Abstract

The education of children with congenital deafblindness presents unique challenges that necessitate innovative approaches. Distinguishing between complicated and complex systems can guide educators and caregivers in developing effective strategies tailored to each child’s individual needs. While complicated systems are predictable and linear, complex systems are adaptive, dynamic, and often unpredictable. This article explores complexity theory and its application to the education of children with congenital deafblindness. It also critiques the limitations of mechanical thinking and underscores the importance of adaptive, individualized educational methods in addressing the complex needs of these children.

Introduction

Children born with congenital deafblindness experience the world differently due to simultaneous impairments in both vision and hearing. These dual sensory losses significantly impact their ability to communicate, learn, and interact with their environment (Dammeyer, 2014). Traditional educational approaches, which often rely on linear progressions and predictable responses, may not effectively address the unique needs of these children. Understanding the distinction between complicated and complex systems is crucial in developing educational strategies that are responsive to the dynamic and individualized experiences of children with congenital deafblindness.

Pioneers such as Jan van Dijk and Anna M. Nafstad have advocated for educational approaches that align with complexity theory, emphasizing individualized and adaptive strategies for communication and learning (Janssen et al., 2003; Nafstad & Rødbroe, 1999). This article examines the differences between complicated and complex systems, explores their historical development, and provides practical guidance for educators and caregivers working with children who are congenitally deafblind.

Historical Background of Complexity Theory

The foundations of complexity theory are deeply rooted in the mid-20th century developments in systems theory and cybernetics. These interdisciplinary fields sought to understand the behavior of systems by transcending traditional reductionist approaches, where individual parts are analyzed in isolation. Instead, they promoted a holistic view, where the relationships and interdependencies within a system are crucial to understanding its overall function and behavior.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968), a pioneering biologist, laid the groundwork with his General Systems Theory. He argued that a system is more than the sum of its parts and that analyzing isolated components fails to capture the essential dynamics that emerge from the interactions between elements. Bertalanffy’s approach shifted scientific inquiry toward viewing systems as wholes, interconnected networks that could only be fully understood by studying their evolving properties, not just their individual elements.

Norbert Wiener (1948), another key figure, introduced the field of cybernetics, which explored control and communication mechanisms in both biological organisms and machines. Wiener’s work underscored the importance of feedback loops—self-regulating processes where a system’s output influences its future inputs. These feedback mechanisms are essential for understanding the adaptability of systems, particularly when distinguishing between complicated and complex systems.

While complicated systems, though intricate, remain predictable and governed by linear cause-and-effect relationships, complex systems are characterized by emergent behaviors that cannot be predicted solely from knowledge of their parts. Cybernetics emphasized how unpredictable outcomes arise in systems with nonlinear interactions, thus laying the foundation for the modern study of complexity.

These early insights into systems theory and cybernetics helped shape the contemporary understanding of complex systems, providing the intellectual framework for addressing the unpredictability and adaptability seen in various natural, social, and technological systems.

Complex vs. Complicated Systems

Complicated systems are characterized by numerous components that interact in predictable, linear ways. Such systems can be analyzed, understood, and controlled by dissecting their parts and understanding the rules governing their interactions. Examples include mechanical devices like clocks or engines, where each component has a specific function, and the system’s behavior is the sum of its parts.

Complex systems, on the other hand, involve components that interact in nonlinear, dynamic ways, leading to emergent behaviors that cannot be predicted solely from understanding individual parts (Mitchell, 2009). Examples include ecosystems, weather systems, and human societies, where interactions among components lead to unpredictable outcomes.

In the context of education, complex systems recognize that learning is influenced by a multitude of interacting factors, including individual cognitive processes, emotional states, social interactions, and environmental contexts (Byrne & Callaghan, 2014).

Application of Complexity Theory in Deafblind Education

Understanding Congenital Deafblindness as a Complex System

Children with congenital deafblindness represent complex systems due to the inter-environmental interactions. Their learning processes are dynamic and individualized, influenced by factors that may vary significantly from one child to another and even within the same child over time (Bruce, 2005).

Limitations of Mechanical (Complicated System) Approaches

Mechanical or complicated system approaches in education assume that specific inputs will result in predictable outputs. In the case of deafblind education, this might involve structured interventions with the expectation that consistent exposure to stimuli will yield uniform learning outcomes. However, such approaches often fail to account for the variability and unpredictability inherent in the experiences of children with congenital deafblindness (Hersh, 2013).

