Complexity Science Epistemology for an Educational Game Design

Current situation of sex education

Sexual education has been an important subject in many developed countries and is taught throughout elementary and secondary grade levels. However, the statistics show the huge number of people contracting different forms of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) in the United States (US). Nearly 20 million new STIs occur every year in the US, half of those among young people aged 15–24 (ASHA, A., Involved, G., Answers, G., Health, S., Health, W., Health, M., & Providers, H., 2018). According to the World Health Organization (WHO) report 2018, South American, African and East Asian countries have the highest range of STIs.

In developing countries, the number of infections is staggering. Cervical cancer is estimated to affect approximately 500000 women each year and all cervical cancer cases result from genital infection with human papilloma virus (HPV); of these women, 80% live in developing countries. As it affects women in their most productive years and has a devastating impact on the well-being of families. Inadequate sexual education, lack of knowledge, and the religious taboo of talking about sex in Islamic countries like Afghanistan, among many other reasons, contribute to the rapid growth of STI in the developing countries. Being from the Middle-East, I have insight into what is happening in those countries regarding this issue. There is little to no data about STIs in the Middle-East because of the ideologic Islamic regime, which is mainly about sticking to religious beliefs. There is a lack of sex education and parents avoid talking about sexual health. Also, people hide their non-marital sexual relations because it is a crime and infected people are judged as sinful people who deserve such illnesses. The stigma, legal consequences, and lack of education may prevent people from talking about and treating their problems, thus spreading their infections to others. Lack of education results in individuals being unaware of the possible symptoms and consequently not seeking treatment. Moreover, the fact that many of the viruses involved in STIs are silent and without symptoms increases the chance of transmitting them to others.

On the educational side, sex education courses do not show high effects on the students' understanding of the risks of engaging in sexual activities. This gap in education can be perpetuated by how sexual health education is taught or through the governments' curriculum, itself. However, even well-planned syllabi and great lectures may not convey the true risks and troubles of contracting an STI. One reason might be because sex education is taught in isolation, without taking into context other aspects of sexual behaviours.

Games have proven to provide multi-modal sources of input for students. For example, Autism Simulator gives people the true sense of what autism is and how children who suffer from this feel when they are in a group of people. In addition, the interaction between the players and the game design can help increase knowledge through collaboration and group work. Games that require collaboration, teamwork, and discussions, through which the players may share their understandings and questions, can deepen players' understanding and raise critical questions regarding the subject matter.

To carry out this study, experts from different fields are needed, ranging from infection specialists to game designers, psychologists, pharmacists and educators. This makes it an interdisciplinary project. The information that the players will learn, specifically consequences of STIs and treatment options, will comes from different sources. The consequences of STIs can be connected to physical infection problems which are related to infection knowledge and mental disorders like stress and anxiety which is related to psychology. Medical information, such as costs of treatment and side effects of antivirals, is another source of information that the students need to deal with and form meaning though the game. All being said, sex education cannot be taught in a linear syllabus--it is a complex subject and a complex form of knowledge formation should be applied.

Part I

Complexity in Learning

According to Davis (2004) personal learning is not about acquisition, processing, or storing, but about emergent structuring. Individual’s knowledge is the reflection of emergence of knowledge after interaction between the individual and society [and the more-than-human world]. Davis calls it “coupling of individuals’ attentional systems” (Davis, 2004, p. 166) and he thinks this is the foundation of all deliberate efforts to teach. Although “coupling” can naturally happen between parents and children, having a teacher structurally couple with a large number of students at the same time can be challenge (Davis, 2004, p. 167). He believes structuring classes classroom activities in ways that ensure the presence of the conditions that are necessary for complex emergence can be the solution.

Fenwick, Edwards, and Sawchuk (2012) define learning in complexity “the very dynamic of emergence in complex systems. Learning also could be the sudden jumps in the system’s phase states, its transformations, as it experiences disturbances and internal fluctuations that can become amplified. Cognition occurs in the new possibilities that are always opening for unpredictable shared action[AM6] ” (Fenwick, et al., 2012, p. 42). Dewey’s conception of transactional realism seems to be very similar complexity:

Knowledge emerges from our transactions with our environment … This means we cannot have knowledge of our environment, once and for all – it is not something we can see, something to look at. Rather, it is something we have to actively feel our way around and through, unendingly. Why unendingly? Because in acting, we create knowledge; and in creating knowledge, we learn to act in different ways; and in acting in different ways, we bring about new knowledge that changes our world, that causes us to act differently, and so on, unendingly. There is no final truth of the matter, only increasingly diverse ways of interacting in a world that is becoming increasingly complex. (as cited in Osberg & Biesta, 2003, p. 95)

The term “emergence” is used frequently by Davis (2004) and is considered a main feature of a complex system. For humans, examples of self-organization [AM8] are social communities, economics, language change or formation, etc. (Cilliers, 2002). In a self-organized system, agents with different goals and motivations can join a community – a game in my context – and accomplish seemingly a similar purpose: finishing the game and try to win. In the meantime, a body of knowledge about sex education is expected to emerge among the players although each can build it differently from others. Learning is a joint contribution of players, their decisions when dealing with the game and the information provided in the game. The game is impossible to be played individually and is a collective responsibility supported by the game context. The educational outcome of the game is greater than the sum of its parts.

Wilensky and Jacobson (2014) define a complex system as a system composed of many elements that interact with each other and their environment with unpredicted outcomes that emerge from the interactions of the individuals. Complexity researchers study events and actions that have multiple causes and consequences as well as studying systems that have structures at many different scales of time, space, and organization. They argue that students should study complex systems in school because virtually all natural and social phenomena are emergent phenomena arising from the interactions of distributed elements. A complex systems perspective can enable students to connect across domains and to make that knowledge useful outside of the narrow school contexts. They believe that the lack of cross-disciplinary integration in the K–12 curriculum is a source of great confusion for students, resulting in “inert knowledge” that students can repeat back on a test but cannot connect to other knowledge or to real-world experiences.

I believe sexual behaviors can also be considered a complex phenomenon, similar to common examples cited in complexity literature, such as economics, biology, traffic jam, spread of diseases. Individuals follow their own sexual preferences but the result is the spread of a new infection among the society or a new mental disorder like depression, anxiety, pregnancy risks and cancerous disease, which can all lead to different issues. Sexual education cannot be dealt with in isolation; it should cover all aspects for the learners to be able to form a complex and real-life understanding of it.

Some studies suggest that students have difficulties learning about complex systems like chemical reactions or evolution theory (as cited in Wilensky & Jacobson, 2014, p. 332). These students tend to think that a small action has linear relationship with its effect resulting in a small consequence. However, a complex system follows no linear rules and a tiny change in system can have huge consequences. Chi, Roscoe, Slotta, Roy, and Chase (2012) asserted that “strong” conceptual change can help students move from standard direct-causal schema to emergent-causal schema. Levy and Wilensky (2008) and Sengupta and Wilensky (2009), on the other hand, argued that students’ schemas are needed to be replaced but should be provided with tools and resources that integrates and considers complex aspects. Wilensky and Jacobson (2014) found some evidence that shows students grasp complex structures without being directly taught of emergent-causal schema but by using agent-based models connect direct-causal actions with their emergent outcomes. Thus, in order for the students to understand the complex aspects of sex education there should be an agent-based model for them to interact within it and understand the complexity and consequences of even a small action[AM12] .

Resnick and Wilensky (1998) found that the main difficulty that the students have when exposed to agent-based models to learn complex systems is taking on an agent-based perspective. The solution that was later offered by Levy and Wilensky (2004) was to put the complex system in everyday contexts and give the agents an active role instead of being observers. The game in this study is designed to give its participants active roles. Participants decide how to proceed the game; this vital point is assumed to be covered in this study. Beside the fact that a game should provide the emergent-causal schema to be considered complex, there are other required features argued by Davis (2004) and Cilliers (2002), which I will discuss in the continue.

The game is designed to be played by a group of people to discuss and solve challenges together, negotiate, decide to risk or not in a situation and estimate the consequences. These features can create the “coupling” context that Davis believes to be the optimum context for learning. The diversity factor that Davis (2004) believes to be the main factor for a complex learning situation because he believes[AM14] variation is the source of novel responses and “when a complex system is faced with a problem, an adequate solution might be found in these pools of diversity” (Davis, 2004, p. 168). Players with different background knowledge and experience can contribute to each other’s learning and progress. Redundancy or commonality is another factor that Davis considers as an essential component of a complex learning context. By redundancy, Angus means, agents must have sufficient common ground to be able to interact with each other. The fact that the players are within similar age group, between 12 and 16 years old, partly aware of sexual matters and curious enough to know more can provide the needed redundancy for complex learning context.

Davis (2004) and Cilliers (2002) asserts that complexity cannot be scripted. In other words, they believe that learning emerges from a wide range of complex interactions and should not follow a linear plan. The board game is pre-designed but allows a good level of freedom among the agents. Like a soccer match, there are rules and settings but the players have the freedom to play as they wish, as long as they follow the rules. The rules do not constrain the players to act linearly but keeps them in an organized setting, they are “liberating constraints” (Davis, 2004).

The positive aspect of the game is that it can be played without any interference from an instructor or a teacher. The players can get the hang of it after a quick look at the instructions and through practical engagement with the game. This allows the fourth element of complexity to happen: decentralized control. Furthermore, decentralized control is not just about instructions, the source of knowledge is not the teacher or anyone of the players; the game allows collective possibilities for interpretation and learning is eventually formed collectively (Cilliers, 2002). Complexity gives a more profound role to the students and considers them as the decisive components of their own learning.

Part II

Epistemological assumptions

Morin (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013) assumes that knowledge production is the selection of significant data and the rejection of non-significant data, separating, uniting, organizing into a hierarchy, and centralizing information. They call this “paradigm of simplification” (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013, p. 21) because knowledge production happens through categorizing all bits of information gained through different tools. To complement and reject the paradigm of simplification Morin hypothesizes the “paradigm of complexity” (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013, p.21). According to this paradigm, knowledge can never be reduced to isolated single units and should always be linked to overall context it belongs to. Subject, object and the environment can be distinguished but not separated from each other. The designer (researcher or observer) and the object of the study are related; background and history (of agents) be considered in description and explanation; and the recognition of the limitation of a complex system as being difficult to be logically demonstrated.

Since complexity science is believed to be unpredictable, having a planned strategy beforehand is not possible; it can be disengaged and formulated only afterwards. If a researcher is taking a complexivist perspective towards a phenomenon, he/she should wait and accept to advance without a path, to make the path by advancing (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013). He believes that the method can be formed only during research. Taking a complexivist view means being able to tolerate the continuous negotiation between order and disorder, constant rethinking of the received data and permanent process of self-reflection to continuously examine doubts, ignorance and confusion (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013). For Morin, a complexivist researcher has no methodological recipes and he/she should be willing to embrace complexity and conceive it as an on-going learning experience[AM19] :

Method is fundamentally grounded in the capacity to access, describe, interpret and challenge the assumptions that frame the way scientific knowledge is organized, and the sociocultural conditions from which it emerges. (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013, p.22)

Le Moigne (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013) in line with “paradigm of complexity” asserts that “complexity is in the code and not in the nature of things”. He says that any system, whether complex or not, can have a complex representation. Thus, when a system is described according to a set of codes, the coders’ own understanding should be considered to be there in the process.

In my study, the model of a game to teach sex education might be a complex system, and might not. According to Le Moigne (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013) that is not a requirement. A complex view does not necessarily look at a complex system. A complex view can have a complex interpretation of a very simple system. Research per se is not complex, but it can be conceived as such by the researcher (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013).

There are different definitions for a complex research. Davis and Sumara (2006) define complexity in educational research context as observation and description of self-organizing, self-maintaining, adaptive learning systems. Complexity researchers study events and actions that have multiple causes and consequences as well as studying systems that have structures at many different scales of time, space, and organization (Wilensky & Jacobson, 2014).

A researcher who has a complex view on a phenomenon, like an educational context, should first be able to recognize the complex aspect of the situation, then characterize the complex aspects of that context. The researchers should have a descriptive view on the phenomenon they are studying. They are not expected to dissect a phenomenon to its components but to see complex structures and dynamics and make sense of a complex phenomenon (Davis & Sumara, 2006).

Regarding my thesis, I want to discover and describe how and why learning happens and how the agents are trying to deal with the new knowledge. I will gather information about the players’ background, like their sex experiences, religious beliefs, motivation level, gaming skills, competitiveness, etc. I am not going to take a reductionist view and discuss each as a separate aspect because learning in this setting is believed to be a very complex phenomenon and its meaning and effectiveness cannot be understood by defining its parts. However, I should be aware of them, welcome them and take them into consideration when describing the learning experience.

My position as a researcher according to Le Moigne’s “general system theory” is inside a triangulated definition of the research (Figure 1). I can position myself as the researcher considering the poles I choose to privilege in the research process:

Any definition relies therefore on a triangulation balancing a functional definition (what the object does when it is interacting with its environment), an ontological definition (what the object is) and a genetic definition (what the object is in its history and therefore in its project). (Alhadeff-Jones, 2010)

Figure 1 Triangulated definition of an object. (Le Moigne, 1977/1984, p. 64).

Regarding my study, I will take a position more tended towards functional and genetic poles because I will try to see how the participants interact with the game and with one another and what they become after playing the game and how they get affected by the game (Figure 2).

Alhadeff-Jones (2013) looks at the research process as a system that happens in an environment. He believes that the method of a research is part of a network of elements that constitute the research project. He calls these four elements as sub-systems (Figure 3) that need to be identified in order to answer the research questions in the research process. I will discuss each of them separately and discuss how my study is related to each.

The sub-system “author”

Author’s final product is supposed to be specific knowledge. He can do it through creation, invention, discovery, etc. In order to produce knowledge, the author needs to collect data, conduct interviews, record the process and analyze data. Alhadeff-Jones (2013) believes that in a complex system way of research, author should not be reduced to the person who is writing the research but should be extended to a community of researchers who might be referenced or not, the colleagues and members of the institution(s) in which the research is produced, the participants of the study, etc. Fenwick and Richard (2011) went further and by taking a sociomaterial approach posited that “author” is not necessarily a “living person” but can be anything that is part of a system of relationships. In my study, all experts that help to design the game, like psychologists, game designers, infection specialists, players, and also the game itself as the non-human identity can be called the authors of the study.

The sub-system “system of ideas”

System of ideas refers to how knowledge should be produced in order to establish some kind of ‘truth’ about a phenomenon (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013, p. 26). Basically, the authors’ system of ideas is their conception of knowledge production in their research. For example, an author might take a structuralist epistemological lens or a post-structuralist lens. My system of ideas will be complexity science. Because I believe individual human beings (learners, educators, and administrators), various associations of individuals (classes, schools, universities, educational associations) and human endeavour (such as educational research) are multi-dimensional, non-linear, interconnected, far from equilibrium and unpredictable (Kuhn, 2008, p. 7). I share the idea of Fenwick, Edwards and Sawchuk (2012) about knowledge and learning in complexity. They assert that “knowledge and learning are understood as continuous invention and exploration, produced through relations among consciousness, identity, action and interaction, objects and structural dynamics” (Fenwick, 2012, p. 41).

My view as the researcher would be to open a space for self-organization to happen and then record and report signs of emergence and self-organization in forming knowledge; be prepared to form meaning from new unexpected incidents or moves form the players. New possibilities for action are constantly emerging among interactions of complex systems and I should be ready to record them. For example, see how the agents interact with the new knowledge, how they decide what to do faced with different situations, and how they collaborate to decide about risks and consequences of different sexual behaviors. Davis and Sumara (2006) say that intelligent collective action is a bottom-up process, independent actions of individual agents who act out of self-interest and who may even be motivated by profound selfishness. Similar to my study, during the game, the players may have selfish aims of defeating others in collecting points but the final outcome is a collective knowledge about sex education.

The sub-system “object of study”

Object of study is the practical and questions and problems that “the author” aims to find answer or solutions for and develop new knowledge (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013). Object of study should not be considered as a separate factor from other subsystems and works in line with others. In my study, my “object of study” is to develop knowledge and find solutions to the problem of sexual education inefficiencies[AM28] . To answer this, authors, methods and systems of ideas work together and in collaboration in a complex system.

The sub-system “method”

Method, according to Alhadeff-Jones (2013), is to guide the actions that form the research process. It is constituted by the programs and strategies implemented by the author in order to achieve the object of study according to his/her system of ideas (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013). Method in complexity research is set of programs that help the researcher to be ready for different incidents during the research process. There is one general strategy that tells the researcher from where to start and what to do in every stage, but complexity research is not about having a fixed plan and carrying out the research based on that. Program, which is a component of method, refers to a set of instructions written in advance. Morin says that it is like different plans that the writer predicts to be needed when conditions of their execution appears (As cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013). I haven’t arrived to that stage of my thesis to know what are my alternative programs for different incidents in the research process. Furthermore, different programs should emerge from the interaction between different authors, objectives and ideas:

The research’s finalities are not totally predetermined, even if they are usually defined early in the process. The research’s finalities emerge from the interrelations between the author, the system of ideas mobilized, the object of study privileged and the method adopted. Between their initial and their final formulations, they evolve. The research finalities appear as the result of a negotiation between the author and the multiple elements evolving in the research’s environments. From a modeling perspective, in order to conceive each subsystem of the research process, it is crucial to envision and question their respective finalities. (Alhadeff-Jones, 2013)

The environments of research:

The environment of research in complexity system allows heterogenous forms of interpretation. Morin (as cited in Alhadeff-Jones, 2013) suggested physical, biosphere, anthroposphere and noosphere as four environments that “the author” should consider. I will briefly discuss each and find their relevance to my study.

Physical world:

Physical world is the natural or artificial objects and phenomena that influence or are influenced by it. Physical world in my study would be the game platform, computers or tablets, tables, boards, classroom and anything that can influence the evolution of learning (Fenwick & Edwards, 2010) Also, the tools that the researcher needs like computer, office, voice/video recorder.

Biosphere:

Biosphere looks at the research environment from the persepctive of living organisms like plants and animals. This environment is more important when the research topic is directly related to ecological concerns. Since my topic is not related to environmental education or similar topics, I will not be working in this context very much.

Anthroposphere & Noosphere:

Anthroposphere suggests the researchers to take into consideration the world of

experiences mobilized, lived or developed. Noosphere is the sphere of ideas and knowledge that grounds the research process. These aspects of environment are of crucial importance in my study since the players cultural background and previous knowledge (right or wrong) about sexual education is an important element. The authors background is also considered to fall in these categories.

Conclusion

Complexity and education are very close together because in education we are working with human beings, and knowledge production and formation in educational contexts are complex and dynamic. Objective measurements are not always possible because that may need simplifying human behaviors and reducing them to small parts. Looking at human beings whether individually or in contexts like educational settings is complex and a complexivist researcher should acknowledge that. A complexity view is that ‘in human beings, as in other living creatures, the whole is present within the parts; every cell of a multicellular organism contains the totality of its genetic patrimony, and society inasmuch as a whole is present within every individual in his language, knowledge, obligations and standards’ (Morin, 2001, p. 31).

References

ASHA, A., Involved, G., Answers, G., Health, S., Health, W., Health, M., & Providers, H. [AM29] (2018). Statistics | American Sexual Health Association. American Sexual Health Association. Retrieved 13 December 2018, from http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/statistics/

Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2013). Complexity, methodology and method: Crafting a critical process of research. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education[AM30] , 10, 19-44.

Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J., Roy, M., & Chase, M. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for “emergent” processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61.

Cilliers, P. (2002). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. routledge.

Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Routledge[AM31] .

Davis, B., Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and Education. New York: Routledge.

Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., Sawchuk, P. (2012). Emerging approaches to educational research. London: Routledge.

Kuhn,. (2008), Complexity and Educational Research: A critical reflection. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 177-189. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00398.x

Levy , S. T. , & Wilensky , U. ( 2008 ). Inventing a “ mid level ” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction , 26 (1), 1 – 47 .

Morin, E. (2001) Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future (Paris, UNESCO Publishing).[AM32]

Osberg, D.C. and Biesta, G.J.J. (2003) ‘Complexity, representation and the epistemology of schooling’, in Conference Proceedings of the First Conference of Complexity Science and Educational Research, Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta. www.complexity andeducation.ualberta.ca/conferences/2003/proceedings.htm

Resnick , M. , & Wilensky , U. ( 1998 ). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of Learning Science , 7[AM33] (2), 153 – 172 .

Sengupta , P. , & Wilensky , U. ( 2009 ). Learning electricity with niels: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning , 14 (1), 21 – 50 .

Wilensky, U., & Jacobson, M. (2014). Complex Systems and the Learning Sciences. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 319-338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139519526.020