Day: October 14, 2010

Posted on

Relationships, Bundles of Relationships

Over the past several years – actually it’s probably been over the past several decades – I’ve been increasingly interested in “relationships.” This topic has arisen in previous posts. However, I’d like to explore this topic briefly, but in some depth here.

When I bring up the topic with my students, the immediate reaction is that of “boy friend – girl friend” relationships, but this is only one part of the notion of relationship. We have relationships within ourselves. In fact, everyone, each living thing, is a bundle of relationships. Every living organism is made up of bundles of biochemical, biological, and other patterns of relationships. As human beings, we weave our bundles of relationship even further. We have relationships to ourselves. Sometimes these relationships are positive and sometimes negative (ranging from aspects of ourselves we find embarrassing at best to self-loathing). Obviously, we have relationships to varying degrees with other people. We also have relationships to our physical and social worlds and to our natural environment. And, then we have relationships to the world of ideas. And, we all have the potential for relationships to something beyond ideas that reaches to the depth of our humanity, which some may call spirituality.

Gregory Bateson thought relationships should be the primary focus of schooling. In fact, he thought we needed to change our View of the world from seeing the world and people as separate “things” to seeing everything as interrelated or as bundles of relationships.

Over the past year, I’ve been trying to see my own students as bundles of relationships and to relate to them in terms of “relationship.” In schooling, the tendency is to see students as “objects.” K-12 teachers may sit in lounges complaining about students, labeling them, and creating a kind of “anti-relationship.” In universities, the tendency is to keep students are arms length (or more). So, my attempts at actually relating to my students started with inviting students to come to my office and talk near the beginning of each semester. In some meetings, very little conversation occurred, while in others the conversations took on many different characteristics. At the beginning of every day, I think to myself, “I’m going to be nice to my students today.” It’s a different way to start than thinking about all the work I have to do, how far behind I am, and whatever else is happening around me. In class, I try to see each student as patterns of relationships that are not all that different from my own patterns of relationships. I try to focus on how we’re connected, rather than focusing on my own “academic” agenda.

I’ve also realized how “what I have to say in class” really isn’t all that important. It’s how it’s being said in relationship to each individual. So, if I don’t cover what “I” think is important, it really isn’t such a big deal. The connection, the relationship is what is important. My communication of my own relationship to them, to others, to children, to the physical and social setting of the classroom, to the natural world, and to the world of ideas is what is important.

Posted on

Creativity and Kids

A while ago, I posted a short entry on creativity and children. The essence of this entry was that the politics of schooling with an emphasis on achievement and test scores is problematic. In fact, the current efforts in schools are actually acts of psychological violence against our children (and teachers, too!). Testing, accountability, standardized curriculum, oaths of allegiance to a corporate curriculum (yes, this is actually happening in a democracy!!!), scripted curriculums that teachers have to follow (why not hire a homeless person instead of a teacher?), classroom management as the way to “control” kids, and just so much more are all ways of killing the spirits and creativity of our children.

Sir Ken Robinson does a wonderful job of showing just how important creativity is for the education of our children. Watch his TED.com presentation – “How Schools Kill Creativity”:



Posted on

Children as Real People and Engaged Learners, but Schools Get in the Way

I mention in my book, Creating a Classroom Community of Young Scientists (2nd ed.), that “children are people.” Although this may seem obvious, the “institution” of schooling assumes that children are something less than human. In fact, children (as emotional, thinking, creative, and curious human beings) are totally missing in The No Child Left Behind Act. Children are merely pawns in the politics of education.

Fundamentally, humans are born as learning beings. From the moment children are born, they start exploring and making sense of the world. They learn one of the most abstract “things” we ever learn (i.e., language or languages) and do so within the first few years and with no real “instruction.” They come up with all kinds of explanations about the world (many of them are amazingly complex, but might make natural and social scientists cringe).

Children’s curiosity almost seems like a basic need. They crave learning  new things. Certainly from a biological point of view, curiosity leads to learning and learning provides human beings with tools for survival. For parents, the concern is always to what extent can you let children pursue their curiosity? If they curiously explore an electrical socket or a cabinet full of chemicals, they could end up getting seriously injured or worse. However, some parents seem to limit children’s exploration around all kinds of personal issues, like “not wanting to be bothered,” “too noisy,” etc. Then, of course, despite the best intentions of parents, they go to school. In most cases, school is the death nell for the spirit of children, which is filled with wonder and curiosity, intriguing ways of making sense of things, an innate cheerfulness, amazing imagination, and an excitement for learning. Schools immediately try to “control” children and make them conform to some adult standard of behavior. They limit or destroy their imaginations and curiosity. They deaden the very process of learning. It becomes the drill and practice march into stupefication. No more excitement for learning, no imaginative play, no more curiosity, no more exploration — just boredom. I’ve seen this happen to my own children, despite our best efforts keep them excited and curious.

