The Emergence of Learning-Teaching Trajectories in Education - A Complex Dynamic Systems Approach

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236069645
The Emergence of Learning-Teaching

Trajectories in Education: a Complex Dynamic
Systems Approach
Article in Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences April 2013

Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
26 553
2 authors:
Henderien Steenbeek Paul van geert

University of Groningen University of Groningen
43 PUBLICATIONS 472 CITATIONS 193 PUBLICATIONS 2,842 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
PhD thesis: micro-level processes of identity development and career decisions View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul van geert on 15 April 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 233-267.
2013 Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology & Life Sciences
The Emergence of Learning-Teaching Trajectories in

Education: a Complex Dynamic Systems Approach
Henderien Steenbeek1, and Paul van Geert, University of Groningen,
the Netherlands
Abstract: In this article we shall focus on learning-teaching trajectories

successful as well as unsuccessful ones as emergent and dynamic
phenomena resulting from the interactions in the entire educational context, in
particular the interaction between students and teachers viewed as processes of
intertwining self-, other- and co-regulation. The article provides a review of the
educational research literature on action regulation in learning and teaching,
and interprets this literature in light of the theory of complex dynamic systems.
Based on this reinterpretation of the literature, two dynamic models are
proposed, one focusing on the short-term dynamics of learning-teaching
interactions as they take place in classrooms, the other focusing on the long-
term dynamics of interactions in a network of variables encompassing concerns,
evaluations, actions and action effects (such as learning) students and teachers.
The aim of presenting these models is to demonstrate, first, the possibility of
transforming existing educational theory into dynamic models and, second, to
provide some suggestions as to how such models can be used to further
educational theory and practice.
Key Words: education, learning, complex adaptive system, computational
modeling
INTRODUCTION
Many students and in particular those of minority groups seem to
fail to achieve the average standards regarding crucial learning skills, such as
arithmetic ones, when they arrive at the end of their primary school career
(Brinbaum & Cebolla-Boada, 2007; Han, 2008). In order to turn the tide, various
attempts are made to getting a better grip on academic progress. One approach is
to improve children's academic progress through the means of evidence-based
educational practice, that is by adopting methods that have proven their effect-
tiveness in large scale randomized controlled trials and experimental research
(Horner et al., 2005; Odom et al., 2005; Slavin, 2002, 2008). Another approach
is to monitor children's academic performance by testing children regularly and
as early as possible in their academic careers (Koretz, 2008; Shapiro &
1
Correspondence address: H.W. Steenbeek, Heijmans Institute, University of Groningen;
Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, Netherlands. E-mail: h.w.steenbeek@rug.nl
233
234 NDPLS, 17(2), Steenbeek & van Geert
Kratochwill, 2000). However, the view that underlies these approaches is one
that characterizes individual students in terms of true scores on underlying latent
variables, the variance of which is to a specifiable extent explained by the
contribution of educational methods and practices that can be treated as
independent variables.
In this article we shall focus on learning-teaching trajectories
successful as well as unsuccessful ones as emergent and dynamic
phenomena resulting from the interactions in the entire educational context, in
particular the interaction between students and teachers. Although the terms
successful and unsuccessful are almost intrinsically vague, they feature
prominently in the thoughts of teachers, parents and educational policy makers.
A successful learning trajectory can be defined as a learning trajectory in
which the learner shows the progress in acquiring new knowledge and skills that
is expected on the basis of the learner's personal capabilities and the quality of
the education provided, based on proper engagement and activity in the learner
himself (see also Clements & Sarama, 2004; Crosnoe et al., 2010; Sarama &
Clements, 2009). In contrast, a learner with an unsuccessful learning trajec-
tory lags behind the progress in acquiring new knowledge and skills that the
learner is supposed to make given the learner's capabilities and education. The
classical approach to explaining the differences between successful and
unsuccessful learning trajectories, or the differences between more or less
successful ones, is by treating them as problems that relate to educational
effectiveness on the one hand and on the other hand by estimating the contribu-
tion of general determinants such as the students social economic status or the
influence of the curriculum (Rowe, 2003). However, in this article we shall use a
complex dynamic systems (CDS) approach to describe educational trajectories
as emergent properties of co-regulated real-time processes. The real-time
processes are those of activities taking place in students and teachers, in the con-
text of particular school classes, curricula and educational materials. We shall
review evidence showing that self-regulation (by the student) of these processes
is constantly interacting with other-regulation (regulation of the process by other
persons, in particular teacher), thus resulting in a process of co-regulation. We
shall argue that the short and long-term properties of these processes can be des-
cribed and at least qualitatively predicted by applying specific dynamic systems
model.
The outline of this article is as follows: First, current insights into the
co-and self-regulation of learning processes are briefly discussed. Section two
provides an overview of central features of a CDS approach to teaching-learning
processes. Section three concentrates on a conceptual model for the short-term
and long-term dynamics of learning, and discusses two examples of dynamic
models, one on the level of real time teaching learning activities, one on the
level of long-term changes in learning-teaching trajectories. Section four con-
cludes with a discussion about the added value of this approach for theory build-
ing and educational practice.
NDPLS, 17(2), Learning-Teaching Trajectories 235
LEARNING-TEACHING AS A CO-REGULATED PROCESS
A literature survey by Nolen (2009) showed that the five main themes
of current educational research were classroom achievement (36%), learning and
memory (33%), affects/motivation/beliefs (31%), cognition/reasoning (21%)
and teaching (21%). The strongest link between themes was the one between
classroom achievement and affects/motivation/beliefs, i.e. the question why stu-
dents do or don't do certain things that should lead to higher achievement.
Various lines of research and theory formation have attempted to
answer this question. One line emphasizes the importance of self-regulated
learning for children to become successful learners (Boekaerts & Corno,
2005; Miller & Brickman, 2004; Rothbart & Jones, 1998; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2000, 2004; Zimmerman, 2001, 2008). Self-regulated learning
refers to a persons thoughts, feelings, and actions that affect the persons learn-
ing of knowledge and skills. A central aspect is that the learner is recognized as
an autonomous, intentional, interacting agent. This view features prominently in
Zimmerman and Schunks four-level model of development of self-regulation
skills (2004, 2008). However, despite this models explanation of the distinct
phases in self-regulation skills, it does not explain how the child moves from
one phase to the next one. Like their students, teachers are autonomous inten-
tional agents, that is, they are self-regulating beings (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-
Selinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Wehmeyer, Yeager, Bolding, Agran & Hughes,
2003), regulating their actions with those of their students, among others. They
are driven by their own motives, emotions and beliefs of what makes them effi-
cient teachers (Hoy, 2008).
This particular concept of self-regulation is strongly associated with
metacognition, deliberate choices, decisions and beliefs about achievement
(Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). The concept thus features a relative-
ly conscious and rational agent who is master of his own actions and feelings,
with the self as central executive (Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008).
A related dominant line of research is that of the goal theory of
achievement and goal orientation theory (e.g. Papaioannou, Simou, Kosmidou,
Milosis, & Tsigilis, 2009; Roussel, Elliot, & Feltman, 2011). In an overview of
the literature on goal orientation, Kaplan and Maehr (2006) state that goal
orientations are overarching purposes of achievement behavior that are different
from the actual contents of what people try to achieve. In the educational con-
text, main goal orientations are those of mastery and performance. Whereas
mastery goal orientations refer to an individuals purpose of developing compe-
tence, performance goal orientations refer to the purpose of demonstrating
competence, i.e. demonstrating a high performance level. Other main goal orien-
tations are those to achieve extrinsic incentives, social goal orientations that
refer to social or interpersonal reasons for engaging in achievement behavior,
and finally avoidance orientations, which relate to work avoidance and academic
alienation. A number of authors associate the major goal orientations with a
basic behavioral contrast, namely that of approach versus avoidance (Elliot &
Covington, 2001). According to Elliott and Thrash (2001) achievement goals
function as a network or integrated pattern of variables that together create an
orientation toward achievement tasks. By relating achievement goals to net-
works of variables many of which are strongly emotionally laden, it is also pos-
sible to explain apparently counterproductive goals and actions, known as
academic self-handicapping (the creation of impediments to successful perfor-
mance on tasks that the individual considers important; Urdan and Midgley,
2001). In short, major goal orientations are to a considerable extent driven by
motives that are emotional and partly or greatly outside the deliberate control of
the rational agent (Dai & Sternberg, 2004; Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2008;
Meyer & Turner, 2006).
In addition, the literature pays increasing attention to the transactional
nature and the social embeddedness of learning (Cowie & van der Aalsvoort,
2000; DePaepe, de Corte, & Verschaffel, 2006; Fogel, 2009; Kumpulainen,
Hmelo-Silver, & Cesar, 2009; Murphy, 2007; Sorsana, 2008; Vosniadou, 2007).
The picture that begins to emerge from this literature is that of learning
as a complex intertwined system of components. These components are of very
different kinds: internal and external, emotional and cognitive, psychological
and physiological. They interact with one another and out of this interaction
macroscopic properties emerge, such as particular goal orientations, evaluations,
emotions, actions and achievements. The conscious and deliberate aspect of the
person, student or teacher, is one of the many components that contribute to this
dynamics and that on its turn is determined by this dynamics.
The CDS approach can serve as an overarching theoretical framework,
and can help us specify three important aspects of a comprehensive theory of
teaching and learning that are apparent in the current literature but that are still
underexposed.
First, to fully understand learning processes, insight is needed in the
temporal unfolding of learning processes in individual children, and in the
mechanisms that play a role in these processes of change (Howe & Lewis, 2005;
Lichtwarck-Asschof, van Geert, Bosma, & Kunnen, 2008; Steenbeek, Jansen &
van Geert, 2012; van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005, 2006). However, much research
reports only on averaged findings over groups of children, i.e., yielding group
data while leaving aside information about the way the individuals learning
processes unfold over time. Hamaker, Dolan, & Molenaar state that: (the)
dominant statistical approach in psychological research, comprising
interindividual techniques, is not necessarily appropriate if one wants to study
psychological mechanisms taking place within individuals (2005, p. 227; see
also Molenaar, 2004; Molenaar & Campbell, 2009 for a more thorough discus-
sion of the so called ergodicity problem). Therefore, models of the mechan-
isms of change as they apply to individual trajectories need to be used, i.e. at the
level where these mechanisms are supposed to operate1.
Second, a comprehensive theory of learning must be able to explain the
cyclical causal relationship between short-term learning processes of individual
children (what happens in the classroom on a particular day, during a particular
lesson in real time) and emerging long term developmental learning trajectories
of those children (their academic progress, i.e., their developing insights over
years; see Grossen (2009) on the linking-of-time-scales). The theory must thus
be able to describe and explain how short-term events affect long-term changes,
and how long-term changes affect short term events.
Third, most research recognizes the importance of studying childrens
learning in context (van Geert, 2009). However, in existing explanatory models,
context is usually operationalized as an independent and distal variable, e.g. as
in studying the statistical association between the home environment and
academic performance of children (van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005). However,
context and person influence each other, there is a reciprocal determinism
between the two (Bandura, 1977). Explanatory models should incorporate con-
texts as proximal, dynamic factors that on the one hand result from the interac-
tion processes themselves, and on the other hand influence these interaction
processes (which is yet another illustration of cyclical causality). Recent insights
in dynamic systems suggest that the interaction between a person and a context
is actually a specific case of interactions across a network of multiple compo-
nents (for general accounts, see Newman, 2003, 2010; for applications in the
behavioral and developmental sciences, Borsboom, Cramer, Schmittmann,
Epskamp, & Waldorp, 2011; Cramer, Waldorp, van der Maas & Borsboom,
2010; van der Maas et al., 2006; van Geert, 1991, 1994, 2008). CDS provides
the appropriate tool for modeling, and by doing so understanding, processes that
emerge out of the reciprocal interactions between multiple components. An
example of such type of processes are the relations between goals, actions,
achievements, emotions, teaching practices of interacting agents, i.e., of teachers
and students.
In summary, the CDS approach should enable us to formulate
individual-based models of reciprocal causality among the multiple components
that constitute a learning and teaching process unfolding in real time, and to
understand how such models generate long-term process trajectories.
This point of view is also endorsed by a small but growing number of
authors which are currently arguing for a complexity movement in the
educational sciences (Drnyei, 2009; Goldspink, 2007; Goldspink & Kay, 2004;
Jrg, 2011; Jrg, Davis, & Goemans, 2007; Mowat & Davis, 2010; Namukasa,
2006; Nelson, 2004; Radford, 2006, 2007; Semetsky, 2005).
CDS THEORY APPLIED TO EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES
Components and Main Properties of Complex Dynamic Systems
A complex system consists of many interacting components or
elements, the aggregate behavior of which is typically more or different than the
sum of its parts (e.g. van Geert, 2008). A dynamic system is a way of describ-
ing how one state of a developmental system changes into another state
(Weisstein, 1999). That is, the properties of the components change over time,
as a consequence of the interactions between those components. The properties
238 NDPLS,
N 17(2),, Steenbeek & van Geert
changee in the state sp pace, which is the whole off possible statees distinguishabble
in the system;
s describbed by the set of dimensionss or variables nneeded to specify
the sysstem (or, in th his case, what specifies the ssystem as beinng an educationnal
system
m; van Geert, 20 008, p. 1873). The state spacce can be as siimple or as com m-
plex ass need be. Figu ure 1 shows an example of a ssimple state space, representiing
the inteerplay between n the amount ofo help given bby the teacher,, and the numbber
of arithhmetic problem ms solved by the student, oover subsequennt lessons. Ovver
time, itt stabilizes in an
a attractor statte.
Fig. 1. An example off a state spacee describing the

