“Good grades pay off literally. Teachers have long said that success is its own reward. But these days, some students are finding that good grades can bring them cash and luxury gifts… Baltimore schools chief Andres Alonso last week promised to spend more than $935,000 to give high school students as much as $110 each to improve their scores on state graduation exams… The most ambitious experiment began in September, when seven states-Arkansas, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Washington-won spots in an Exxon/Mobil-funded program that, in most cases, pays students $100 for each passing grade on advanced placement (AP) college-prep exams.” (USA Today, 01/27/2008)

The above is just one example of how some educators have developed additional incentives to motivate their students in hopes of them increasing their performance in school. A majority of students have gone through educational systems in which such rewards are present, albeit not as extreme as in the example above. In such systems, money, student awards, honorary degrees or advanced placement opportunities aim to improve student performance and motivation toward meeting expected goals through increased competition. Some of these rewards may not be tangible: simple praise, public appreciation and positive feedbacks are examples of intangible or verbal rewards. Both tangible and intangible rewards are advocated and implemented by many educators. Today they constitute a crucial part of our educational system. The reasoning behind rewarding or praising students is simple: If one reinforces a behavior by bestowing a reward for it, it is believed that behavior is more likely to be developed and maintained by the recipients of the reward, but is this really the case?

Some psychologists, known as behaviorists, believe that human nature is utilitarian: behaviors are influenced by their consequences. The use of reinforcement and punishment to control and manipulate human behavior reflects this view. The former allows educators to increase the likelihood of a behavior, while the latter is employed to decrease its likelihood. They argue that one can improve and nurture a particular behavior through reinforcement. An educator with a behaviorist point of view, therefore, believes that learning can be achieved in part by reinforcing desired behaviors with rewards, medals, degrees, grades or praises.

Even though these concepts have been valued and applied widely by many educators for decades, there are some psychologists and educators that do not agree with the current use of either tangible or verbal rewards for educational purposes. Their reasoning is based in part on motivation theory. According to motivation theory, people are motivated by either extrinsic or intrinsic drives. Extrinsic motivation is defined as any reinforcement to support, develop or maintain a behavior provided by external conditions, such as rewarding a student with money or an award. Intrinsic motivation, in contrast, implies doing an activity for its own sake because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable. The most important distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation lies in their source: an internal (intrinsic) versus external (extrinsic) source of motivation. Money, praise, awards or promotions are examples of external motivators, which are used to nurture some behaviors, while inner willingness and ambition, are sources of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

There are educators who advocate motivation theory but disagree with the idea of rewarding their students since they believe that external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. As students are extrinsically rewarded, they are more likely to lose their intrinsic motivation to sustain their behavior. Empirical studies have shown that students who did not receive any tangible rewards previously will begin to associate their behavior to rewards they have been given, eventually leading students to neglect performing an activity for its own sake when there is no reward present.

Amabile, Hennesey and Grossman (1986) examined the influence of rewards and perceptions of activity on creativity. In their study, children were rewarded with the opportunity to take pictures with instant cameras after they completed a task requiring creativity. For young children this reward was pretty attractive. The perception of the activity was manipulated by calling the activity “play,” “work” or by not specifying its nature. They found that children with the perception of play but without the promise of a reward showed a higher degree of creative performance than other children who were promised a reward. It appears that the “label” of the activity and the existence of rewards influences the creative performance of children. Another phenomenon considered in this study was the variation of the children’s behavior in activities in which they were given choice and no choice at all. The authors showed that in activities where participants were not given options, rewarded participants outperformed non-rewarded participants while non-rewarded participants were superior to rewarded participants in choice situations. There were three educational implications discovered as a result of this study:

1. The way a teacher presents an activity or responsibility counts! The presentation of an activity as “play” is correlated with higher performance than if it is presented as “work” or if its nature is not specified.
2. Rewards may undermine activities requiring intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is important for creativity. Biographies of inventors show that inventions are the result of perennial attempts and thus require a high degree of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, educators need to think twice about whether rewarding their students encourages or suppresses creativity in a given situation.
3. Rewards are detrimental when people have intrinsically chosen to do something, but not necessarily when an action is required of them. This point leaves some room for rewarding students. A good portion of the educational curriculum might be outside of students’ interests. For those kinds of activities, rewards may work to motivate them to participate in these activities, however, if students choose an activity, and if they have already had the motivation to do it, rewards will most likely not improve their performance.