Children are capable of so much more than No Child Left Behind will ever allow them do. Then we test them repeatedly for days on end. And, not only do we test them, but we drill and kill them for months in preparing for the tests. It’s a psychological act of violence that parents should be standing up to and saying “no more!”

If we really think hard about what is important for children, we might find that what schools are doing is just the opposite. Of course, there are many amazing teachers, who work very hard at helping children grow in ways that keep the excitement for learning alive, but they fight an uphill battle against their administrators, other teachers, and parents. It is extremely hard for teachers, especially new teachers who may enter the professional with the right kind of ideals, to pursue the kinds of approaches to teaching and learning that will actually benefit children. Such approaches see children as the producers of knowledge rather than the consumers of knowledge. Children explore, investigate, and generate explanations for what they have found. This what they do naturally. Teachers just need to help them refine these skills, challenge them to go to new heights, support them in whatever ways possible, and take peaks at new perspectives and possibilities.

Gregory Bateson (anthropologist, biologist, a thinker way ahead of his time, and one time husband of Margaret Mead) said there were three ways people can find the limits of the possible: (a) exploration (try out new things, see where one can go, etc.), (b) play (fantasy play, “what-if” play, pretending, experimenting, etc.), and (c) crime (breaking the official and unofficial rules, not conforming to the status quo, etc.). If we think about famous people who have made significant contributions to society through writing, science, the arts, etc., have these people engaged in any of these three ways of pushing the limits? Do children engage in any of these before entering school? What do schools do when children engage in these?

[* Thanks to Lisa Smith for her painting of the unicorn frog © 1976]

(originally published June 28, 2008)

Posted on

Confusion – Double Bind or Connection in the Classroom

Recently, I was reading part of A Letter to My Students that I had sent them a few days earlier. Among the ideas that I mentioned were ideas of learning as non-linear and of learning as pattern thinking. After I finished a student asked the question, “… but how do patterns fit?” She went on, “they seem to be linear.” I started to respond, then I asked her to explain and she said, “oh, never mind.”

It would have been easy to just continue on with what I had in mind for the rest of class, but I insisted that she explain. As it turned out, she was thinking of patterns as the way in which we might create more rigid, linear, and repetitive approaches to our everyday lives. (Pattern thinking on the other hand is a recursive approach to understanding our world.)

The point here is that we often avoid confusion by solidifying our views or by side-stepping the point of confusion, as the student above was about to do. This event was a classic double bind. The typical situation for a student is that she if she asks a seemingly stupid question, she will look like a fool, especially if she exposes her confusion. On the other hand, she doesn’t ask the question and appear like a fool, she may end up getting a lower grade on an exam or other form of assessment. It’s a no win situation. However, as both Gregory Bateson and his daughter, Catherine Bateson, have suggested, double binds are not necessarily bad events. Avoiding or side-stepping the double bind event is generally problematic since it perpetuates a pathology in relationship. However, if one engages the double bind as a point of potentiality, all kinds of possibilities can emerge. They can be points at which one can connect in ways not possible when immersed in the pathology of a double bind. They also can stimulate creativity, new insights, and novel ways of seeing and relating.

The teaching – learning situation is full of double binds. We see the results of double binds in student dropout rates, in students’ “playing the game” of going-through-the-motions with no real connection, in student passivity, in student resistance, in student “pleasing the teacher” actions, and in the full array of schooling pathologies.

