How Might Adult Constructive-Developmental Theory Support Design of Adaptive Learning? Cherry Stewart1 and Brenda Wolodko2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MIND, BRAIN, AND EDUCATION University Educator Mindsets: How Might Adult Constructive-Developmental Theory Support Design of Adaptive Learning? Cherry Stewart1 and Brenda Wolodko2 ABSTRACT— This article explores Robert Kegan’s academic developers to implement relevant processes lead- adult constructive-developmental (ACD) theory. We ing to mindful uptake of interactive digital tools for teaching compare these ideas to the way educators at each of in blended and online-only programs. At present, examples Kegan’s meaning-making levels might plan, implement, found in the professional development (PD) literature often and assess digitally enhanced teaching activities. Using take a one-size fits all approach replicating how educa- Drago-Severson’s interpretation of Kegan’s concepts, tors approach their own teaching. Despite declarations that the authors propose that behaviors of university teach- PD efforts are promoting, constructivist approaches many ing practitioners indicate mindsets evident at four ACD appear to be disguised forms of didactic and behaviorist levels—instrumental, socialized, self-authoring, and teaching in the hope that a new technique or technology self-transforming. Higher education professional develop- will resolve the complex challenges faced in the transition ment literature has identified a significant gap in practitioner from face-to-face teaching to blended or online only modes implementation of interactive strategies using digital tools. (Amundsen & Wilson, 2012). Why might this be so? It would If university practitioners increase their mental complex- be important to know how to support and challenge univer- ity they may become more adaptive in the application of sity educators as they transition from traditional face-to-face interactive pedagogies and digital technologies. Adaptive teaching into blended or online-only modes, particularly approaches might cultivate new pedagogies supporting and as technology makes these newer models more attractive challenging students toward more complex and flexible in complex educational environments. Adaptive approaches qualities of mind. seek to expand both the individual and the workgroup ability to make changes in an inventive and collaborative manner. Appropriately planned and implemented capacity building The purpose of this article is to examine Robert Kegan’s adult activities might support and challenge university educators constructive-developmental (ACD) theory and its relevance as they adjust their mindsets about the use of technology for to the mindsets of teaching practitioners in a university interactive teaching. setting. A comprehensive understanding of the theory and its implications to teaching practice might assist university COMPLEX MENTAL CAPACITIES OVERCOME 1Macquarie University SINGULAR MINDSETS 2University of New England Our use of “mindset” in this article refers to ways of thinking Address correspondence to Cherry Stewart, School of Education, Mac- quarie University, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie, New South and meaning making developed over time through contex- Wales 2109, Australia; e-mail: [email protected] tual interactions and personal relationships. These ways of Volume 10—Number 4 © 2016 The Authors. Mind, Brain, and Education published by International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 247 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. University Educator Mindsets thinking set our values and standards of judgment influenc- Constructing Our Perspectives ing how we make decisions (Lehrer, 2009). The mindset acts We begin the discussion of mental development and learn- as a filter, selectively shaping and limiting perceptions, cogni- ing with Kegan’s encompassing view of “mind,” “mental,” tion, and feelings, thus focusing attention on a particular line or “knowing” (1982, 1998) as more than a thinking process of action (Haager, Kuhbandner, & Pekrun, 2014; Mezirow, (cognitivism) or behavioral response (behaviorism). The pro- 1997). Process and product-focused activities are different cess of learning (mental development) is more than embod- traditions of engaging with information. They create differ- ied cognition (Osgood-Campbell, 2013) and the bringing ent pathways in the brain resulting in the creation of different together of the conscious mind and the living brain (Camp- mindsets (Dweck, 2012). Kegan’s stage-based ACD theory bell, 2011). “Knowing” is a personal internal construction links ways of thinking with levels of mental complexity and of a lived experience linked to emotional responses