e dimensions h help given by tthe
teacherr and number of math problems solved du uring one lessoon by a studen nt,
togetheer forming a dyynamic system. During the fiirst lesson, the e student is givven
much help
h and solvess only a few prroblems. The ddotted line reprresents the treend
over tim
me, the dots are observed co ombinations off help and num mber of problem ms
solved.. Finally the sy
ystem settles in
nto a region off the state spacce circumscrib bed
by the attractor-box. This confined
d region is an aattractor state for this particu
ular
dynamic system.
In dynamic systems, the standard modeel is the diffeerential equatioon,
which specifies the ch hange in a variiable over somme predefined aamount of time as
a function f of the currrent level of th
he variable:
L/t = f(L)) ((1)
The function n f can speciffy any sort off influence or mechanism, ffor
vidual student s actions on hhis next level of
instancce the influencce of an indiv
NDPL
LS, 17(2), Lea
arning-Teachin
ng Trajectoriees 2239
motivaation. It is impportant to note that this typee of model is eentirely differeent
from the
t standard modeling procedure in thee behavioral and educationnal
sciencees, which expresses the valuee of a dependeent variable as a function of an
indepen ndent variablee. An examplee is a regresssion model that expresses tthe
covariaation of a particular kind of student actionn on the one hhand and studeent
motivaation on the otther hand, acro oss a sample oof individuals.. The above ddif-
ferentiaal equation rep
presents a singlle step in a seriies of connecteed steps, whereeas
the reg
gression equatio on represents a single subjecct from a usually large group of
subjectts that are indep
pendent of onee another.
Most interessting dynamic systems are baased on coupleed variables. F For
instancce, in a particu
ular individual student, the leevel of avoidannce tendency cco-
determ
mines the experrience of task failure (e.g. iif one avoids to do one's ow wn
work, one
o runs a greeat risk of receeiving bad marrks or failing aan exam) and vvia
task faiilure avoidancee tendency co-determines thee performance level, which w will
rapidly
y run behind th hat of one's classsmates. Regullar experience of task failuree is
likely to
t generate neg gative emotion ns related to thhe task at handd, which is likeely
to increease one's avoiidance tendenccy. In short, thhe change in eaach of these vaari-
ables depends
d not onnly on its ownn preceding vaalue, but also oon the precediing
values of the coupled d variables.
The first prroperty is thee iterative (orr recursive) ccharacter of tthe
processs2: The existing state is the basis
b for the emmergence of thhe next state, tthe
next state provides th he basis for itss successor an d so on. In Fig. 2 the iteratiive
charactter of the intteraction dynaamics betweenn student andd teacher duriing
instructtion sessions is shown, in that each previoous action of thhe student has an
influen
nce on the sub bsequent (re-)action of the teacher, and vice versa (ee.g.
Guangllu, 2012). Oveer time, each instruction se ssion has an iinfluence on tthe
subsequ uent instructio
on session of th his student-teaacher pair, whiich indicates thhat
causality must be con nceived of as haaving a cyclicaal (or reciprocaal) character.
Fig. 2. Causal interac ction loop betw