(originally published January 23, 2010)

Posted on

The Travesty of “Distance Education”

If you watch television, browse the internet, read magazines and newspapers, listen to the radio, or read bulletin boards and billboards, you’ve been bombarded with advertisements about distance education degrees, like those listed below:

  • “Earn an Distance Degree In 5 Days”
  • “Earn a degree online while you keep
working.”
  • “It’s back to school time-Have you
 registered for your online classes?”
  • “Earn A Degree On Your Sched.”
  • “Earn Online Degree Fast
Under $99/Credit hr. Books Included”
  • “Get Your Education Online at an
Accredited University. Apply Now!”
  • “A Quality Education, Convenient For
 The Career-Focused Professional”
  • “Online, Accelerated, Accredited & Affordable Degree Programs-Sign Up! “
  • “Earn Your Degree Fast. 100% Online.
Class Starts Jan. 4th. Apply Now!”
  • “Earn a Degree & Enrich Your Life!”
  • “Get a top degree at your own pace & 
time from an accredited university!”
  • “The Full University Experience
 Anytime, Anywhere. Learn How!”
  • “Pursue your degree online. It’s 
never been easier. Learn how.”
  • “The Smart Choice For Working 
Professionals.”

The first one is among my personal favorites. This ad really provides one with a great deal of confidence about learning how to write poorly (e.g., “an Distance degree”). It also provides an honest assessment of the value of such a degree in terms of the amount of time needed (i.e., “5 days”). The ninth one also models good writing ( i.e., “Earn your degree fast”). However, the one ad that is probably the most outrageous lie is “The Full University Experience Anytime, Anywhere.”

My sarcasm in the last paragraph does not describe just how disturbed and frightened I am about the very dangerous direction we’re taking in education. The “distance” in distance education is much more than the physical distances that such programs offer to span. The real dangerous distance involves a number of major disconnects:

Disconnect #1: “Education” (as in distance education) has nothing to do with “real” learning.

By “real learning,” I mean learning that not only involves deep and extensively interconnected conceptual understandings, but also involves (a) learning how to think deeply, critically, and creatively; (b) developing an identity as a learner and thinker in whatever disciplinary area one is involved; (c) learning how to participate in the community of that particular discipline; and (d) developing complex and meaningful connections to the discipline and its knowledge, ways of thinking, ways of talking, and methods (of knowledge production, inquiry, communication, and so forth). Such “real learning” cannot take place in an online environment, since it requires the connections and relationships to both the experts and compatriot novices in a variety of settings that include classrooms, hallways, offices, coffee shops, and other places where fellow community members relate.

Disconnect #2: Online programs are based on antiquated theories of learning.

Although a number of education researchers and theorists from the late 1800’s through the latter part of the mid-1900’s promoted approaches to learning that focused on “how to inquire” and “how to produce knowledge,” the force that has dominated our schools and views of education for the past 70 years or so has been rooted in behaviorism and the related mechanistic and positivistic concepts. Although very few people will admit to such a view of learning, actions and language betray that denial.

Mechanist, positivist, and behaviorist views are very seductive. They portray a world that is relatively simple and well-structured, with clearly delineated “right answers.” In fact, such a view portrays “learning” as the ability to demonstrate (i.e., select correct answers on tests) one’s recall of specific content knowledge. At the same time, this perspective does not place any value (a) on one’s emotional connections to the discipline; (b) on one’s ability to think analytically, critically, or creatively; (c) on one’s participation in a community of learners or professionals-to-be; (d) on one’s ability to solve problems or generate important questions. Such a view is basically a “deadened” or lifeless view of learning.

More recent research-based and theoretical frameworks of learning (including brain-based learning, constructivist and social constructivism, embodied dynamicism, learning as a complex adaptive system, distributed learning, and others) view learning as quite different. Learning involves much more than simple “book-type knowledge” that is “stored” in one’s brain. In fact, the more we learn about learning, the more we are finding that the processes of learning extend beyond the brain to other parts of our bodies and even beyond our bodies altogether. Basketball players, on-site technology groups, teams of scientists, actors in a performance, and other contexts where groups of people are learning together involves learning that is distributed among and cycles through the physical context and individuals. Conceptual learning is closely interconnected with emotions, values, beliefs, imagery, humor, aesthetics, physical and social experiences, and the whole of our human embodied experience.

When we remove the social experiences and contexts and limit the embodied social experience, we reduce “learning” to the acquisition of knowledge of words and disembodied concepts. When words and concepts are so readily accessible, we do not need education that focuses almost entirely on such knowledge acquisition. We need learning opportunities that focus (a) on the development of thinking that is analytical, critical, and creative (a part of which needs to focus on evaluating knowledge claims found so easily on the internet); (b) on the social negotiation and production of knowledge claims (as processes of participating in learning communities); and (c) on developing complex interconnections with subject matter disciplines that involve emotions, other aspects of our personal “contexts of meaning,” and the distributed aspects of learning and knowing.

Disconnect #3: The possibilities for learning as transformation are severely limited, if not impossible.

Learning, at its best, offers us opportunities to transform. Transformation may be the penultimate “learning outcome.” Such transformations occur when we have engaged in a learning context, when we have been challenged to re-evaluate our assumptions, and when we participate in a social context that both pushes us to delve into the world of ideas and provides the support of a “safe” social environment where we can take risks.

Disconnect #4: Learning as shared human experience does not occur.

As mentioned above, the shared experiences in online environments has a number of problems: (a) actual personal connections cannot happen, where people can see sphere of people and physical context with all kinds of information flowing in complex pathways throughout learning activities (video cannot capture this sphere); (b) shared experiences are limited to written words and possible myopic and/or tunnel-vision video views of others; (c) communication has the potential to be dangerous – that is, to promote disconnected communication where people have no stake in the social connections in an actual physical location; (d) participants cannot smell, feel, touch, and hear (more than whatever is “official,” if that) the context of the physical and social context – all of these senses are important components in developing contextually-embedded learning; (e) people cannot interact with others, including teachers or mentors, and with materials and objects in ways that are more spontaneous. Such interactions are phenomenally more meaningful and relevant to learners.

Disconnect #5: Emergent learning is grossly limited, if not impossible.

One of the most exciting and meaningful learning events occur where some idea, problem, or question emerges from the particular learning community and changes the direction of ensuing activities. Such an emergent curriculum provides a sense of “ownership” (by students) over what is being “studied.” Emergent curriculums value ideas, questions, and problems, while promoting recursive, non-linear approaches to pursuing understanding. On the other hand, almost all online environments are static and linear. Although our system of schooling and likewise most teachers do not promote or value emergent curricular opportunities, they could. Distance education cannot promote emergence. Emergent curricular opportunities occur where the spontaneity of personal interactions, safe environments, and conceptually and materials-rich contexts provide for meaningful, relevant, dynamic, and embodied engagement.

Disconnect #6: Online courses and programs promote a devaluation of engaged and connected learning.

It’s far too easy to play the game of going through the motions or jumping through hoops with little if any emotional and complex engagement in the material. As teachers, we can’t see the faces and body language or look into the eyes of our students as they engage in learning activities. For all we know, someone else is sitting in front of the computer. However, the point is that there is no real dynamic interaction between teacher and students, where teachers can change the dynamics in ways that may further engage students.

Disconnect #7: Learning as induction into a community of practice is one of a severely crippled approach.

As should be evident from the previous six disconnects, online environments are limited in the ability to help induct people into a learning community or community of practice. Virtual “communities” that extend “real” communities may be valuable, but they do not replace “real” communities.

Fundamentally, online distance education is a very poor substitute for education that occurs with groups of people within a physical setting. Of course, many classrooms do not function much differently from those that are offered online. However, we can make changes to such static classrooms, where such changes cannot occur online.

The dangers of treading this path of distance education are summarized in the following points.

  • Learning in a world of easy access to information is omitting the important learning involved:
  • in critical, analytical, and creative thinking;
  • in problem solving;
  • in problem posing;
  • in evaluation of knowledge claims;
  • in promoting knowledge production rather than knowledge consumption among learners;
  • in developing an “identity” as a valued participant in a particular community;
  • in developing the skills and attributes of a community participant;
  • Education is being trivialized.
  • Education is being devalued… even further than it already has been.
  • Learning is becoming increasingly superficial, disconnected, fragmented, and meaningless.
  • Online education is disembodying learning.
  • Online education is undermining the importance of spontaneous social interactions and emergent curriculum.

(originally published December 30, 2009)

Posted on

In the Heartlessland of America

Sometimes we get so caught up in the speed of everyday life, we don’t take the time to ponder what’s happening around us. As for me, I feel like I’ve been going about my everyday business with blinders on. It’s embarrassing. I feel like I’m extremely slow on the uptake.

Maybe this time too many things happened on too many fronts to ignore the message:

Our society is becoming increasingly heartless.

It’s becoming so bad, I cringe when I listen to the radio, watch TV news, or pick up a newspaper. But, it doesn’t stop there. Events at work and encounters with a variety of people all demonstrate a huge disconnect with heart… with our basic humanity.

As a golfer I’ve followed and admired Tiger Woods. Now, he’s been crucified. A simple story on his screw-up would have sufficed, but the drive for headlines, money, and recognition, reporters have lost their hearts and lynched Tiger for their own benefit. Of course, the same sort of lynching took place with President Clinton, but not so much with the governor of South Carolina and the many others who have made some sort of “social transgression.”

Buddhists have a slogan, which goes something like this:

“don’t seek benefit from the misfortunes of others.”

This slogan has to do with how we can practice being compassionate or how we can practice living with heart. I wonder how many of these same journalists have had affairs or have acted in ways that may have been inappropriate, hurtful, or unethical?

At work, many of my colleagues were becoming increasingly alarmed and worried about one our colleagues. He wasn’t showing up to teach classes, wasn’t turning in final grades, and became impossible to contact. Then, the administration stepped in and fired him. When some colleagues pleaded to have him put on sick-leave and to get him help, the response was basically “we’re following policy.” As we found out later, he was suffering from severe depression and the medications were adversely affecting him. His wife (from a very different culture and with little English language ability) could not advocate for him. He, his wife, and his children are now without income and health benefits. How does “policy” address the needs of human beings? In this dramatic case, five people were treated with heartlessness and damaged in ways we have yet to see.

At the scale of our government and probably more significantly at the scale of corporations, we see huge collections of heartless people running the show. These people make decisions and take actions based on self-interest, money, and power, not for the good of people struggling to survive in an increasingly complex and challenging world. In fact, the policies created to run a society or corporation serve mostly to decrease flexibility in dealing with individual human beings. “Zero tolerance,” “cell phone service contracts,” “disclaimers,” “photo radar,” “Roberts rules of order,” and the millions of others all serve to create a rigidity that doesn’t allow for exceptions or for individual circumstances. It’s the “letter of the law,” not the “spirit of the law.” Neither the individual nor the society as a whole is valued. Only the “good” of the rich and powerful is considered.

This neglect of the individual and of the society has resulted in our inability to care for our poor and sick, for our children, and for our elderly. This neglect also has produced an education system that serves as political capital for leaders at all levels of scale, yet fails to meet the needs of most of its students. Even those who score well on tests are left without self-confidence and feelings of self-worth, without essential social skills, without abilities to think deeply and critically, and with little if any creativity. From a very early age, children adeptly observe and learn about social interactions. They are tremendously curious and think in surprisingly complex ways, while being unboundedly creative. By the time they reach grade 6, their self-confidence, social skills, curiosity, complex thinking, and creativity have been reduced to little more than memories of the adults who knew these children 6 years earlier. By this time, heartlessness has begun to take root, as modeled by a system of schooling steeped in heartlessness within a society without heart.

We care more about the “material goods” than about human beings. These “material” goods range from the ephemeral, such as test scores, achievement, power, our own self-images and desires, stock market “indices,” and ratings and statistics of all kinds, to the more concrete but “immaterial,” such as money, houses, cars, and goods of all kinds. In this materialistic world, there is no room for making connections to oneself, to others, to the delicate environment in which we live, and to the wonderful world of ideas.

(originally published December 30, 2009)

Posted on

Disconnects – A Brief Initial Exploration

The initial question I posed on my previous post (What is the extent of the disconnects we experience today?) is almost overwhelming. Each of us, if we sit and think about it, can come up with a huge list of examples of the disconnects we experience in our lives. In some ways the list seems endless.

In order to make such a list more manageable, I’ve been thinking for several years that the major categories (there could be more…) of disconnects involve:

  • disconnects to one’s self (psychological and spiritual)
  • disconnects to others, including family, friends, communities, cultures, etc.
  • disconnects to our physical worlds – worlds of work, worlds of play, etc.
  • disconnects to the natural environment
  • disconnects to our mental world, the world of ideas and imagination

The Free Online Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disconnect) defines “disconnect” as: “

  • to sever or interrupt the connection of or between;
  • a lack of connection or a disparity;
  • an unbridgeable disparity (as from a failure of understanding);
  • pull the plug… and render inoperable.”

So, when we consider disconnects in our lives, we need to consider, on the one hand, the idea of connection and, on the other hand, how we may be severed or how there may be a disparity within ourselves or between self and other (whatever that “other” may be).

