad camps of psychological constructivism and social constructivism. Psychological constructivism draws on the work of Piaget and von Glasersfeld, whereas social constructivism stresses the role played by social processes, drawing largely on the work of Vygotsky and Bruner. The range of discourses informing constructivism draws from a wide range of influences—from Dewey, Freud, Kant, Piaget, and Vygotsky. The focus can vary from individual sense and meaning making, influenced by Piaget and labeled by Phillips (1997) as psychological constructivism; to social dynamics, in the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Vygotsky (1978); to the social and cultural themes of Bruner that Phillips (1997) identified as social constructivism. Davis and Sumara (2003) deal with this confusing diversity by suggesting that all constructivism meets around three interrelated and broad issues. Reducing the various forms of constructivism to three common themes is helpful in developing a concept of what they share and seeing how they can be applied to physical education teaching. 1. They are aligned more with a neo-Darwinist notion of learning as an ongoing process of adaptation than with the Cartesian idea of linear cause and effect. They see learning as a complex, multifaceted, and continuous process of change that takes place “within an evolving landscape of activity” (Davis & Sumara, 2003, p. 125). Learning involves more than just the passive perception and internalization of an external reality (Varela et al., 1991). It also involves the projection of the individual’s life history of experience in a process of change
28 Light
and adaptation as an act of interpretation shaped by experience. Lave and Wenger’s (1991, p. 33) notion of situated learning captures this idea of learning as a process of adaptation and transformation to offer a way of understanding “how we really learn.” To extend this idea, we can see living as equaling learning in opposition to the idea of learning as a process of adding on to what the learner already knows or can do. 2. Cognition is not only an intraindividual process, but also a social process in which various cognizing agents/learners are inseparably intertwined. This means that personal knowledge and activity are enfolded in, and unfold from, social interaction; collective knowledge; and activity (Davis & Sumara, 2003). Constructivism rejects the idea that cognition takes place only as an intraindividual process to locate “the human mind and cognition in a larger framework comprising the sociocultural and historical milieux in which human individuals live” (Saito, 1996, p. 400). As Vygotsky (1978) and others suggest, cognition is a social process, with learning arising from social interaction. The TGfU model for games teaching and the sport education model provide good examples of pedagogical approaches in physical education that seek to enhance opportunities for learning through social interaction. 3. They reject objectivist “representationist” accounts of cognition. They all offer critiques of long-established commonsense perspectives on learning, which have dominated thinking about learning for the past three centuries in the West. They critique the idea that knowledge is an internalized representation of an external reality. From a constructivist perspective, learning involves processes of interpretation in which there is no pre-given external reality. As the work of phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty (1962) suggests, the world is inseparable from us and we can know it only as we experience it. All the approaches grouped under the banner of constructivism are aligned with a postmodern perspective that challenges the Cartesian dualism that has shaped ideas about learning in the West for three centuries. They all have at their core a rejection of the dualism that separates mind from body, learner from learned, and subject from object to espouse more ecological notions of learning. The mind–body split has obvious implications for physical education. Descartes’ idea that “I think—therefore I am” separates the mind from, and elevates it above, the body. In schools, this is manifested in a knowledge hierarchy (Goodson, 1993), or discourses of power (Corson, 1996), that devalue the practical knowledge that physical education is seen to develop. It also encourages teaching in physical education that focuses on the physical dimensions of learning yet neglects the intellectual. This critique of dualism is evident in the development of contemporary theories of learning, such as situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and enactivism (Varela, et al., 1991). It does, however, have a longer history, as is evident in Dewey’s (1916/97) concern with “the evils of dualism” in education over 90 years ago.