ween teacherss and studentss actions, with an
iterative
e causal loop fo s and teacherss own actions; dotted arrow.
or the students
This cyclicaal pattern takess place at varioous time scaless, resulting in tthe
second
d property, nam
mely that of th he occurrence oof patterns andd mechanisms of
change on various interdependent time scales. In a CDS, all levels of the
developing system interact and consist of nested processes that unfold over
many time scales, from milliseconds to years (Lewis, 2002; Thelen & Smith,
1994; for an application to brain development in an educational context, see
Westermann et al., 2007). This property indicates the importance of studying the
relation between real-time characteristics of short-term processes and those in
long-term development. If we were to apply this recommendation to the
example of avoidance and failure, we would analyze the steps that lead from a
specific task assignment to a specific form of avoidance action of a particular
student, via the students emotional reactions, his search for justifications and
alternative activities, and so forth. That is, we would try to unravel the micro-
dynamics of an academic self-handicapping event. We would then compare this
microdynamics over the course of time and try to understand how the micro-
dynamics causes changes on the long term level, and also how changes on the
long term level affect the nature of the microdynamics (for an example, see
Steenbeek, Janssen & van Geert, 2011).
The third property is that real processes are intrinsically variable at all
time scales, i.e. they show nonlinearity in the form of inter- and intra-individual
variability. Van Geert and van Dijk (2002) have defined intra-individual varia-
bility as differences in the behavior within the same individuals, at different
points in time (p. 341). Siegler (2007) states: over the course of development,
performance often oscillates between less and more variable periods (p. 107).
This phenomenon makes frequent sampling necessary. Whereas the classical
approach searches for a true score of a variable without random variation and
measurement error, the CDS approach searches for a characteristic bandwidth
of variability in a particular system, which can change over time, e.g. as a
transition occurs (van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005).
The fourth property is that, over time, attractor states develop (i.e.,
become self-sustaining states) in a spontaneous and self-organizational manner
(Colunga & Smith, 2008; Lewis & Granic, 2000; Lunkenheim & Dishion,
2009). An attractor can be defined as a box of [ the state] space in which
movement could take place or not. When an object enters the space, the point
does not leave, unless a strong enough force is applied to pull it out (Guastello &
Liebovitch, 2009, p. 6). Figure 1 showed a state space with an attractor box,
which represents a self-sustaining state of a certain range of help given by a
teacher and a certain variable number of arithmetic problems solved by the stu-
dent during a particular lesson. The spontaneous emergence and maintenance of
attractor states is an example of self-organization. Self-organization is present
when the interactions within a complex system produce patterns and order
spontaneously, i.e. without intervention of agents outside the system (Guastello
& Liebovitch 2009, p. 23).
The fifth property is that chance plays a formative role. That is, other
than in the standard approach where accidental factors average out (basically
because they are connected to measurements that are independent of one
another), accidental events can play important roles, dependent on when and
where in the time evolution of a system they occur (Guastello & Liebovitch,
2009; van Geert, 1994).
For more information about the central properties as described above,
we refer to examples of CDS in psychology, where this approach is increasingly
being used (see Granic, 2005; Granic & Patterson, 2006; Howe & Lewis, 2005;
van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005; for an overview see Larsen-Freeman, 1997;
Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; van Geert, 2008; in the field of applied
linguistics).
In order to describe the properties of a complex dynamic system pro-
perly, dynamic process modelling is necessary (van Geert, 1994, 2008). In the
next section, we will discuss how these abstract principles can be applied to
teaching-learning processes, and to building dynamic systems models of these
processes.
Learning-Teaching Coupling Over Time
Learning can be defined as the process of gaining knowledge or skills
often in the context of help by a more competent person, who enables the learn-
ing through teaching, consisting of guidance, transmission of knowledge, struc-
turing, promoting and confining the learners zones of action, often in the
context of explicit learning and teaching goals (van Geert, 2008). This
definition has three key components. First, it highlights learning as incorporating
both a cognitive and a social component which are intertwining elements,
forming a dynamic whole. That is, they cannot be separated as distinct factors,
i.e., the person who learns (a cognitive activity) often does so in the context of
help by another person, the help being determined by the ongoing learning (help
is a social activity; see also comparable definitions of (arithmetics) learning,
Cobb & Yackel, 1998; Lerman, 1998). Anything that happens at some point in
time in the student affects something in the activity of the teacher, and anything
that happens in the teacher affects something in the activity of the student
(Fogel, 1993, 2009; van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005). A central term used is that of
co-construction of knowledge (see Granott, 2002; Sorsana, 2008), in a situated
learning perspective.
Secondly, the definition shows that learning, which is usually defined
as a macro-level variable on the long-term time scale, can best be studied as a
micro-level variable. That is, it can best be studied as how it takes place during
individual instruction sessions, in the learning-triangle, consisting of the
teacher (the more competent person), individual student (the learner), and the
material (e.g. math workbook). Note that this property directly relates to the
issue of cyclical causality operating between timescales (see Cziko, 1992; Deci
& Ryan, 2002). In doing so, the CDS approach primarily uses microgenetic
methods (van der Aalsvoort, van Geert, & Steenbeek, 2009), which are broadly
recognized as being particularly suitable for studying learning as a transactional,
co-constructed process (Flynn & Siegler, 2007; Granott & Parziale, 2002;
Siegler, 1995; Siegler & Stern, 1998; van der Aalsvoort et al., 2008).
Thirdly, the definition enables the understanding of short-term
learning-in-interaction as a dynamic, complex process in itself (Mercer, 2011;
Shotter, 2005), consisting of a number of interacting short-term variables, such
as the students emotions, goals, and concerns, that mutually intertwine with the
teachers emotions, goals, and concerns, together forming the course of the
interaction process. This view is closely related to the embedded-embodied
approach (Smith, 2005). That is, the cognitive and learning processes are
entirely embedded in a context with which it has a transactional relationship.
The embodied aspect implies that it takes place in the form of concrete actions
in a concrete world. In addition, discourse plays an important role in the
students learning processes, as it represents an important, dynamic context in
which learning takes place (see also Fischer & Granott; 1995).
LEARNING-TEACHING PROCESSES OVER VARIOUS TIME SCALES
A Dynamic Agent Model of Goal-Orientation: The Short Term Coupling in
the Learning-Teaching Process
The current literature in educational psychology strongly emphasizes
that learners are intentional agents pursuing their personal goals and that they
self-regulate their actions in educational contexts (see also Guastello, 2009, in
the general context of group dynamics). In order to understand how actions and
interactions come about, we need (a) dynamic model(s) of action, i.e. of agent
dynamics. We shall present a dynamic agent model of how teaching-learning
processes get their form in the interaction between student and teacher as
autonomous, intentional agents. The basics of this model are derived from our
conceptual and simulation model of interaction, which has shown its empirical
validity in the context of dyadic play (Steenbeek & van Geert, 2005, 2007,
2008). The next sections ground the conceptual aspects of the dynamic model in
the existing literature. We focus in particular on the student, but all the concepts
mentioned apply to all agents involved, i.e. to the students as well as the
teachers.
The starting point of the model is that a students (or teachers)
behavior and emotions are driven by his or her concerns. Concerns can be
defined as the beliefs and intentions of the person (Atkinson & Birch, 1970;
Cobb & Yackel, 1998; Cobb, Yackel, & Wood, 1998; Cziko, 2000; Frijda, 1986,
2001). These concerns lead to certain strengths in the drive to attain goals, i.e.,
the students motivation to display behavior to attain this particular goal. The
main goal for the student should be to learn (e.g. arithmetics), but this goal is in
constant competition with other goals, such as the goal to constrain the amount
of effort or the goal to interact informally with fellow students (Elliott & Thrash,
2001; Kaplan, 2008; Kaplan & Maehr, 2006; Simon,Tzur, Heinz, & Kinzel,
2004). These concerns depend on the persons history, but are triggered by the
context (Steenbeek & van Geert, 2008). Each moment, the student appraises in
a process that occurs automatically to what extent the current context provides
a good balance between the concerns. This appraisal leads to a specific emotion
and emotional expression, in which the student expresses her/his emotion about
the concern gap (Meyer & Turner, 2006; Pekrun, 2006). This appraisal also
leads to a certain behavior (note that expressions such as leads to are simplifi-
cations of processes that are to a considerable extent cyclical). For instance, the
main behaviors during arithmetic lessons being on task, off-task, i.e.,
being engaged or not engaged serve the balance between learning-oriented
and non-learning oriented concerns. These main behavioral categories corres-
pond with the major behavioral tendencies of approach and avoidance (Elliot &
Covington, 2001).
Note that concerns differ in terms of strength, meaning that one con-
cern can be stronger than another one. The strength of the persons concerns
determines the drive of the person in a particular context, which means that
the concerns will drive certain action selections to be made, namely the actions
that contribute to realizing the concerns (Atkinson & Birch, 1970). However, the
way organisms determine whether their actions contribute to their concerns
takes the form of an online continuous appraisal of the situation, which they try
to keep as close as possible to an optimal state or optimal appraisal state (Carver
& Scheier, 2000, 2002; Cziko, 1992; Powers, 1992).
The second important feature of the model is that at each subsequent
time point the student has to find an optimal balance between three basic
human concerns, that underlie all other concerns, namely the concern for
Autonomy, the concern for Relatedness, and the concern for Competence
(Carver & Scheier, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2002; Minnaerts, Boekaerts, & de
Brabander, 2007).
Autonomy concerns may be related to mastery orientation, because
mastery of skills contributes to autonomy in the sense that one no longer needs
help from others and can act autonomously. On the other hand, autonomy con-
cerns can also be related to performance avoidance (Kaplan & Maehr, 2006;
Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). complemented by a sufficient level of
the competence concern.
A high relatedness concern in the student corresponds with a strong
intention to learn from the teacher (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). A low relatedness
concern corresponds with a strong tendency to work autonomously, and solve
problems or make assignments oneself. Eventually this could imply a rejection
of the teachers teaching and guidance (see for instance the earlier discussed
notion of academic self-handicapping). A high relatedness concern in the
teacher corresponds with a high commitment of the teacher towards teaching
particular children and with the tendency to spend much time in teaching and
helping a particular student or students, e.g. in the form of individual help. A
low relatedness concern of the teacher towards (a) particular student(s)
corresponds with less interference with the students academic work, a greater
emphasis on the students autonomy or eventually academic neglect.
The students competence concern relates to the students drive to
become competent in a particular academic domain (in this particular example
arithmetics; note however that in the present simulation, we do not make a
further distinction into mastery versus performance orientation). The teachers
competence concern relates to the teachers intention to be or become a
competent teacher for his or her student(s) and to qualities such as educational
self-efficacy. Optimal learning takes place in a student who - for the context at
hand - has an optimal balance in the autonomy-relatedness concerns (i.e., the
student asks help when necessary, and works on his own when possible).
These three general concerns serve as an overarching framework for
more specific, context- and person-related concerns, which depend on the con-
textual properties of the here-and-now. For instance, in a particular context, the
competence concern can take the form of either an avoidance tendency or an
approach tendency (Elliott & Covington, 2001). This bifurcation depends on
whether approach or avoidance is maximizing the person's immediate appraisal.
The concrete form of the competence concern also depends on content-specific
domains of competence, more precisely on the students particular interest.
Interests are examples of emerging attractor states that often originate in tran-
sient, situational and externally determined interests and develop into self-
sustaining patterns of engagement that originate from the individual person him-
self (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Renninger, 2009). In various publications, Krapp
(2005, 2007) has emphasized the complexity of the developmental interest
dynamics. Interest in a particular content domain is not an isolated phenomenon,
but involves intricate and changing relationships with particular objects and con-
tent domains, basic needs such as needs for competence, autonomy and related-
ness (Deci & Ryan, 2002), the personal self-image, achievement values, goal
orientations and competence beliefs (see also Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
We can thus conclude that goal orientations and their underlying con-
cerns and content-related interests form dynamic network structures: each
concern has a specific but changeable strength, and it is highly likely that the
strength changes as a consequence of classroom experiences that emerge out of
the relationships between these concerns and interests. Although this idea of
dynamic network structures may seem similar to the proverbial but empty
everything-depends-on-everything-else model, we shall see that such network
structures, either in the form of agent models or in the form of long-term models
of change require highly specific, both theory- and data-informed decisions
about the nature of the relationships (see section An example of a simulation of a
short-term learning- teaching coupling).
The third feature of the model is that these processes of concern
elicitation, appraisal, emotional expression and action also take place in other
persons, i.e., the teacher. He or she has the same basic concerns, which lead to a
certain appraisal of the situation, leading to a certain emotion (or emotional
expression) and certain behavior, aimed at recovering eventual concern-context-
appraisal incongruence and at maintaining an optimal balance. Although the
basic concerns of the teacher are similar to those of the student in that basic
concerns are universally human, the actual achievement concerns differ
critically from those of the student (Butler & Shibaz, 2008; Watt & Richardson,
2008; Woolfolk, 2008). The teachers basic competence concern may, for in-
stance, take the form of wanting to be optimally competent in teaching students
NDPL
LS, 17(2), Lea
arning-Teachin
and guiding them through the curricculum. Teacheers may be masstery oriented, in
that theey focus on theeir students skkills and insight
hts, or they mayy be performannce
oriented if they focuss on test resultss and exams (aa concern that m may be enhancced
by receent policy tren nds that focus on a results-ooriented form oof teaching, w with
result defined by thhe results on classical achievvement tests). T Teachers expreess
their cooncerns by thee emotions and d emotional exppressions that accompany thheir
teachinng, for instancee in the form off enthusiasm (K Kunter et al., 22008).
The fourth feature
f is that at each mooment in the innteraction tthe
teacherr and the studeents behavior and emotions mutually influuence each othher,
in an itterative fashion
n. That is, the actions
a (and emmotions) of thee student have an
influennce on the actioons (and emotiions) of the teaacher, and the oother way rounnd.
The teeachers local concerns, em motions and acctions emerge in a contextuual
fashionn. The proximaal context is thee students onggoing action that emerges in tthe
contextt of the teachers actions. That is, studentt and teacher are each otheer's
dynamiically evolving g context.
Fig. 3. The agent model of student and teacher; a an agent has m multiple concern ns,
which govern the ap ppraisal of the current situattion (with as m
main compone ent,
ones own
o and the otther persons current
c actionss). Appraisals llead to particu
ular
actions
s; the effect of the
t actions are fed back into tthe next appraisal.
As Fig. 3 sh
hows, this iteraative, mutuallyy influencing pprocess that takkes
place over
o the course of an individu
ual instruction session, can bee conceived off as
the co
ore businesses of the chang ge process oveer the short-terrm time scale or
micro-time. The mutual influences can give rise to smoothly occurring
interactions, which are associated with optimal functioning and optimal learning
(Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), i.e., the emergence of successful
learning trajectories. On the other hand, mutual interactions can also take the
form of non-smooth, erratic processes, associated with ineffective functioning
and learning, thus leading to attractor states of sub-optimal interaction sustaining
sub-optimal learning (and vice versa), and over the long term leading to
unsuccessful learning trajectories. Note that this iterative, mutually influenc-
ing process cannot be explained by using classical, individual-based self-regula-
tion models, such as the four-level model of Schunk and Zimmerman (2004). In
order to understand such processes they must be modeled in the form of itera-
tive, coupled dynamic systems. In this way, the short-term building blocks of
emerging successful versus unsuccessful learning trajectories can be made
explicit by modeling the (in-)balance of the student and teacher concerns for
Autonomy, for Relatedness, and for Competence, and what this means for their
behavior, appraisal and emotions during real time teaching-learning situations in
the classroom.
An Example of a Simulation of a Short-Term Learning-Teaching Coupling
In our previous work (Steenbeek & van Geert, 2005, 2007, 2008), we
have shown that this conceptual network can be used to build a general dynamic
systems model that generates temporal sequences of actions and interactions.
The model describes two agents, each of which is specified in the form of a
series of coupled equations. The equations refer to coupled changes in the
strength of a concern variable, a concern realization variable and its associated
emotional appraisal, an emotional expression variable, and a behavioral variable.
All variables are reduced to the simplest possible forms. The concern variable
for instance is described as a one-dimensional variable specifying a person's
dynamically varying between other-directed and self-directed interest (in a parti-
cular situation). The behavioral variable is reduced to either an other-directed or
a self-directed action. Agents perceive their own and the others actions and
emotional expressions and these perceptions are coupled to their internal states
and determine their next activity and emotional expression (for the technical
details of this dynamic model we refer to Steenbeek, 2006, Steenbeek & van
Geert, 2005, 2007, 2008). The model generates co-regulated sequences of
actions (as either other- or self-directed), of emotional expressions and of
internal appraisal states of the two agents.
We have applied this general model to dyadic interaction in children
and have shown that it predicts empirically observed properties of action pat-
terns in time. For instance, the model correctly predicted distributions of interac-
tion properties in dyadic play among children of different sociometric status
(Steenbeek, 2006; Steenbeek & van Geert, 2005, 2007, 2008). The model also
correctly predicted the occurrence of heavy-tailed distributions of the duration of
actual contact episodes during a play session and characteristic differences
between boys and girls (Steenbeek, van der Aalsvoort & van Geert, 2013).
NDPL
LS, 17(2), Lea
arning-Teachin
Fig. 4. Example of a result of one of o the simulateed interaction ttrajectories in tthe

studentt-teacher pair, during a single
e arithmetic les son.
Note that thee primary aim of dynamic moodels is to undderstand the basic
qualitattive propertiess of a particulaar dynamics, i. e., of a particuular process ass it
occurs to particular individuals. It I is not a moodel of statisttical associatioons
among variables that occur across samples of individuals (for a discussion, see
Gilbert & Troitzsch, 1999; Gottman et al., 2002).
Since the general logic of the model applies to any form of dyadic
interaction, we adapted the model to specify interactions between a teacher and
a student in a one-to-one teaching situation. The case we shall illustrate is that of
a student diagnosed as having an Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD) in special
education, who, during the arithmetic lessons, shows a high level of help seek-
ing behavior (Newman, 2000; Steenbeek et al., 2012). The help seeking behav-
ior is aimed at getting the teacher do a part of the arithmetic assignment together
with the student in a short individual instruction session, in which the teacher
takes over a considerable part of the work that the student is supposed to do
himself. We assume that this particular example of arithmetic performance and
learning is based on a high level of the relatedness concern and a low level of
the autonomy concern in the student3. The teacher on the other hand is assumed
to have an autonomy-relatedness balance that is strongly oriented towards
autonomy, in that we think it highly likely that her intentions are that students do
as many arithmetic assignments on their own and receive her help only if really
necessary. The main property of the current action dynamics is thus a contrast
between high-low and low-high autonomy-relatedness balances in the
interaction partners.
Graphically, the concerns-action-emotion expression process of this
student- and teacher-pair during this particular interaction can be depicted as in
Fig. 4. On the x-axis the duration of the interaction is shown, on the y-axis both
the students and the teachers estimated level of balance in the autonomy-
relatedness concerns, and the level of their emotional evaluation of the
interaction. Figure 4 shows a result of one of the simulated interaction
trajectories in this student-teacher pair, during a single arithmetic lesson. The
following points can be made. First, the properties of the interaction emerge on
the basis of the moment-to-moment iterations, including the moment-to-moment
interactions between student and teacher. Second, the simulation shows (upper
figure) that the emerging action pattern takes the form of a period of very short
interactions between student and teacher, and one relatively extended period of
teacher-student interaction on the arithmetic assignments. More in general, the
model generates interaction episodes most of which are very short and some of
which are relatively long (the predicted distribution of contact episodes lengths
is heavy tailed). This prediction is in accordance with many empirical data on
the distribution of behavioral properties (Kello et al., 2010). Although we found
verification of this prediction in data on dyadic play in children, the prediction
still needs to be quantitatively verified with data on interaction episodes in a
teaching learning context. However, from observations in arithmetic classes
with EBD students, we know that periods of working alone are alternated with
periods of interacting with the teacher. Sometimes this interaction takes the form
of a relatively long one-to-one interaction in which the teacher explains a
particular problem or demonstrates a particular problem solving strategy to the
child. Third, the model shows (figure in the middle) that the students and
teachers level of relatedness concern slightly fluctuate over moments, but the
students level of relatedness concern remains higher than that of the teacher.
Fourth, the model shows that the concerns are not fixed, but that their strengths
change during and as a consequence of the ongoing interaction. It is important to
note however, that concern levels are model variables that are not immediately
observable. Fifth, in this particular model simulation negative emotions are
considerably more frequent than positive ones, in both student and teacher. In
our qualitative observations of teaching-learning interactions in special
education we found that positive task-related emotions are indeed relatively rare
in the students. During the instruction interactions with the student (which in the
current simulation starts around time point 300) the teacher mostly kept a
uniform high level of positive reinforcement and praise for the student, probably
in order to increase the child's interest in the math problem. This observation is
in accordance with the simulation prediction that during the more lengthy period
of interaction, positive emotions of the teacher are higher than before.
Finally, although the individual model runs produce variable results,
qualitative properties of the pattern, such as the distribution of the duration of
periods of interaction, are relatively stable and related to specific patterns of
parameter values. A model such as this one is of interest because it generates
temporal sequences of actions and temporal patterns that show qualitative and
quantitative resemblances with empirical data. The model does so by means of a
dynamic action model that entails basic features of action and interaction dyna-
mics. It is no doubt possible to generate a qualitatively similar pattern of alter-
nating activities by using a model that randomly draws sequences from a
lognormal distribution. However, this model can hardly serve as an explanation
of the underlying dynamics of an interaction process, because it is very unlikely
that human beings base their action on randomly drawing sequences from inter-
nally stored distributions.
A Dynamic Network Model of the Long-Term Dynamics of Learning-
Teaching Interactions and the Emergence of Trajectories
The agent model discussed in the previous section, tried to explain the
emergence of short-term patterns of learning-teaching interaction. However, the
parameters of this model depend on the preceding history of the student-teacher
dyad, and in turn, those short-term patterns of learning teaching interaction will
cause these parameters to change on the long-term, or to stabilize in the form of
a particular attractor states. An example of a long-term attractor state is a pattern
of interactions in which a student and a teacher keep themselves in an
unproductive interaction, resulting in low quality (individual) teaching in the
teacher and low quality learning the student (this is what we believe happens
regularly in special education, where the behavioral and emotional problems of
the students can lead to self-sustaining patterns of low quality learning-teaching
interaction, in spite of the professional skills and motivation of the teachers;
Steenbeek, Jansen & van Geert, 2012). For instance, in the arithmetic lesson we
have tried to model in the previous section, we assume that the emergent experi-
ences of both the student and the teacher during such arithmetic activities have
an effect on the parameters that govern the short-term dynamics of the (inter-)
action patterns during the next arithmetic lesson. This effect might take the form
of a change in the parameters, or a consolidation of the parameters over the long
run. In this way the short-term activities have an effect on the long-term
dynamics of the parameters. Note that these long-term parameters, on their turn,
govern the short-term activities during a single arithmetic lesson.
In order to model the long-term dynamics, the modeler could specify
the effect of a short-term process on the process parameters, and then combine a
great number of short-term interactions during arithmetic lessons into a long
sequence of short-term interaction dynamics. Subsequently, the modeler could
then read out the long term change in the activity parameters (e.g. the change in
or stability of the balance of the concerns in the participants). Such models are
computationally intensive. However, they may be replaced by simpler ones in
which every activity session, e.g. an arithmetic lesson, corresponds with a single
time step in the long term model. This long-term model is a technically simpli-
fied description of the process that consists of a long chain of short-term
activities and interactions governed by interaction dynamics. The variables in
the model we shall discuss are the same as those used in the short-term model,
namely both the students and the teachers balanced autonomy-relatedness
concern, and their competence concern. In addition, the students academic per-
formance level is included as a variable, representing the students performance
over time (in this example we suppose it is arithmetic performance). Each
variable is assumed to have a particular but changeable level. The change in
each variable is determined by the dynamic relationship it has with other vari-
ables, and these relationships are justified by the short-term dynamics of action.
The patterns of dynamic relationships among the variables describe particular
individual cases, and form the parameters of the long term model. The question
is how these parameters change, stabilize, or sustain each other.
The dynamic relationships among the variables have the specific
strength and are either supportive or competitive and can be symmetrical as well
as asymmetrical (van Geert, 1991, 1994, 2003). A supporting relationship means
that if the supporting variable increases, the supported variable increases also
(and the other way round for competing variables). For instance, seeking help
which we assume depends on the students relatedness concern may have a
supportive relationship with the students competence concern, which is likely
to have a supportive relationship with the students performance level. In
another individual, seeking help might have a competitive relationship with the
competence concern, for instance because for this particular individual seeking
help might be a strategy to avoid effort and individual work. For instance if
competence orientation has a competitive relationship with relatedness (e.g.
because it is strongly based on the students concern for autonomy), an increase
in the competence concern will lead to a decrease in the relatedness concern. An
example of an asymmetrical relationship is that there may be a competitive
relationship from the competence concern to the relatedness concern, but a
supportive relationship from relatedness to competence (e.g. because for this
particular student in this particular school context, seeking more help which is
based on the relatedness concern is a better way to increase his concern for
competence than doing things on his own). In summary, the variables constitute
a network of mutual relationships that are not necessarily symmetrical and not
necessarily direct (e.g. variable A may affect C via B). The collective effect of
these dynamic relationships is often strongly nonlinear and cannot be described
or defined by simple addition of the unidirectional relationships in the network.
Such networks must be studied by means of mathematically modeling the
network in the form of coupled iterative equations. The aim of such modeling is
to discover, first, whether the network of dynamically connected variables is
able to generate time series that are qualitatively similar to the temporal
trajectories observed in the data, and, second, to find out which patterns of
parameter values and connections between the variables are responsible for
which types of trajectories. In order to give an idea of what such models produce
in terms of predictions of outcomes, we shall show an example of the network of
variables presented above (for more detailed technical discussions of dynamic
network models see van Geert, 1991, 1994, 2003; van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005;
van Geert, Steenbeek & van Dijk, 2013).
Technically, every node in the network corresponds with a particular
variable, e.g. the students current level of his competence concern. Mathemati-
cally, each variable is modeled by means of a logistic support equation (van
Geert, 1994). The support parameters (which can be negative, in which case we
would call them competition parameters) link every variable to a subset of other
variables in the network.
In a network with i variables, the change in every variable can be repre-
sented by means of the following differential equation (the total network is thus
described by i such equations):