This study shows that educators need to answer the following three questions before deciding whether rewards should be used:

1. Do the students already have intrinsic motivation to complete this activity?
2. Did the students choose to complete this activity?
3. Has someone else already asked or encouraged them to complete this activity?

Another study by Mueller and Dweck (1998) revealed the influence of praise on performance. In a culture of appreciation, praise is expected to encourage people and motivate them to be more successful. This study questions whether praising students is necessary and how praise can affect students. The authors of this study designed six experiments to examine the effects of praise for intelligence and praise for effort and how they influenced the participants. The authors discovered that when praising students for their intelligence the students’ achievements and motivation were lower than those students who were praised for their effort. Children whose intelligence was praised cared more about performance goals while children whose effort was praised cared more about learning. Moreover, the students whose intelligence was praised displayed lower levels of task persistence and enjoyment, increased low-ability attributions, and worse task performance when they experienced failure than children praised for their effort. Another crucial result of the study concerns the concept of intelligence. The same group of students, who were praised for their intelligence, considered their intelligence to be a fixed trait whereas the other group considered it a flexible trait. While the first group (students who were praised for their intelligence) tried to look smart even by sacrificing learning, the second group (students who were praised for effort) attempted to learn new things even if doing so was difficult or risky. Another interesting result was in the discrepancy in performance between the two groups of students when they encountered difficulty in their tasks. The study found that the performance of the students in the first group was impaired in comparison to the second group whose performance increased.

Considering the controversy surrounding rewarding versus not rewarding, the authors of this study focused on the issue of “what to praise.” Praising some traits such as intelligence, ability or creativity might be detrimental for the traits’ continuity in students while praise for endeavoring towards utilizing their intelligence; creativity or any other ability appears to increase the likelihood of learning. This issue raises some serious questions about the current practices of gifted education. Today, most education systems in the United States and other countries “identify” gifted students through tests and other means of determining intelligence, some even group students in separate classes. These students are well aware why they are being treated in this way. In other words, the system itself is continuously providing implicit rewards for the students identified as gifted. From Dweck’s point of view, this policy would impair learning because the student’s performance is not rewarded, while their “intelligence” is.

Another important question raised in this study is the “appropriate time of rewarding.” In research by Kamins and Dweck (1999), the influence of praise and criticism was observed in several ways: when directed variously toward the person performing an activity, toward the process of the activity itself, and toward the activity’s outcome. In their research some of the participants were praised with “I’m very proud of you”; some as “That’s the right way to do it,” whereas others were told: “You found a good way to do it, can you think of other ways that may also work?” When these groups were compared, the researchers found that the process-praised group was superior in rating the products of their work in comparison to the outcome-praised group. It was also noticed in that participants that were members of the process-praised group had increased self-esteem and were more persistent than the other groups. Those findings were the same when criticism was used in place of praise. The lesson to take from this research is clear: we should provide feedback, praise or criticism, about the process rather than the person and the end product.

There are other side effects of rewarding students. When we reward, we actually teach two different things in a very subtle way. First, we teach the student to do something for the purpose of another thing rather than for its own sake. Second, we teach the student not to do anything for free. Both of these have important drawbacks: we kill their enthusiasm and intrinsic motivation because they have been given another reason to do their activities and we implicitly redirect their valuation to external things that then could cause them to undervalue the task itself. This means that they will no longer repeat the same behavior when the rewards are discontinued. There is a paradox here. On the one hand, behaviorist psychologists defined learning as an overt change in behavior. Since the behavior (or learning) fades away later along with the rewards, we cannot argue that rewards did make a permanent influence on behavior. On the other hand, by using these methods we teach students to be independent individuals who do not care about others. Especially in today’s conditions, when many jobless, homeless, and hungry people are trying to survive all around the world, self-centered individualism should not be the desired outcome of education. Infusing people with seemingly innocent notions of “money talks” or “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” might function as a rationale for unethical and socially irresponsible behaviors. Educators should not bolster a self-centered individualism by excessively rewarding students. Such rewarding may contribute to the kind of irresponsibility that allows for the kinds of unwise decisions that lead us to the current recession.

The overall point that I have advocated in this article is not an argument strictly against rewarding. Rather, knowing more about the individual, the conditions, and possible consequences related to rewards are vital for an effective education. How can this be achieved? An example is the treatment of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) toward a child who was making fun of the Adhan (the Muslim call to prayer). He approached one of them and praised one of them by saying, “What a beautiful voice that you have.” Caressing his hair, he continued by asking the boy “Would you mind to give the call to the prayer in the masjid with such a beautiful voice?” He took the child to the masjid and this child, known as Abu Mansura, later became a well-known muezzin (the individual who makes the Muslim call to prayer). This example stands as evidence of the importance of rewarding. On the other hand, in traditional Sufi thought, the purpose of praying and good works is not merely entering Heaven or avoiding Hell, instead, acquiring the acceptance and approval of God is seen as the ultimate goal for a person. Such a purpose may not apply to everyone, because the majority of people may need a tangible reward to do something, just like majority of students want to achieve a certain goal primarily in order to gain rewards, however, higher levels of spirituality can be developed toward an overarching goal that can be achieved by only a select few. Therefore, these two examples do not in fact conflict. The messages derived from educational and psychological literature, as well as religious teachings, seems to converge, even though rewards may help most people to perform better, rewarding is not helpful and even detrimental to a minority group of people who already display high levels of motivation and ambition to achieve.

As a result, rewarding is not necessarily helpful or detrimental. Educators should give up applying their ready-made methods to all students. Ideally, intrinsically motivated students should not receive external rewards because this would switch their focus to material prizes. When needed, educators should try to provide feedback directed toward the process rather than the outcome or the person. Also, they should foster student’s efforts rather than their ability. The decision about rewarding should be based on knowledge regarding the person to be rewarded, the target or direction, and even the timing of the reward. Otherwise, for some individuals the rewards might produce an effect diametrically opposed to its intended purpose.

References

• Skinner, B. F. 1953, Science and Human Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
• Kamins, M. L. & Dweck, C. S. 1999. “Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping.” Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
• Mueller, C. M. and Dweck, C. S. 1998. “Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
• Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
• Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A. & Grossman, B. S. (1986). “Social Influences on Creativity: The Effects of Contracted-For Reward.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 14-23.

Gifted education involves several procedures such as testing, identification and tracking students to challenge their potential to the fullest. Initially, students take several tests including tests of intelligence, creativity, and motivation and must perform well enough to get into a gifted program. Following this testing, they have a label that they and others know quite well, gifted. Frequently, this means grouping them separately from their non-gifted peers. Accordingly, they follow a different curriculum, and attend different programs that are not available to others. Also, some practices that often occur when teaching or interacting with gifted students, such as a teacher’s or parent’s praise, convey direct and hidden messages. These messages, in essence, consistently remind them of how superior they are. Ultimately, they are taught to enjoy their superiority with a minimal or no clue about being virtuous. Most educators pay a great attention to increase their self-esteem while they were indifferent for the possibility of arrogance and conceit. Nevertheless, the “privilege” of being in the top 5 or smaller percent dramatically shapes the identity of the gifted individual from early ages. With the self–esteem enhancement movements in 80’s, the importance of humility as a significant virtue has been ignored among educators. They mostly perceived lack of self-esteem as a big problem whereas lack of humility was rather acceptable. However, potential of the gifted individuals, like any other person, deserves a more gracious treatment that regards them as human beings rather than better human resources for the nation and economy.

Corollary to the deficits in educators’ approaches to the gifted individuals, their emotional and moral development have been omitted. When one searches the studies on the development of positive moral characteristics of the gifted, such as, humility, there is almost no study on those issues. Humility in itself is a crucial virtue for several reasons. First, humility allows gifted individuals to recognize that they cannot control everything in every situation. Their superior abilities compared to their peers become a huge burden because others and their own expectations about themselves are mostly quite high. Failures and unexpected academic performance are less tolerable for the gifted. Crucially, humble gifted individuals can successfully handle challenging situations because their moral development valuing humility functions as a buffer zone and make them more resilient against challenges of life. People can have a more realistic view of themselves as long as they are well aware of their real inadequacies.

Vera and Rodriguez-Lopez (2004) pointed to the positive role of humility on competition in the organizations. They argued that fear of failure impedes people from taking initiative and humility helps people to reduce their fear of failure with the premise that people with no experience of failure are unlikely to try again. Secondly, humility helps gifted individuals to have a better and more realistic understanding about one’s self. Humble gifted people can realize their own weaknesses. This is also important for the gifted because very few people criticize them while many others praise their ability. In such a social climate, a true understanding of oneself is not an easy task. Thirdly, humble people can empathize with others easily. Gifted individuals mostly have concerns for others and have a keen moral sensitivity. However, feeling of superiority can hurt their healthy relationships with others; thus, other people become less likely to enjoy being together with them. Humble people have an increased valuation of others without a decrease in their valuation of themselves (Means & Wilson, 1990), and, thus, the need for humility is even more important for the gifted individuals.

Humility represents a major dilemma of gifted education: Although several procedures, facilities and resources are developed and implemented for the gifted, they inherently trigger a grandiosity effect. As a result of that, usual practices in the gifted education seem to nurture a less realistic view of self which is not less dangerous than the lack of self-esteem. Unfortunately, educators tend to ignore the presence of the dilemma and insist on particular practices without pondering upon the potential damages. What kinds of precautions can be taken to raise humble gifted individuals? What other messages should be given to them? Among many possible methods to overcome this problem, the following recommendations can be taken into consideration in educational and psychological practices.

1. Giftedness as a responsibility

Conceptualization of the giftedness needs fine-tuning. Traditional perspectives that seek the differences between gifted and non-gifted individuals have created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Gifted individuals have been marginalized and alienated. So-called unrealistic perception of giftedness has led to a perception of “superiority” over others. Remarkably, giftedness, as a concept, implies being the one who was awarded with some qualities which other people do not have. The concept also implies the passivity of the gifted because he was given, not necessarily because he deserves it. Corollary to this, gifted individuals should be taught about the responsibilities along with the gifts. Unlike the current practices, educators should emphasize the individual and social responsibilities corresponding to giftedness.

Individual responsibilities of the gifted individuals are related to the importance of realizing their personal strengths and skills and investing for their potential appropriately. In educational context, many gifted students tend to take the classes easy and pay attention to other “more interesting” things. They tend to make no effort beyond what the classes require, and their potential is not challenged. Individual responsibility defined as fulfillment of one’s own potential should replace externally defined responsibilities which are neither challenging nor motivating for the gifted.

Social responsibilities are critical for the gifted individuals because their potential can lead to both positive and negative changes at the societal level. Many scientific innovations facilitating our lives today are the gifted minds’ contributions to human beings. On the other hand, they could have devoted their potential to harmful innovations, too. The gifted individuals, therefore, are those who can build the civilizations with all advanced systems of technology, transportation and communication, and destroy them with mass destruction weapons, such as atom bombs. Employing the strengths and capacities to the benefit of human beings should be set as a basic goal for the gifted individuals.

2. Importance of effort over ability

Overemphasis on abilities and consideration of abilities as fixed traits tend to block gifted individuals. If people think that they possess a superior capacity and this is more or less stable, they may have difficulty in making for their goals. They often compromise their high ability with less effort that may result in underachievement and dropouts. The importance of effort and struggle over ability and performance should be integrated to the educational system.

Valuation of effort can be achieved through differentiating the curriculum for the gifted students. For example, the research indicate that easy learning materials and having a better standing in the class with respect to school achievement lead to ability attributions while mental effort and task commitment induce effort attributions (Dweck, 2006, Nicholls, 1978; Schunk, 1994). That means students tend to attribute the achievements to their abilities in easy tasks while they tend to attribute their performance in hard tasks to their hard work. Preparing the curriculum at an appropriate level of difficulty, by which students can be challenged but still can comprehend the content with some effort, should be a major task for the educators. In this way, the frame of reference for the gifted becomes the degree to which they struggle toward their goals rather than the gifts, capacities and strengths they possess.

3. Learning goals instead of performance goals

Goal setting is a crucial aspect of the education of the gifted people. Goal setting is influenced by the way educators assess student performances. There has been a tendency to evaluate school performance through objective, psychometric measures. Even though those measures are more reliable, the information gained from those measures are restricted, comparing the gifted with their counterparts instead of indicating the level at which the gifted fulfill their potential. Learning goals which can be set through individual projects should be the focus of evaluation rather than performance goals which tend to reduce the evaluation to the numbers. Learning goals also seem to be safer for the gifted since it focuses on the discovery of strategies that lead to desired outcomes whereas performance goals tend to have deleterious effects as people are preoccupied with the end result. