Three ways to embrace complexity & build open teams to improve learning environments

In a recent article, "rebel" Edmonton teacher Mike Joly is described as advocating solid discipline policies and character education, believing that students should get zeros for incomplete work and face the consequences of their actions or inactions, all things that will save them from "becoming entitled, materialistic, spoiled monsters." While I recognize I'm getting this information from a news article, I question the assumptions about the nature of young people and their character development, not to mention the purpose of school. I applaud his care and relationship building with students, which I think is a significant factor for their positive development. But.

It is time to abandon the behaviourist reward/punishment thinking that has ruled schools for decades.

In our well-meaning desire to do the best for our students, we have clear boundaries of curricula, require "core" courses, learning outcomes, standards, rubrics, assessments and more. We want to get it right, to use "best practice" with repeatable procedures that most teachers can use for most students in most classes.

In this cause-effect way of thinking, we seek results that are obvious and reducible to simple percentages. Students who don't fit and comply with what has been created are identified as a problem. Eight years old and not reading, you're a problem. Dropping out of school at age sixteen because you don't find school relevant, you're a problem. A half credit short? You failed to meet the goal. The expectations are clear and achievable.

The system works, it's just some kids don't do what they are told.

We just need to find better ways to get them to buy in and comply, some say. In other ways, we have recognized limitations with our system, so we don't tend to fail kids who don't meet all the expectations as we've recognized the social and mental impact of this idea of "failure." Thankfully, we are actively questioning why we do what we do and constantly seeking ways to improve.

The fact is, humans are complex beings. And learning is a complex rather than simple endeavour. When we think of school learning though, it's mostly the stuff that's common knowledge. For more complicated issues, we call in experts for help, but we're still looking at known cause-effect, problems-solutions first. Where do we embrace complexity as an integral part of school systems, where we make space for where we cannot anticipate what will happen, where the outcomes are unknown, emergent, adaptive, where cause-effect understanding is only seen looking backwards and is not reproducible? The "soft skills" such as communication, collaboration and critical thinking that employers say they are looking for today, are complex behaviours. Employers want adaptable, flexible and innovative workers. At least for the better-paying jobs. How do we develop these skills in tightly controlled systems?

Humans are complex and we can’t treat them like information processing systems. David Snowden 

So why aren't students taking greater responsibility for the planning and organization of their own learning? Meeting their own deadlines? Learning how to self-discipline and self-manage? What role do our recipe, pre-packaged, fast-food assignments play in fueling their complacency? The teenagers who say, "Just tell me what I have to do" are just playing the game, which is what happens within a constrained system. Speaking their own mind and pursuing their own interests are not fundamental aspects of our schools though they exist.

If we as teachers believe that we have a system that works and assume that some just don't know how to effectively function within the system, we also develop a complacency and comfort in our "knowns."Complying to systems isn't what drives us though. Daniel Pink says it's autonomy, mastery and purpose. Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan say it's autonomy, competence and relatedness, which "foster the most volitional and high quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity" (self-determination theory).

Taking Action--via Amy Edmondson (TEDx talk below)
If we want motivation and accountability, we also need a psychologically safe workplace, a place where staff teams (and students) can feel safe enough with each other to speak up about ineffective and harmful practices. To get into this zone of learning, we must interdependently embrace the uncertainty of complexity. In this way, we will be able to create teams of openness, able to risk new challenges.

Edmondson's three action steps:

1. Understand we are faced with a learning problem (complex), not an execution problem (simple). 
2. Acknowledge your own fallibility. Be willing to say things like, "Here's my idea to try X. What else should I consider? Come observe my class and tell me what you're seeing that I'm not seeing."
3. Model curiosity. Ask lots of questions.

What can I improve here? What else can you add here? Comments welcome.