Mechanical thinking overlooks the complexity of how these children perceive and respond to stimuli, potentially leading to rigid and ineffective educational practices. It does not accommodate the nonlinear developmental trajectories, sensory variability, and emotional factors that significantly influence learning in this population (Dammeyer, 2014).

Embracing Complexity in Educational Practices

Adopting a complexity-informed approach involves recognizing the dynamic and emergent nature of learning in children with congenital deafblindness. Educators and caregivers must be flexible, adaptive, and responsive to the child’s cues, adjusting strategies in real-time to meet the child’s evolving needs.

Child-Guided Approach by Jan van Dijk

Jan van Dijk, a Dutch educator and researcher, developed the child-guided approach, which aligns with complexity theory principles (Janssen et al., 2003). This approach emphasizes the following:

• Following the Child’s Lead: Educators observe the child’s interests, behaviors, and signals, using these observations to guide interactions and learning activities.

• Building on Natural Motivations: By engaging with what naturally interests the child, educators can facilitate more meaningful and effective learning experiences.

• Dynamic Interaction: The educator and child engage in reciprocal interactions, with the educator adapting strategies based on the child’s responses. This method acknowledges the unique and evolving nature of each child’s experience, embracing the complexity inherent in their learning processes.

Co-Creating Communication: Anna M. Nafstad and Inger Rødbroe

Anna M. Nafstad and Inger Rødbroe developed the co-creating communication approach, which also embodies complexity theory in deafblind education (Nafstad & Rødbroe, 1999). Key aspects of this approach include:

• Reciprocal Interaction: Communication is seen as a two-way, dynamic process, where both the child and the communication partner influence each other.

• Emergent Communication: Instead of teaching communication through predetermined steps, communication emerges from shared experiences and mutual engagement.

• Adaptation and Responsiveness: Communication partners adapt their methods based on the child’s responses, facilitating the development of individualized communication systems.

This approach recognizes that communication development in children with congenital deafblindness is a complex, dynamic process that cannot be fully planned or predicted.

Practical Implications for Educators and Caregivers

1. Flexible and Adaptive Teaching Strategies Educators should adopt flexible teaching methods that can be tailored to each child’s unique needs and responses (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). This involves ongoing assessment and adaptation, allowing educators to respond effectively to the child’s cues and adjust strategies accordingly.

2. Emphasis on Relationships and Interaction Building strong, trusting relationships is fundamental in facilitating learning for children with congenital deafblindness (Nelson et al., 2009). Educators and caregivers should focus on creating meaningful interactions, recognizing the importance of emotional connection and mutual engagement in the learning process.

3. Individualized Assessment and Goal Setting Assessment practices should reflect the nonlinear and individualized nature of development in children with congenital deafblindness. Traditional metrics may not capture the progress or learning that occurs. Instead, assessments should be personalized, focusing on the child’s strengths, interests, and incremental achievements over time (Dammeyer, 2014).

4. Avoiding Mechanical Thinking Educators and caregivers should be cautious of mechanical thinking, which may lead to rigid practices that do not accommodate the child’s dynamic needs. Embracing complexity requires a shift away from expecting predictable outcomes and towards facilitating environments where learning can emerge naturally through interaction and adaptation (Hersh, 2013).

References

• Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools (3rd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.

• Bruce, S. M. (2005). The Impact of Congenital Deafblindness on the Struggle to Symbolism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120500252882

• Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. Routledge.

• Dammeyer, J. (2014). Deafblindness: A review of the literature. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42(7), 554–5562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494814544399

• Hersh, M. (2013). Deafblind People, Communication, Independence, and Isolation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(4), 446–463. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent022

• Janssen, M.J., Riksen-Walraven, M., & van Dijk, J. (2003). Contact: Effects of an Intervention Program to Foster Harmonious Interactions between Deaf-Blind Children and Their Educators. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0309700403

• Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.

• Nafstad, A., & Rødbroe, I. (1999). Co-creating communication: Perspectives on diagnostic education for individuals who are congenitally deafblind and individuals whose impairments may have similar effects. Nord-Press.

• Nelson, C., van Dijk, J., Oster, T., & McDonnell, A. (2009). Child-Guided Strategies: The van Dijk Approach to Assessment. American Printing House for the Blind.

• von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller.

• Wiener, N. (2019). Cybernetics: Or control and communication in the animal and the machine (Re-issue of the 1961 second edition). The MIT Press.