Complex vs. Complicated Learning Theory Davis et al. (2000) offer the term “complex” learning theories as useful for describing the diverse approaches generally referred to as constructivism. They contrast
Complex Learning Theory 29
this with the term “complicated” learning theories as a reference to traditional commonsense views of learning as an internal representation of an external reality. They suggest that they take a mechanical view of learning that breaks it down into distinct parts much like the many moving parts of a car. The term complex learning theory helps to identify what all constructivist theories have in common by viewing learning as a process that is complex and cannot be reduced to a complicated number of parts. In doing so it offers an inclusive and broad term for referring to the diverse range of constructivist approaches that exist. It also includes approaches such as Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of situated learning, which share Davis and Sumara’s (2003) three broad themes yet might not strictly be considered as constructivist. Complicated learning theory (such as behaviorism) reduces learning to a simple linear process based on a conception of learning as a process of internalizing preexisting external knowledge (Davis & Sumara, 1997). It is complicated in that it draws on the analogy of a machine to break learning down into a multitude of components. It tends to focus on the learning that takes place within formal educational institutions such as schools and pays little attention to the broad range of implicit learning that takes place through day-to-day social life outside schools. Davis et al. (2000) suggest that up to 80% of what we learn occurs at a nonconscious level. Day-to-day learning arises from the whole person’s engagement in social and cultural practice. This learning is not accounted for in traditional complicated approaches. For example, it overlooks the range of embodied, cultural, and social learning, and human development that arises from children’s and young people’s engagement in sport and leisure pursuits over time. Context, Experience, and Learning. As Rink (2001) suggests, the core ideas
of constructivism were evident in the new teaching approaches of the 1960s, but contemporary constructivist approaches are far more rigorously theorized than the “child-centered” approaches of the sixties. For example, the enactivism of Varela et al. (1991) arises from the linking of cognitive science with human experience through the incorporation of existential phenomenology. Such approaches strive to capture the nature of learning as it occurs throughout our lives and the central role that human experience plays in it. For example, Lave and Wenger (1991) developed the notion of situated learning as a means of understanding the ways in which we learn in day-to-day life through participation in the practices of particular communities. How does an infant learn language? Not by any direct instruction from its parents, but by engagement and participation in a particular sociocultural environment. In Dewey’s (1916/97) terms, he or she “absorbs” language. How to do children in Australian beach communities learn to surf? Typically, very few of them receive any formal lessons. Learning how to surf involves a complex interplay of motor skills, anticipation, responses, and a remarkable interaction with a literally dynamic and fluid environment. It does not involve the learning of a set of discrete techniques. Instead, learning involves engagement in practice that simultaneously involves the mind and the body and its sensations operating in, and in relation to, a dynamic and unpredictable physical environment. They learn through complex processes of drawing on what they already know to experiment, reflect on, and in, action and engage their bodies and minds in adaptation and modification. The idea
30 Light
of learning basic skills or techniques before entering the ocean to surf is as untenable as the idea of having to learn to swim before being able to go in the pool. Learning is not a simple linear and easily quantifiable process. Nor is learning something that takes place only in schools. Complex learning theories recognize it as arising from participation in social life. Learning emerges from “our sensoryperceptual and cognitive (whole person) interactions with self and between self and other, self and the world, and self and contexts” (Gunn, 2001, p. 96). People learn outside formal settings such as schools. Learning is part of social life. As Begg (2001) suggests, the process of being is fundamentally a process of learning. Complex learning theories recognize the ways in which learning is deeply situated in particular cultural, social, and physical contexts. Of particular significance for the physical education field, they also recognize and account for the role of the body, its movements, and its senses in learning. Developments in complex learning theory make an important break from traditional complicated views of learning founded on mechanical cause-and-effect ways of explaining learning. Over the history of Western science, it has been assumed that most phenomena are mechanical in nature (Davis et al., 2000). Understanding how things work has been seen as involving the reduction of things to their fundamental components, or parts. In traditional games teaching, for example, this involves breaking the game down to what are seen as the “fundamental skills,” or techniques, needed to be able to play the game and viewing them as discrete components of the game. Learning, however, is a far more complex phenomenon than this suggests. Whereas traditional views of learning, such as behaviorism, see it as a mechanical process, complex learning theory recognizes it as being more spontaneous, more unpredictable, and more alive. In the case of games teaching, this is clearly the approach taken in TGfU. The game is seen as a whole entity that is complex, dynamic, unpredictable, and even chaotic (Light, 2005b).
Perception and Learning The use of mechanical or computer analogies to explain learning is, on the surface, appealing as it connects with our commonsense assumptions of it. Yet, when critically examined from a complex learning perspective, this approach fails to account for experience and capture how we really learn. For example, the notion of information processing, sometimes applied to analyzing game play (see for example, Kirk, Nauright, Hanrahan, Macdonald, & Jobling, 1996), seems to make sense to most of us. However, examining the assumptions about learning that this is based upon highlights its limitations. We all understand how computers work and the idea of processing information is an easily grasped analogy. The problem is that it does not capture how human learning really occurs. It reduces cognition to a simple mechanical process of input–process–output. The mechanistic view reflected in the analogy of the computer to explain learning/cognition “runs contrary to the creative, dynamic and unpredictable manner in which the mind works, where individually unique experience figures centrally” (Saito, 1996, p. 411). The development of an ecological approach to information processing is a more sophisticated way of looking at learning and addresses some of the limitations of the information-processing model. The ecological information-processing model is useful in the way that it can highlight the often-overlooked role of perception
Complex Learning Theory 31
and decision making in sport (e.g., Abernathy Hanrahan, Kippers, Mackinnon, & Pandy, 2005). The idea of inputting information and then processing it before acting upon it is easy to follow and makes learning in games look relatively straightforward. Information processing, however, is based on assumptions that knowledge is external to the learner. It does not take into account human experience and the ways in which perception is shaped by, and interacts with, the individual’s life experiences. Information processing assumes knowledge as a given object independent of human experience. The work of French phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty (1962) has strongly influenced the development of contemporary complex learning theories (e.g., Varela et al., 1991). His notion of “double embodiment” emphasizes the connection between human biology and our lived experiences of the world. He suggests that perception is an interpretative act that involves, not passive reception of information, but active projection of the agent’s experience. What is perceived and how it is interpreted varies according to the agent’s accumulated experiences or what Bourdieu (1986) refers to as the habitus. The world does not exist in some pure form completely separate from us but instead exists as we perceive it. Decision making also involves more than processing inert information. Bourdieu (1986) suggests that perception, thinking, and action are structured by the habitus, which is the embodied social history of the individual shaped by experience within particular sociocultural contexts, or fields.
Informing Practice with Complex Theory Identifying the sets of assumptions about human learning that inform complex learning theories, and the broad ideas that they are clustered around, allows us to see the ways in which they can be applied to student-centered, inquiry-based approaches in physical education. It can also usefully inform research that inquires into learning in and through physical education, sport, and other regulated physical activities. As Lave and Wenger (1991) suggest, such approaches offer a means of understanding “how we really learn” (p. 33) and of highlighting the central role that the body plays in all learning. Research on physical education and sport informed by complex learning theory can assist in better understanding the diverse range of learning that is possible through young people’s experiences of physical activity. This, in turn, can assist in the ongoing development of teaching in physical education that can begin to realize its potential as a learning medium beyond the restrictions currently imposed by largely outdated conceptions of teaching and learning. As Light and Fawns (2003) suggest with TGfU, the possibilities for learning that TGfU and sport education models offer provide good examples of how approaches consistent with complex learning theory offer a means of reconceptualizing the place of physical education in the school curriculum. Approaches that are already part of many physical education curricula informed by complex learning theory, such as TGfU, sport education, and movement education (creative movement), can help bring physical education into the mainstream curriculum by moving its focus beyond the physical to see the inseparable relationship between body, mind, and learning. I have used TGfU and the sport education model here as examples of approaches in physical education that are consistent with complex learning theory. The ways in which they challenge traditional ideas about learning are quite clear. This is not
32 Light
to say, however, that other areas in the physical education curriculum cannot be, or are not, taught in ways that are informed by complex learning theory. Certainly, the movement education, or creative movement, approaches are consistent with a complex learning theory approach. Some other parts of physical education curricula are more difficult and provide more challenge than others, but I can think of none that could not usefully draw, in some way, on complex learning theory. This includes track and field, gymnastics, and general movement classes in elementary schools (Chen & Rovegno, 2000); swimming; dance (Chen, 2001); and outdoor education (Quay, 2003). In answering my own preservice teachers’ questions about how they can teach activities such as swimming, running, and jumping using a Game Sense approach (an Australian variation of TGfU), I tell that them that they cannot because they are not games. Given an understanding of relevant learning theory they can, however, apply the theory of learning underpinning TGfU to other physical activities. The application of complex learning theory can extend from games teaching and outdoor education (Quay, 2003) to the teaching of technique or skill in sports such as swimming and running. Choosing to focus on the teaching of technique need not necessarily preclude the adoption of an approach informed by complex learning theory. Although there is a tactical dimension to sports such as swimming and running, there is a need for students to develop technical proficiency. This does not, however, demand the exclusive use of direct instruction. Even with a strong focus on learning technique, teachers can draw on complex learning theory. For example, we can teach swimming or running by adopting a conceptual approach that emphasizes developing both an embodied and conscious understanding of the body’s movements. For senior secondary students, this could be couched in the language of biomechanics or physics and would provide some practical understanding of content in these areas. When conducted with elementary students, they would develop a basic and embodied understanding of some biomechanical principles without its language. Whereas we would expect that students could articulate their conscious understanding, they may also develop a way of knowing that is not easily articulated. Indeed, a German approach to games education in the early years of elementary school, Ballschule, explicitly focuses on developing this “implicit learning” through play (Memmert & Roth, 2007). Understanding that is developed through kinesthetic experience may operate at a deeper level and be beyond articulation. As research on TGfU indicates, there can be a gap between enacted and articulated knowledge, often referred to as declarative and procedural knowledge. Taking a conceptual approach to teaching swimming might involve the provision of particular physical experiences designed to help students understand—through “feel”—the basic concepts of movement relevant to the activity. This could involve the way the front scull is used to develop a feel for using the hands and the inner edge of the forearms or the provision of a kinesthetic understanding of how the hands are best used to most efficiently pull the swimmer through the water by having him or her swim with closed fists and then allowing him or her swim with open hands. I have seen this kinesthetic approach used in my own daughter’s swim squad, where the swimmers are asked to swim with closed fists, after which they are asked to swim with one finger, then two, and so on (the coach, however, does not emphasize any reflection, discussion, or experimentation). Such experiences
Complex Learning Theory 33
can provide the swimmer with something to talk about and think about as he or she develops knowledge that can be used in later learning. Similarly, when teaching elementary school children the importance of the arms in sprinting, the teacher can have the class run with hands in pockets or held behind and then compare this with running using the arms. This can provide an effective means of highlighting the role of the upper body in running. Teaching throwing technique in track and field might, in a similar way, provide experiences of throwing different objects to experiment and, through collective group work, arrive at an understanding of basic movements for throwing. This can then is applied to the specific demands of the javelin, shot, or discus. These would include the discovery and application of principles of moving weight from rear to front foot, moving from flexion to extension of the arms and legs upon release, and the use of rotational forces beginning with the larger muscle mass of the lower body. Although the focus here is on technique, learning is based upon the development of conceptual understandings of fundamental movements provided through experience and reflection guided by teacher questioning. This does not preclude direct instruction but provides what Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to as comprehensive understanding of the principles of running, swimming, or throwing. It can provide a knowledge base from which students can interpret information provided by the teacher or coach and apply it. The student/athlete would then be empowered in the learning process to work through the application of technical information to performance as a relatively independent learner. Rink (2001) suggests that, rather than just knowing what works in teaching, teachers need to know why it works. In the same way, learners need to know not only what works, but also, perhaps even more importantly, why it works. This applies to stroke technique in swimming as much as it does to tactical understanding in games. All these examples involve teacher questioning aimed at having the students reflect upon experience, interpret it, and build upon it drawing on their existing knowledge and experience. Through this empowerment of the learner in the learning process, he or she is able to find meaning in the techniques of swimming, running, throwing, and a range of other activities. He or she would also be able to solve problems involved in improving and “working through” mechanical efficiency. This involves the comprehensive and embodied understandings that complex learning theories promote to include a kinesthetic understanding through the developing a “feel” for the water in swimming and understanding at a conscious level through immediate reflection upon action driven by teacher/coach questioning.
Initiating Change Teacher education programs form the logical starting point to initiate a change process of movement from teaching informed by behaviorist theories of learning to teaching informed by complex theories of learning. However, this is a difficult process because commonsense assumptions about how we learn operate, unquestioned, at a nonconscious level. They are, therefore, very powerful and difficult to change. The change process might then usefully begin by “bringing to the surface” preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning that they bring to physical education teacher education programs in their first year of study. Davis et al. (2000) suggest that this is an essential first step in moving teachers toward approaches underpinned
34 Light
by complex learning theory. Although I am reluctant to set out any prescriptions for implementing a change process, this might be preceded by introducing first-year preservice teachers to the idea that there is a range of teaching approaches, or “styles,” drawing on Mosston and Ashworth’s (1986) notion of a spectrum moving from directive teacher-centered approaches to student-centered approaches. The approaches described by Mosston and Ashworth in this spectrum are increasingly informed by complex learning theory as they move away from “command style” through to “problem-solving style.” Even though the idea of different “learning styles” has been largely discredited for being reductionist (e.g., Davis & Sumara, 1997), the idea that there are many different styles of teaching is a useful starting point for thinking critically about conceptions of learning and teaching. As complex learning theory suggests, learning needs to be wholly engaging. It should involve experience of theory in action, guided critical reflection upon this experience, and some real experience of alternate teaching and learning approaches on the court or the field that should be included in Year 1 if possible, even if it is just peer teaching. For example, this might mean involving pre-service teachers in practical workshops as learners and asking them to reflect upon this experience through written assessment tasks and to compare it with their experiences of traditional approaches. Some research suggests that this is an effective approach for encouraging elementary preservice teachers to adopt inquiry-based, student-centered approaches to physical education (e.g., Light & Georgakis, 2005). As Butler (1996) found with her study on teacher’s responses to TGfU, effective and lasting change cannot be easily achieved in a short period of time. The change process in teacher education programs thus needs to be spread developmentally across the program. Following the ideas outlined above would likely involve providing increasing opportunities for teaching informed by complex learning theory, beginning with peer teaching and then moving on to micro-teaching (teaching small groups) and team teaching. This could include the provision of ample opportunities for sharing and discussion among peers as the preservice students develop this approach. Preservice teachers’ knowledge of constructivism is typically tested in its application to practice teaching (Rovegno, 1998). In programs such as those in Australia where preservice teachers are involved in practica from Year 1 there are also opportunities to tie practice teaching into their development, but this might be more difficult in settings where practica are left until the last one or two years of the program
Conclusion The body’s role in any learning forms a prominent theme in complex learning theory. For researchers in the physical education field, the prominence of the body and its senses provides a promising means of reconceptualizing the teaching of physical education and its place in the curriculum (Light & Fawns, 2003). Complex learning theory holds considerable promise for the ongoing development of physical education as a valuable and integral part of the school learning experience. Such perceptions of learning in physical education and the assumptions upon which they are based encourage a broader conceptualization of learning that goes beyond the acquisition of skill and the development of physical abilities and
Complex Learning Theory 35
positive inclinations toward, sport, games, leisure activities, and other movement. As Dewey (1916/97) argues in relation to focusing on skills in general teaching, “a monotonously uniform exercise may by practice give great skill in one special act, but this skill is limited to that act” (p. 66). The implications of this for games teaching are clear, but I suggest that it has far broader importance for the teaching of physical education in general. Learning to play games, to dance, to organize a camping experience, or to swim confidently are without doubt important outcomes for any physical education program. They should not, however, be the limit of a program’s aspirations for the education of its students. Rink (2001) suggests that we need to be wary of “appeals for wholesale adoption of particular teaching methods” (p. 113). Although I concur with Rink on the need to be cautious, I argue for a stronger focus on physical education pedagogy informed by complex learning theories. The examination of complex learning theory presented in this article, and its relevance to physical education, suggests that the range of potentially rich and productive learning experiences that typically constitute physical education programs hold more potential for learning than are currently being realized. Ongoing developments of physical education pedagogy such as that of TGfU and the sport education model can re-energize and reshape the subject. Indeed, TGfU (and its variants) and sport education are now making a significant impact across a wide range of different countries (Griffin et al., 2005; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Light, 2005c). There is, however, a need for a better understanding of the epistemology and assumptions about learning that they, and other emerging approaches, rest upon to develop appropriate pedagogy. This, as I have argued in this article, needs to be based upon a thorough understanding of the core assumptions that complex learning theories share and the epistemology upon which they are based. Such an understanding can empower teacher educators and teachers to make important decisions about the strategies they adopt and to negotiate the range of challenges and problems that typically arise in their teaching from an informed perspective. The opportunities for learning through the body, which complex learning theory suggests are possible, encourage a reconsideration not only of the ways in which physical education is taught, but also of the place that it might occupy in the school curriculum.
References Abernathy, B., Hanrahan, S.J., Kippers, V., Mackinnon, L., & Pandy, M.G. (2005). The biophysical foundations of human movement. (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Palgrave. Bourdieu, P. (1986). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge. Begg, A. (2001). Why more than constructivism is needed. In S. Gunn & A. Begg (Eds.), Mind, body & society: Emerging understandings of knowing and learning (pp. 13-20). Melbourne: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne. Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, Bulletin of Physical Education, 18, 5-8. Butler, J. (1996). Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67, 28-33. Butler, J. (2005). TGfU pedagogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 225-240.
36 Light
Chen, W. (2001). Description of an expert teacher’s constructivist-oriented teaching: Engaging students’ critical thinking in learning creative dance. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 72, 366-375. Chen, W., & Rovegno, I. (2000). Examination of expert and novice teachers’ constructivist-oriented teaching practices using a movement approach to elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 71, 357-372. Corson, D. (1996). Discursive power in educational organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). Why aren’t they getting this? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education, 14, 123-140. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (1997). Cognition, complexity and teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 105-125. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning in a complex world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dewey, J. (1916/97). Democracy in education. New York: Free Press. Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined. Oxford Review of Education, 27, 24-35. Goodson, I. (1993). School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History (3rd ed.). Washington and London: Falmer Press. Grehaigne, J.F., Richard, J.F., & Griffin, L.L. (2005). Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. New York & London: Routledge Falmer. Griffin, L.L., Brooker, R., & Patton, K. (2005). Working towards legitimacy: Two decades of Teaching Games for Understanding, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 213-224. Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J. (Eds.). (2005). Examining a Teaching Games for Understanding model. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Gunn, S. (2001). Enactivism and models for professional development. In S. Gunn & A. Begg (Eds.), Mind, body & society: Emerging understandings of knowing and learning (pp. 95-101). Melbourne: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne. Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-387. Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching Games for Understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker and Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177-192. Kirk, D., Nauright, J., Hanrahan, S., Macdonald, D., & Jobling, I. (1996). The socio-cultural foundations of human movement. Melbourne: Macmillan Press. Lackoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Light, R. (2006). Situated learning in an Australian surf club. Sport, Education and Society, 11, 155-172. Light, R. (Ed.). (2005a). Teaching Games for Understanding: An international perspective [Monograph]. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10. Light, R. (2005b). Making sense of the chaos: Games Sense coaching in Australia. In L.L. Griffin and J. Butler (Eds.), Examining a Teaching Games for Understanding model. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Light, R. (2005c). Introduction. In R. Light (Ed.), Teaching Games for Understanding: An international perspective [Monograph], Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 211-212. Light, R. (2004). Coaches experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9, 115-132.
Complex Learning Theory 37
Light, R., & Butler (2005).. A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the USA. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 241-254. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through TGfU. Quest, 55, 161-176. Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2001). The thinking body: Constructivist approaches to games teaching in physical education. Melbourne Studies in Education, 42, 69-87. Light, R., & Georgakis, S. (2005). Integrating theory and practice in teacher education: The impact of a Game Sense unit on female pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward teaching physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 38, 67-80. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge. McInerney, M., & McInerney, V. (1998). Educational psychology: Constructing learning. Sydney: Prentice Hill. Mosston, M. (1972). Teaching from command to discovery. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd Ed.). Columbus: Merrill. Memmert, D., & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and specific concepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1-10. Phillips, D.C. (1997). Coming to grips with radical social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 85-104. Pissanos, B.W., & Allison, P.C. (1993). Students’ constructs of elementary school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 425-435. Quay, J. (2003). Experience and participation: Relating theories of learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 26, 105-116. Rink, J. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 112-128. Rink, J. (Ed.). (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15. Rink, J.E., French, K.E., & Tseerdsma, B.L. (1996). Foundations of the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 399-417. Rovegno, I. (1998). The development of in-service teachers’ knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 147- 62. Rovegno, I., & Dolly, P. (2006). Constructivist perspectives on learning. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 226-241). London: Sage. Rovegno, I., & Kirk, D. (1995). Articulations and silences in socially critical work on physical education: Toward a broader agenda. Quest, 47, 447-474. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Saito, A. (1996). Social origins of cognition: Bartlett, evolutionary perspective and embodied mind approach. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 399- 421. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