= 1 + 1 (2)

LA is the variable in question, Mm are variables to which the target variable is

potentially related, r is a growth rate parameter, K is a genetic or biological
limiting factor, s is a connection parameter the value of which can be either
positive, negative or zero, and finally C is a system specific limiting factor.
The form of the logistic support equation makes it possible to calculate
the stable attractor level (which is particularly interesting in the case of the
variable that refers to the learning results) given the student's internal capacities
on the one hand (expressed by the K parameter), and the quality of instruction
on the other hand (the set of instruction variables and their expected connection
strengths associated with the performance variables that are the subject of
instruction)4. In this way, it is possible to determine the expected level of
learning, and to compare it with the actual level of learning that is the result not
only of the internal capacities and the quality of instruction, but also of the host
of additional network variables that dynamically interfere in the learning
process. If the level of learning is less than the expected level, we can call the
learning trajectory unsuccessful and it is equal to or higher than the expected
level we can call them learning trajectory successful. It should be noted that
because the variables form a dynamic network, the influence of other variables
on target variables such as learning level cannot be expressed in the form of
additive, i.e. linear effects. It should also be noted that a particular network, i.e.
a particular constellation of relationships among variables, represents an
individual learner in his or her specific learning context (i.e. with a particular
teacher etc.). The network does not represent relationships among variables that
hold for a population, which is what is presented in the majority of educational
studies (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009).
An Example of a Simulation of the Long-Term Dynamics of Learning-
Teaching Coupling
The goal of the simulation to be presented here is to find out whether
successful versus unsuccessful learning trajectories would emerge, and how
such emergence is related to properties of connections between variables. By
making as few specific assumptions as possible in the model, we can simulate
the broadest possible range of individual cases, in order to study to what extent
the qualitative phenomena we are interested in which in this particular case is
the occurrence of successful versus unsuccessful learning trajectories are
indeed generated by the dynamic model. Since we are mainly interested in the
effect of the dynamic connections between the variables, we simulate a possible
individual by randomly assigning dynamic connections, which can be either
positive or negative, to the network of variables, while keeping other parameters
constant.
Figure 5 shows an example of an unsuccessful learning trajectory (or:
an underachieving pattern) characterized by a constantly decreasing
performance level. In this particular case, we calculated the expected average
performance level for the simulated population (the simulated population is
nothing but the collection of a great many model simulations of individual
trajectories). We took this average performance level (1.25, expected standard
deviation = 0.53) as a dividing line between successful and unsuccessful
learning trajectories. In this particular scenario, the students performance
decreases (Fig. 5, upper left) in spite of increasing and high levels of student
concerns for relatedness and competence as well as teacher concerns for
relatedness and competence (Fig. 5, middle left and lower left). The dynamics of
this seemingly counterintuitive combination can be understood by taking a
closer look at the structure of relationships (figures at the right) upon which this
particular model is based. These relationships imply that students performance
and teachers concerns for relatedness and competence are negatively coupled.
For instance, a decrease in the student's performance will lead to an increase in
the teachers concerns for relatedness and competence, and vice versa. This
scenario is likely to occur if there is a strong mismatch between the teachers
treatment and the students aptitude (e.g. the student requires a strong
challenging approach from the teacher in order to successfully perform, whereas
the teacher thinks he should be highly protective and avoiding challenges). The
devilish aspect of this scenario is that the more the student regresses in terms
of performance, the more the teacher will be inclined to apply the
counterproductive teaching scenario. This pattern emerges via the negative or
oppositional dynamic relationship of student performance on the teachers
competence and relatedness concerns with regard to the student (see the network
of connections among variables represented in the right part of Fig. 5). To make
matters worse, in this particular scenario there also exist strong supportive
relationships between the concerns for relatedness and competence within and
between the student and the teacher, leading to a situation in which concerns to
learn and teach are getting stronger, whereas the effect of these concerns on
performance becomes more and more negative. With five variables, a scenario
like this can result from a total of 20 possible relationships between the variables
(or less if some of the relationships are of zero strength). In a number of cases,
the structure of these relationships will be quite simple, and the connection that
is responsible for the maintenance of the negative scenario can be discovered by
observing contingencies in changes between two salient variables in the network
(e.g. the student's performance and the teachers tendency to increase his help).
However, by the same token this structure of relationships can be highly
intricate and complicated, with various kinds of couplings contributing directly
and indirectly to the negative scenario. In such a case it will be hard to change
the mechanism that supports the unsuccessful scenario by changing only one
relationship between variables (e.g. as when the teacher decides not to increase
his tendency to help the student when the student shows a decline in
performance). If the structure of the couplings is complex, the only way to find a
corrective mathematical solution to the problem is by analyzing the structure of
the network and by changing those relationships that occupy crucial positions in
the network. In a real-life situation, the only way of changing the network
structure is by analyzing the contingencies (e.g. what happens in the short run
with the students performance or with the students competence orientation if
teacher changes the intensity of his involvement with the student's schoolwork).
In some cases, the best way out of a complicated negative scenario is for the
teacher to just experiment with different ways of reacting to the situation, in the
hope that some of this variability will accidentally prove to be a solution for the
current impasse.
Although the set of connections among variables represented in this
example is typical of a negative scenario, of an unsuccessful learning-teaching
and underachievement trajectory, variations in the network of connections
among variables can generate a diverse range of patterns of over- as well as
under-achievement, which emerges over the long term in the form of
successful versus unsuccessful learning trajectories. A particular
(empirically) possible set of relationships between the variables in the network
corresponds with a particular individual student in a particular educational
context. That is, every individual in the population requires his or her own
254 NDPLS,
N 17(2),, Steenbeek & van Geert
ncratic network
idiosyn k model (Moleenaar & Campbbell, 2009). Too arrive at a moore
generall model, however, we can try y to find protootypical networrk structures thhat
stand for
fo particular ed
ducational sceenarios, such as scenarios foor unsuccessfuul
learnin
ng and scenarioos for very su uccessful learrning, like thee achievement of
high ex
xpertise or exceeptional talent (van Geert, Steeenbeek & vann Dijk, 2012).
Fig. 5. Example of an
a unsuccessfful learning tra
ajectory (or: an
n underachieviing
pattern) characterize
ed by a consttantly decreas ing performan nce level (outp
put
simulattion model).
DIISCUSSION
Potential Streng
gths of the CD S Approach
he CDS appro
In using th oach, includingg the use of conceptual aand
mic modelling of teaching-leearning processses, we aimed to
computtational dynam
demonstrate that approaching learning as a complex dynamic process with
specifiable model properties can yield fruitful insights. For instance, we
discussed the importance of moment-to-moment iterations in building up
students learning experiences, e.g. in interaction with the teacher during
instruction sessions in arithmetic lessons. The dynamic agent model for instance,
suggested that students learning concerns (the balance in autonomy-relatedness,
and competence concerns) were not fixed, but that their strengths changed
during and as a consequence of the ongoing interaction. In addition, it high-
lighted the dynamic interplay of both students and teachers concerns and emo-
tional appraisals in forming short-term positive or negative learning experiences,
e.g. during a particular arithmetic lesson. It was shown how not only the
students, but also the teachers level of balance in autonomy-relatedness con-
cern, and a sufficient level of competence concern dynamically constituted
teaching-learning processes.
In addition, the long-term model showed that there exist dynamic
relationships between the students and teachers concerns, emotional appraisals,
and the students performance level. These dynamic relationships can be
supportive or competitive, competing, and symmetrical or asymmetrical. We
demonstrated that particular patterns of relationships act as control parameters
producing emergent learning-teaching trajectories, such as unsuccessful or
underachievement trajectories.
Because the conceptual models of temporal trajectories, for instance of
an arithmetic lesson or of the development of arithmetic performance during the
school year, involve many, often mutual and nonlinear interactions between
many variables in the child or children and the teacher, it is not possible to infer
the trajectories predicted by such models on the basis of simple conceptual and
linear extrapolation from a verbal model. Dynamic models, which provide
formal descriptions of these conceptual models, make it possible to infer such
trajectories in a computationally explicit and controllable way. They can also
help researchers in making their conceptual models more complete and explicit,
because the simulations will not generate the expected temporal patterns if some
essential component is missing from the dynamic model.
The surplus value for educational practice is that a better understanding
of the dynamics of teaching-learning processes provides possibilities for better
advising about and coaching of optimal learning trajectories. The help given to
teachers with the aim of changing their actions during instruction sessions where
necessary or wanted will greatly profit from a better understanding of the tem-
poral stream of those actions. This understanding will help teachers to focus on
their actions as a teacher, and how these actions influence the student in his
learning, e.g. of arithmetic, in the here-and-now of arithmetic lessons (Steenbeek
et al., 2012). In addition, we hope to have shown that in order to intervene in
classroom situations, one has to start from understanding the concerns of both
teacher and students and the active ways teacher and students try to realize these
concerns, that is of the dynamical way in which student and teacher activities are
co-regulated processes. For instance, when the teacher uses more or less contin-
uous ratification to teach desirable behaviour patterns a practice we often
noticed in our observations of learning teaching interactions in special education
it is necessary to understand eventual nonlinear effects of ratification as a con-
sequence of the dynamics of basic concerns of teacher and student, instead of
treating ratification practice as an independent variable with a particular effect
size.
In summary, although various papers have suggested that our
understanding of teaching-learning and developmental processes can be
furthered by applying ideas from complex dynamic systems (see discussion on
the complexity movement in education), only very few have presented actual
dynamic models that go beyond verbal descriptions. In the present paper, we
have illustrated the possibilities of a short-term dynamic agent model on the one
hand and a long-term dynamic network model on the other hand. By doing so,
we hope to have demonstrated that it is at least feasible to construct such
models, that such models can be made to incorporate fundamental theory
regarding human concerns and teaching and learning, and that such models are
able to generate temporal patterns that show important qualitative similarities
with what we empirically know about the simulated phenomena.
Limitations and Future Steps
Further work needs to be done on completing the empirical picture of
possible educational trajectories that can emerge in individual students and their
teachers and educational contexts. If such models can be validated with empi-
rical datasets (e.g. Steenbeek et al., 2012), more complete pictures of possible
learning trajectories, and of how the social dynamics in the classroom contri-
butes to the long-term development of those trajectories, can be built.
Secondly, more work needs to be done in building dynamic simulation
models of teaching-learning processes, based on the general theory of action or
agent behavior on interacting time scales, and a general theory of mechanisms of
change, as described in this article. As mentioned before, the dynamic
simulation model is still work in progress (Section 2.3). In addition, it is
important to note that hypotheses derived from the model must still show their
validity in comparison with the empirical data. However, based on positive
results with validating our interaction model during play (Steenbeek, van der
Aalsvoort & van Geert, 2013; Steenbeek & van Geert, 2005, 2007, 2008), we
expect to show the validity of this model as it will be applied to concrete
instruction sessions. By iterating model building and empirical research based
on principles of complex dynamic systems, we might hope to find a way out of
limited linear explanations of the problems education is faced with in
contemporary society.
APPENDIX
Short-Term Model
The model has been written in Visual Basic for applications and runs
under Excel. The Excel file can be downloaded from
http://www.paulvangeert.nl/articles_appendices.htm; see the section complex
dynamic systems approach of learning-teaching trajectories. A WORD file with
the annotated visual basic code can also be downloaded from the same webpage.
The Excel file contains a short explanation of how the parameter values can be
determined and the model can be run.
The model generates a time series of two behaviors in two agents,
namely self-directed behavior (e.g. the child is working alone on his assignment)
and other-directed behavior (e.g. the child is trying to attract the teacher's
attention). If both agents, namely the child and the teacher are simultaneously
showing other directed-behavior, they are interacting (e.g. they are working
together on the child's assignment). The model generates a parallel series of
emotional expressions, which corresponds with the codes neutral, negative, or
positive, in addition to a numerical value of intensity, from -4 to +4.
The parameters concern the (one) preference for involvement versus
autonomy (doing something together versus doing something alone), the contri-
bution of the behaviors to serialize agent of the concerns, the relation between
emotional appraisal (the continuous evaluation of the extent to which the con-
cerns are realized), the contribution of emotional expression to the value of the
basic concerns involvement and autonomy, the strength of the non-intentional
parameters behavioral symmetry versus behavioral continuity, the duration of
the activity in seconds, the level of randomization, and finally the memory span
(the temporal duration for which the concern realization is monitored by the
agent). The parameters can be determined qualitatively in a graphical mode, but
can also be numerically adjusted in the parameter sheet.
Steps in the Calculation of the Agent Model
1. specify all parameter values
2. initialize the variables for the calculation of the model
3. run main routine (420 times, corresponding with 7 min. of interaction):
a. Step 1: calculate the preferred behavioral state (preferred proportion
of Involvement over Autonomy, I.E. Acting Together Versus
Acting Alone) on the basis of the current values of the concerns
b. Step 2: determine the value of the behavioral weights, i.e. the
weights associated with the behaviors Acting Alone and Acting
Together respectively, on the basis of the current value of the
corresponding drives
c. Step 3: add the influence of the non-intentional parameters of
behavior (Symmetry and Continuity) to the behavioral weights
d. Step 4: calculate the value of the random factor for both types of
behavior, and add the random factor to the behavioral weights (the
random factor is based on a model of a constrained random walk)
e. Step 5: select the behavior Acting Alone or Acting Together, on the
basis of the highest value of the behavioral weights
f. Step 6: determine the level of the realized behavioral state (i.e.
concern realization) following the selected behavior, by means of
the following substeps:
i. update the memory to cover the new level of concern
realization
ii. determine the influence of the selected behavior on the
realization of the concerns depending on the memory
iii. calculate the level of concern realization on the basis of the
memory
g. Step 7: calculate the strength of the drive on the basis of the
difference between the preferred behavioral state (see step 1) and
realized behavioral state
h. Step 8: calculate the emotion level on the basis of the drive
i. Step 9: calculate the emotional expression (positive, neutral,
negative) on the basis of the emotion level
j. Step 10: calculate the influence of the emotional expression on the
real-time value of the concerns (i.e. preferred behavioral states)
k. Step 11: return to Step 1
The model output is given in the form of a series of columns of output

