Chapter published in:
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development
Edited by Gary G. Fogal and Marjolijn H. Verspoor
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 54] 2020
► pp. 271–294

Chapter 11
Unpacking ‘simplex systems’

Curricular thinking for L2 writing development

| Sophia University
Following on Byrnes’ call (2018; this volume) to widen the scope of a complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) view of L2 writing, this chapter explores writing beyond the level of developmental processes. To do so, this work operationalizes ‘simplex systems’ (van Geert & Steenbeek, 2014) through an exploratory case study that examines how stakeholders in an English-medium actuary science program in a Thai university interpret the influence of different program-wide variables on developing L2 writing. Data underscore how structures of the program (e.g., the soft-assembly of orientations to time across constituent groups) benefitted all stakeholders. The findings help move L2 writing, CDST-related research in a new direction and demonstrate how exploring simplex systems can impact how writing development is envisioned, researched, and nurtured longitudinally through a curriculum.
Keywords: CDST, L2 writing, curriculum, development, system mapping
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Complex and simplex systems
    • A curricular frame for simplex systems
    • Uses of simplex systems and curricular thinking
  • The present study
  • Method
    • Background and context for the study
    • Participants
    • Instruments
    • Analysis
  • Findings
  • Discussion
  • Moving forward
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 04 June 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.54.11fog
References
Baba, K., & Nitta, R.
(2014) Phrase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N., Berninger, V. W., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., Murphy, S., Rowe, D. W., & Schleppegrell, M.
(2017) Taking the long view on writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(3), 351–360.Google Scholar
Berthoz, A.
(2012) Simplexity: Simplifying principles for a complex world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burns, A., & Knox, J. S.
(2011) Classrooms as complex adaptive systems: A relational model. Tesl-Ej, 15(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
(2005) Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language classroom. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied linguistics and language teacher education (pp. 235–259). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D., & Callaghan, G.
(2014) Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Byrnes, H.
(2018) Affirming the context of instructed SLA: The potential of curricular thinking. Language Teaching Research, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B., & Sumara, D.
(2006) Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ell, F., Haigh, M., Cochran-Smith, M., Grudnoff, L., Ludlow, L. & Hill, M. F.
(2017) Mapping a complex system: What influences teacher learning during initial teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(4), 327–345. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A.
(1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, G. G.
in press). Using thought modeling to describe Shakespeare studies in Ontario ESL secondary school programs: A complex dynamic systems theory approach. In A. Paran Ed. Shakespeare and the second language learner Bristol Multilingual Matters
(2019a) Tracking microgenetic changes in authorial voice development from a complexity theory perspective. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 432–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019b) Investigating variability in L2 development: Extending a complexity theory perspective on L2 writing studies and authorial voice. Applied Linguistics, 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, H. C., & Robins, G.
(2015) Network statistical models for language learning contexts: Exponential random graph models and willingness to communicate. Language Learning, 65, 929–962. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A.
(2018) Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A.
(2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H.
(2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 741–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Honig, M. I.
(2009) What works in defining “What Works” in educational improvement: Lessons from education policy implementation research, directions for future research. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of educational policy research (pp. 333–347). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huh, M-H., Lee, J., & Ha, H. S.
(2018) EFL writing development through repetition of a literature-reading-writing task. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 53–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, M.
(2014) Change, self-organisation and the search for causality in educational research and practice. Complicity, 11(1), 20–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kowch, E.
(2012) Towards leading diverse, smarter and more adaptable complex organizations. In J. Lewis (Ed.), Technology as a tool for diversity leadership: Implementation and future implications (pp. 11–34). New York, NY: IDEA Books.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/ acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2016) Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 377–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement 2019), 61–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., van Dijk, M., Chan, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2017) Finding the key to successful L2 learning in groups and individuals. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 7(1), 127–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, L., Ell, F., Cochran-Smith, M., Newton, A., Trefcer, K., Klein, K., & Hill, M. F.
(2017) Visualizing teacher education as a complex system: A nested simplex system approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 14(1), 36–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R.
(2016) Meaning matters: A short history of systemic functional linguistics. WORD, 62(1), 35–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, S.
(2018) Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher. Language Teaching, 51, 504–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milleret, M., & Silveira, A.
(2009) The role of evaluation in curriculum development and growth of the UNM Portuguese program. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 57–81). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Newell, G. E.
(2006) Writing to learn: How alternative theories of school writing account for student performance. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235–247). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nitta, R., & Baba, K.
(2018) Understanding benefits of repetition from a complex dynamic systems perspective. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning Language through task repetition (pp. 279–310). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M.
(2009) Foreword: Introduction to the volume. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 1–3). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., Davis, J. M., Sinicrope, C., & Watanabe, Y.
(Eds.) (2009) Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
(2007) Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28, 163–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, P. C., & Byrnes, H.
(2009) Curriculum, learning, and the identity of majors: A case study of program outcome evaluations. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 183–207). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M., & Shavelson, R.
(1996) Problems and issues in the use of concept maps in science assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 569–600. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sempere, A. G., Mohn, C., & Pieroni, R.
(2009) Improving educational effectiveness and promoting internal and external information-sharing through student learning outcomes assessment. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 57–81). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L.
(1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H.
(2014) The good, the bad and the ugly? The dynamic interplay between educational practice, policy and research. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 11(2), 22–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Varela, F. J.
(1999) The specious present: A neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In J. P. Petitot, F. J. Varela, B. Pacoud, & J-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 266–329). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W.
(Eds.) (2011) A dynamic systems approach to second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walther, I. C.
(2009) Developing and implementing an evaluation of the foreign language requirement at Duke University. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 117–138). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Zannirato, A., & Sánchez-Serrano, L.
(2009) Using evaluation to design foreign language teacher training in a literature program. In J. M. Norris, J. M. Davis, C. Sinicrope, & Y. Watanabe (Eds.), Toward useful program evaluation in college foreign language education (pp. 97–116). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Fogal, Gary G.
2021. System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 Crossref logo
Fogal, Gary G.
2022. System mapping simplex spaces: facilitating change in L2 educational contexts from a complexity theory perspective. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:1 ► pp. 103 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.