People often look at me cross-eyed when I suggest that people may be disconnected with themselves. We are who we are. How can we be disconnected? However, the disconnections can be numerous. Many of us struggle with disconnections between mind and body, as well as I and other(s). We may feel a sense of awkwardness or self-consciousness as we walk in a public place. We may try to ignore and cover up a particular emotional state, or conversely, we over-indulge in the emotion and ignore everything else. Whatever is happening, there just seems to be an edge of awkwardness or discomfort. Much of this confusion has been handed down to us from Plato and especially Descartes, whose tremendous influence on western societies is known as Cartesian duality (Russell, 1945). Descartes made it official that there were two worlds: one, the physical world; two, the mental world. Although Buddhists consider this duality as basic to the human ego (which interferes with living to our full potential), ever since the 17th Century, the Cartesian duality gave western societies an official “Big Disconnect.” So, rather than dualism as a problem, dualism became the official and correct way to perceive and interact with the world.

————————–

Disconnects pervade our individual lives, our schools, science and its effects on our lives, and society as a whole. All of these issues appear to share universal origins in the patterns of how we layer ourselves and our social structures and of how such layers create other patterns of relations and actions.

The topic of “layers and layering” is worthy of a lengthy and detailed treatment. However, a brief overview may be useful. Layers function to help provide stability in physical, biological, social, and psychological structures. Some layers are mostly physical in nature, like those of buildings and the earth, while others are more functional, such as those of biological organ systems, organizational structures, and so forth (Bloom & Volk, 2007; Volk, 1995; Volk & Bloom, 2007). However, the importance of layers in terms of our discussion of disconnects and connects has to do more with how they define relationships in social contexts and how we develop and use psychological layers as protective barriers. Most of the social layering we experience are hierarchical in nature. Hierarchies are characterized by top-down control. People in the top layers control those below them. However, there are other ways of layering social systems. Those may be referred to as holarchies or embedded layers. In social systems, holarchies do not have the same types of relationships as hierarchies. In fact, you usually see the relationships in hierarchies before you can see the layers. In contrast, you can often see the layers in holarchies before you can understand the relationships between them. An example of a holarchic community can be thought of as an apprenticeship community. The mentor is in the center as the full participant and the apprentices are at varying degrees (layers) of participation as they work toward being in the center (see Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The center of a holarchy is more one of shared power, rather than the top-down power of hierarchies.

Gregory Bateson described three types of relationships, which may be useful to consider in terms of social connects and disconnects. He referred to “symmetrical” relationships as competitive relationships, where individuals are vying for control. These types of relationships tend to disconnect. The second type of relationship is “complementary” or dominant-submissive. These relationships also tend to disconnect. The third type of relationship is “reciprocal” or one where the parties in a relationship continually negotiate issues in the relationship. These types of negotiable relationships are the only ones that tend to connect over the long term (Bateson, 1972). The interesting questions about relationships and layers revolve around what sorts of relationships arise from different layered social situations. Or, what kinds of relationships are encouraged and supported by different types of layering?

These patterns of layers and relationships can contribute to the great “disconnects” within individuals, between one another, between ourselves and our mental, social, political, physical, and biological worlds. In filling up our worlds with entertainment, internal dialogues, and defenses against entry from the outside world, we begin to lose touch with who we are. Our identities become embedded in notions of work, religion, and whatever our minds discursively generate. The answer to “who am I?” tends to be based upon what we do and upon our superficial characteristics. But, who are we really? In many tribal cultures, identity is based upon one’s place among families, clans, and relationships to others (Maybury-Lewis, D., 1992).

In future posts, I will explore the various kinds of disconnects outlined above and how we might move toward connecting.

————————–

References

Bateson, G. (1972/2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bloom, J. W., & Volk, T. (2007). The use of metapatterns for research into complex systems of teaching, learning, and schooling. Part I: Applications. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 45—68. (Available online at: http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY4/documents/Complicity_41e_Bloom_Volk.pdf)

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maybury-Lewis, D. (1992). Millennium: Tribal wisdom in the modern world. New York: Viking.

Russell, B. (1945). A history of western philosophy: And its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Volk, T. (1995). Metapatterns: Across space, time, and mind. New York: Columbia University Press.

Volk, T., & Bloom, J. W. (2007). The use of metapatterns for research into complex systems of teaching, learning, and schooling. Part II: Metapatterns in nature and culture. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 25—43. (Available online at: http://www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY4/documents/Complicity_41d_Volk_Bloom.pdf)

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

(originally published: THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008)

© 2008 by Jeffrey W. Bloom