codes (e.g. behavior Together, or behavior Alone) and a number of graphical
representations of the behavior, emotional expression, the levels of the involve-
ment versus autonomy concerns and the emotional appraisals of the two agents.
Long-Term Model
The Long-Term Model is based on a function written in Visual Basic
for Applications, which is running under Excel. The Excel file can be
downloaded from http://www.paulvangeert.nl/articles_appendices.htm: see the
section, Complex dynamic systems approach of learning-teaching trajectories.
The function iteratively calculates Eq. 2 in a series of 500 steps, simulating the
duration of a learning trajectory of a particular student (for example, the
duration of the learning trajectory is about three years, every step in the
simulation corresponds with two days).
The function calculates the change in five connected variables, namely
the teacher's in the student's competence concerns, the teacher's and the student's
relatedness concerns, and the student's performance level (e.g. arithmetic
performance as defined by the student's curriculum).
The function takes a number of arguments, specified in the form of
matrices in the Excel sheet. The arguments or parameters of the function are as
follows: the initial value of the variables, the rate of change of the variables (the
r parameter from Eq. 2), the carrying capacity parameter (K in Eq. 2), the limit-
ing parameter (C in Eq. 2), in the connection parameters specifying in the
dynamic link between the five variables (with five variables there is a total of 20
such connection strengths, since each connection is a directed relationship).
For each model run, all parameter values are updated by means of
random functions, taken from the Excel add-in Poptools. Parameter values can
also be adjusted manually.
The model is an adaptation of a 10 x 10 connected variable model, in
which five variables have been suppressed by setting their initial values equal to
zero. The structure of the relationships between five variables, including the
mathematical values of each relationship, can be extracted from the matrix of
connections by means of a macro. This list of relationships can be represented in
the form of a directed network by means of freely available software such as
Microsoft NodeXL.
ENDNOTES
1
Note that individual is used as a generic term, and does not necessarily refer
to a single person, but to the level at which a particular process actually occurs,
which can be an individual person, but also e.g. a specific class
2
For more information about the mathematical description of the properties,
such as iterativeness, we refer to van Geert and Steenbeek (2005, 2006).
3
In the present dynamic model the level of the students Competence concern is
treated as a fixed variable. Realization of this concern is served by the students
working on his arithmetic assignment alone as well as by his doing the
arithmetic assignment together with his teacher. In a more complex dynamic
model that is currently under construction, the competence concern will be
treated as a parameter that can be manipulated.
4
For details, see the associated web materials at the second author's website.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. Oxford, England: John
Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford, England: Prentice-Hall.
Bergin, C. & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology
Review, 21, 141-170.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A Perspective on
assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54,
199-231.
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., & Waldorp, L. J., der Maas van. (2010). Comorbidity: A
network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 137-150.
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., Schmittmann, V. D., Epskamp, S., & Waldorp, L. J.
(2011). The small world of psychopathology. PloS one, 6(11), e27407.
Brinbaum, Y, & Cebolla-Boada, H. (2007). The school careers of ethnic minority youth
inFrance; Success or disillusion? Ethnicities 7, 445-474.
Butler, D. L, Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004).
Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers' professional development.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435-455.
Butler, R., & Shibaz, L. (2008). Achievement goals for teaching as predictors of students'
perceptions of instructional practices and students' help seeking and cheating.
Learning and Instruction, 18, 453-467.
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Autonomy and self regulation. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 284-291.
Clements, D. & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 281-289.
Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1998). A constructivist perspective on the culture of the
mathematics classroom. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & U. Waschescio, The culture
of the mathematics classroom (pp. 158-190). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Cobb, P., Yackel, W., & Wood, T. (1998).The interactive constitution of mathematical
meaning in one second grade classroom: An illustrative example. The Journal
of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 469-488.
Colunga, E. & Smith, L. (2008). Knowledge embedded in process: The self-organization
of skilled noun learning. Developmental Science, 11, 195-203.
Cowie, H. & van der Aalsvoort, G. M. (2000). Social interaction in learning and
instruction: The meaning of discourse for the construction of knowledge.
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Pergamon / Elsevier.
Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Complex
realities require complex theories: Refining and extending the network
approach to mental disorders. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 178-193.
Crosnoe, R., Morrison, F., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Keating, D., et al. (2010).
Instruction, teacherstudent relations, and math achievement trajectories in
elementary school. The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research
Network; Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 407-417.
Cziko, G. (2000). The things we do: Using the lessons of Bernard and Darwin to
understand the what, how, and why of our behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2005). Challenging images of knowing: Complexity science
and educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 18, 305-321.
De Weerth, C., van Geert, P., & Hoijtink, H. (1999). Intraindividual variability in infant
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1102-1112.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R .M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future
directions. In E. L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.). Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 431-441). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
DePaepe, F., de Corte, E., & Verschaffel, L. (2006). The culture of the mathematics
classroom: a complex determinant of students learning. In J. Elen & R. E.
Clark (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: theory and
research (pp. 89-106). Oxford, Elsevier.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual
lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 20, 391-409.
Drnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and
learning environment. Language Learning, 59, 230-248.
Elliot, A. J & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation.
Educational Psychology Review, 13, 73-92.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of
achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139-156.
Fischer, K. W. & Granott, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Parallel,
concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development. Human
Development, 38, 302-314.
Flynn, E., & Siegler, R.(2007). Measuring change: Current trends and future directions in
microgenetic research. Infant and Child Development, 16, 135-149.
Fogel, A. (2009). What is a transaction? In A. Sameroff (Ed.). The transactional model of
development: How children and contexts shape each other (pp. 271-280).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of communication, self, and
culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (2001). The self and emotions. In H.A. Bosma & E.S. Kunnen (Eds.),
Identity and emotion: Development through self-organization (pp. 39-63). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert, N., & Troitzsch, K. G. (1999). Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Goldspink, C. (2007). Transforming education: Evidential support for a complex systems
approach. Transforming Education, 9, 77-92.
Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2004). Bridging the micro-macro divide: A new basis for
social science. Human Relations, 57, 597-618.
Gottman, J. M., Murray, J. D., Swanson, C. C.; Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. R. (2002). The
mathematics of marriage: Dynamic nonlinear models. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Granic, I & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial
development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101-
131.
Granic, I. (2005). Timing is everything: Developmental psychopathology from a dynamic
systems perspective. Developmental Review, 25, 386-407.
Granott, N. (2002). How microdevelopment creates macrodevelopment: Reiterated
sequences, backward transitions, and the Zone of Current Development. In N.
Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in
development and learning (pp. 213-242). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press
Grossen, M. (2009). Commentary. In K. Kumpulainen, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & M. Cesar,
Investigating classroom interaction: methodologies in action (pp. 263-276).
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Guanglu, Z. (2012). On the Recursion between Teaching and Learning. Complicity: An
International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9, 90-97.
Guastello, S. J. (2009). Group dynamics: Adaptation, coordination, and the emergence of
leaders. In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds), Chaos and
complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 402-
433). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Guastello, S. J., & Liebovitch, L. S. (2009). Introduction to nonlinear dynamics and
complexity. In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds), Chaos and
complexity in psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 1-
40). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hamaker, E. L., Dolan, C. V., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2005). Statistical Modeling of the
Individual: Rationale and Application of Multivariate Stationary Time Series
Analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 207-233.
Han, W. J. (2008). The academic trajectories of children of immigrants and their school
environments. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1572-1590.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development.
Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., Mcgee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The
Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special
Education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.
Howe, M. & Lewis, M.D. (2005). The importance of dynamic systems approaches for
understanding development. Developmental Review, 25, 247-251.
Immordino-Yang, M. H. & Damasio, A. (2008). We feel, therefore we learn: The
relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. In K. Fischer
(Introduction by) and M. H. Immordino-Yang (Introduction by), The Jossey-
Bass reader on the brain and learning (pp. 183-198). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Jrg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: A
generative, transdisciplinary approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Jrg, T, Davis, B. & Nickmans, G. (2007). Towards a new, complexity science of
learning and education. Educational Research Review, 2, 145-156.
Kaplan & Maehr (2006). The contribution and prospects of goal theory. Educational
Kello, C. T., Brown, G. D. A, Ferrer-I-Cancho, R., Holden, J. G., Linkenkaer-Hansen, K.,
et al. (2010). Scaling laws in cognitive sciences. Trends in cognitive sciences,
14, 223-32.
Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational
orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15, 381-395.
Krapp, A. (2007). An educational-psychological conceptualisation of interest.
International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 5-21.
Kumpulainen, K., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Cesar, M. (2009). Investigating classroom
interaction; methodologies in action. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kunter, M., Tsai, Y., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008).
Students' and mathematics teachers' perceptions of teacher enthusiasm and
instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18, 468-482.
Lajoie, S. P. (2008). Metacognition, self regulation, and self-regulated learning: A rose
by any other name? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 469-475.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lerman, S. (1998). Cultural perspectives on mathematics and mathematics teaching and
learning. In F. Seeger, J. Voigt, & U. Waschescio (Eds.), The culture of the
mathematics classroom (pp. 290-307). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Lewis, M. D. & Granic, I. (2000). Emotion, development, and self-organization:
Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. D. (2002). Interacting time scales in personality (and cognitive) development:
Intentions, emotions, and emergent forms. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.).
Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp.
183-212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lichtwarck-Asschof, A., van Geert, P., Bosma, H., & Kunnen, S. (2008). Time and
identity: A framework for research and theory formation. Developmental
Review, 28, 370-400.
Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R.M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-
based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational
Lunkenheimer, E. & Dishion, T. (2009). Developmental psychopathology: maladaptive
and Adaptive attractors in childrens close relationships. In S. J. Guastello, M.
Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: The
theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 282-306). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Malmberg, L. (2008). Student teachers' achievement goal orientations during teacher
studies: Antecedents, correlates and outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 18,
438-452.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure,
student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology,
57, 487-503.
Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System,
39, 427-436.
Meyer, D. K. & Turner, J. C. (2006). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn
in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 377-390.
Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. J. (2004). A model of future-oriented motivation and self-
regulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 9-33.
Minnaerts, A., Boekaerts, M., & de Brabander, C. (2007). Autonomy, competence, and
social relatedness in task interest within project-based education. Psychological
Reports, 101, 574-586.
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing
the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2,
201218.
Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific paradigm in
psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 112-116.
Mowat, E., & Davis, B. (2010). Interpreting embodied mathematics using network
theory: Implications for mathematics education. Complicity: An International
Journal of Complexity and Education, 7, 1-31.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Foy, P., Olson, J. F., Preuschoff, C. et al. (2008).
TIMSS 2007 International mathematics report: Findings from IEAs trends in
international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades.
Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston
College.
Murphy, P. K. (2007). The eye of the beholder: The interplay of social and cognitive
components in change. Educational Psychologist, 42, 41-53
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S.
J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89-105). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM
Review, 45, 167.
Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford UK: Oxford University
Press.
Newman, R. S. (2000). Social influences on the development of children's adaptive help
seeking: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Developmental Review, 20,
350-404.
Nolen, A. L.(2009). The content of educational psychology: An analysis of top ranked
journals from 2003 through 2007. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 3279-
3289.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R.
(2005). Research in Special Education: Scientific Methods and Evidence-Based
Practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137-148.
Papaioannou, A. G., Simou, T., Kosmidou, E., Milosis, D., & Tsigilis, N. (2009). Goal
orientations at the global level of generality and in physical education: Their
association with self-regulation, affect, beliefs and behaviours. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 10, 466-480.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational
Pol, J. v. d., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). Patterns of contingent teaching in
teacherstudent interaction. Learning and Instruction, 21, 46-57.
Powers, W. T. (1992). Living control systems II: Selected papers of William T. Powers.
Gravel Switch, KY: Control Systems Group.
Radford, M. (2006). Researching classrooms: Complexity and chaos. British Educational
Research Journal, 32, 177-190.
Radford, M. (2007). Action research and the challenge of complexity. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 37, 263-278.
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction: An inductive
model. Educational Psychologist, 44, 105-118.
Rothbart, M. K., & Jones, L. B. (1998). Temperament, self-regulation and education.
School Psychology Review, 27, 479-491.
Roussel, P., Elliot, A. J., & Feltman, R. (2010). The influence of achievement goals and
social goals on help-seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning and
Instruction, 21, 394-402.
Rowe, K., (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students
experiences and outcomes of schooling. Retrieved May 25, 2012 from
http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/3
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research:
Learning trajectories for young children. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance:
Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning:
Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 463-467.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Motivation and self-regulated learning:
Theory, research, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2003). Self-regulation and learning. In W. M.
Reynolds, W. M. Miller, & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Educational psychology, vol. 7 (pp. 59-78). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulating intellectual processes and
outcomes: A social cognitive perspective. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on
intellectual functioning and development (pp. 323-349). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2000). Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory,
research, and clinical foundations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shotter, J. (2005). Moving on by backing away. In G. Yancy, & S. Hardly (Eds.).
Narrative identities: Psychologists engaged in self-construction (pp. 150-171).
London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Siegler, R. S. (2007). Cognitive variability. Developmental Science, 10, 104-109.
Siegler, R. S., & Stern, E. (1998). Conscious and unconscious strategy discoveries: A
microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 127, 377-397.
Siegler, R. S. (1995). Children's thinking: How does change occur? In F. E. Weinert &
W. Schneider (Eds.), Memory performance and competencies: Issues in growth
and development (pp. 405-430). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a Mechanism for
Conceptual Learning: Elaborating the Construct of Reflective Abstraction.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 305-329.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and
future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-Based Education Policies: Transforming Educational
Practice and Research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21.
Slavin, R. E. (2008). Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education--What
Works? Issues in Synthesizing Educational Program Evaluations. Educational
Researcher, 37, 5-14.
Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment.
Developmental Review, 25, 278-298.
Sorsana, C. (2008). Developmental co-construction of cognition. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 5, 537-543.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Steenbeek, H. & van Geert, P. (2005). A dynamic systems model of dyadic interaction
during play of two children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
2, 105-145.
Steenbeek, H. (2006). Modeling dyadic child-peer interactions; Sociometric status,
emotional expressions and instrumental actions during play. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Groningen.
Steenbeek, H., Jansen, L., & van Geert, P. (2012). Scaffolding dynamics and the
emergence of problematic learning trajectories. Learning and Individual
Differences, 22, 64-75.
Steenbeek, H. W., van der Aalsvoort, D., & Van Geert, P. (2013). Collaborative play in
young children as a complex dynamic system; revealing gender related
differences. (Manuscript submitted for publication.)
Steenbeek, H. W. & van Geert, P. (2006). A theory and dynamic model of dyadic
interaction: Concerns, appraisals and contagiousness in a developmental
context. Developmental Review, 27, 1- 40.
Steenbeek, H. W. & van Geert, P. L. C. (2007). Do you still like to play with him?
Variability and the dynamic nature of childrens sociometric ratings.
Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 3, 86-10.
Steenbeek, H. W. & van Geert, P. L. C. (2008). An empirical validation of a dynamic
systems model of interaction: Do children of different sociometric statuses
differ in their dyadic play? Developmental Science, 11, 253-181.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of
cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Todman, J. B. & Dugard, P. (2001). Single-case and small-n experimental designs: A
practical guide to randomization tests. Mahwah NJ: Larewnce Erlbaum
Associates.
Uebersax, J. (2005). Statistical methods for rater agreement. Retrieved May 25, 2012
from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jsuebersax/agree.htm
Urdan, T. & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what
more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115-138.
van der Aalsvoort, G., van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2008). Possibilities and drawbacks
of microgenetic methodology related to research on learning and instruction. In
K. Kumpulainen, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, & M. Cesar (Eds.), Investigating
classroom interaction: Methodologies in action (pp. 203-228). Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
van der Maas, H. L. J., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M.,
& Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The
positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113,
842-861.
van Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth.
Psychological Review, 98, 3-53.
van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development; Change between complexity and
chaos. New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental
processes. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Conolly (Eds.). Handbook of developmental
psychology (pp. 640-672). London: Sage.
van Geert, P. (2008). Complex dynamic systems of development. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of complexity and system science, Vol. 2: Applications of physics
and mathematics to social science (pp. 1872-1912). New York, NY: Springer.
van Geert, P. (2009). Nonlinear complex dynamic systems in developmental psychology.
In S. J. Guastello, M. Koopmans, & D. Pincus (Eds.). Chaos and complexity in
psychology: The theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 242-281).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. & Van Dijk, M. (2013). A dynamic network model of
talent and excellence across the lifespan. (Manuscript submitted for
publication.)
van Geert, P. & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before; basic aspects of a
dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental
Review, 25, 408-422
van Geert, P. & Steenbeek, H. (2006). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in
Psychology, 23, 115-128.
van Geert, P. & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability; new tools to study intra-
individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development,
25, 340-374.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). Conceptual change and education. Human Development, 50, 47-
54.
Walton, E. J. & Wood, R. E. (1992). Self-regulation in organisational psychology.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 154-159.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivation for teaching. Learning and
Instruction, 18, 405-407.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations
concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2003). The effects
of self-regulation strategies on goal attainment for students with developmental
disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 15, 79-91.
Weisstein, E. W. (1999). CRC concise encyclopedia of mathematics. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Westermann, G., M. D., Johnson, M. H., Sirois, S., Spratling, M. W., & Thomas, M. S.
C. (2007). Neuroconstructivism. Developmental Science, 10, 75-83.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30, 1-35.
Woolfolk, A. (2008). What motivates teachers? Important work on a complex question.
Wortham, S. (2001). Interactionally situated cognition: A classroom example. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yun-Dai, D. & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative
perspectives on intellectual functioning and development. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-
regulation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-
regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 267-295).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic
achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.) (pp.
289-307). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
View publication stats

The Emergence of Learning-Teaching Trajectories in Education - A Complex Dynamic Systems Approach

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Emergence of Learning-Teaching Trajectories in Education - A Complex Dynamic Systems Approach

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

See

The Emergence of Learning-Teaching

Article in Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences April 2013

Henderien Steenbeek Paul van geert

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The Emergence of Learning-Teaching Trajectories in

Abstract: In this article we shall focus on learning-teaching trajectories

Fig. 1. An example off a state spacee describing the

Fig. 2. Causal interac ction loop betw

Fig. 4. Example of a result of one of o the simulateed interaction ttrajectories in tthe

LA is the variable in question, Mm are variables to which the target variable is

The model output is given in the form of a series of columns of output

View publication stats

Você também pode gostar