that we variable mindsets (1982, 1998; Kegan & Lahey, 2009). Based express to an external world. It is the mental construction on Piagetian concepts, Kegan’s theory extends into adult- (synaptic network) a person creates with the sum of their hood and emphasizes shifts in meaning-making capacity and biological, cultural, political, economic, and social experi- ways of understanding world phenomena. Kegan adopted ences (Zull, 2011) within the context of other “knowers.” Erikson’s perspective that a person has the “capacity to unify “Knowing” in this manner is contrary to “the notion that our his experience and his action in an adaptive manner” (as knowledge must somehow correspond to a world thought to cited in Kegan, 1982, p. vii). be [totally] independent of the knower” (Glasersfeld, 2000, ACD is receiving increasing attention and has been p. 2). applied to a variety of human activities. For example: public Kegan’s theory (1982, 1998) of adult meaning making is a school leadership (Drago-Severson, 2012; Wagner et al., relational theory that places the thinking and acting person 2005), policymakers (Rowson, 2012), counseling (Eriksen, within complex contexts. Our biological and social beings 2008), employee motivation (Bugenhagen & Barbuto, 2012), work together to make sense of the complexity of contempo- leadership (Helsing & Howell, 2014), cross-cultural capacity rary societies (Zull, 2011). The theory reduces the dichotomy development (Lindsley, 2011), and citizenry (Mezey, 2012). between “knowing” as either an internal construction or an However, we are unaware of studies applied to university external world to a relationship between these two philo- educators and their preparation or implementation of digital sophical perspectives. Based on the mental complexity the- technologies in teaching. This theory provides a framework ory, a capacity building framework might develop minds for how mindsets govern our decision making; and thus, as that are able to encompass contextual complexity. In Kegan’s university educators, how we might come to envision our words, “It is about the organizing principle we bring to our own development and thence our university teaching as thinking, our feelings and our relating to others and our relat- capacity building. ing to parts of ourselves” (1998, p. 29). Development Over a Lifespan KEGAN’S THEORY OF ADULT Our daily lives are ruled by concepts and how we respond CONSTRUCTIVE-DEVELOPMENT to them. Our concepts evolve through our lived experiences including formal and informal education—how we come The theory focuses on the structure and process of an to know what something is, how it operates, what it is individual’s meaning-making system. Three basic concepts for,whentouseornotuseit.Moreoftenthannot,these underpin this theory of increasing mental complexity: concepts are “taken-for-granted,” yet they evolve over our lifetime as we take on board new ideas and experience new 1Itoriginatesinconstructivistphilosophieswherewe events and relationships. We may be constantly changing our actively construct meaning from our experiences and understanding of them over time, or we may “set” a particular build a “self” through interpersonal pathways; perspective without realizing its impact on our thoughts and 2 It is developmental over time and throughout the whole actions (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). of life, relying on appropriate supports and challenges to achieve each level; and 3 It balances the relationship between “what we can take a Subject-Object Relationships perspective on (hold as ‘object’) and what we are embed- Kegan’s theory of increasing mental complexity incorporates ded in and cannot see or be responsible for (are ‘subject staged transitioning where “the deep structure of any princi- to’)” (Drago-Severson, 2008, p. 37). ple of mental organization is the subject–object relationship” (1998, p. 32). The process of changing one’s mindset is one The following three sections explain these three ideas in of managing to step outside a particular reactive point of greater detail. view (subject-response) to look at the phenomenon from a 248 Volume 10—Number 4 Cherry Stewart and Brenda Wolodko different perspective—as an object. “Subject refers to those elements of our knowing or organizing that we are identified with, tied to, fused with, or embedded in. We have object; we are subject. We cannot be responsible for, in control of, or reflect upon that which is subject” (Kegan, 1998, p. 32). Mindsets remain hidden from knowing. Forexample,weeachwouldhaveasubjectiveconceptof “university.” The concept has been compiled over time: what universities we might have attended, how they operated, what we liked about them, what we did not like. We would have absorbed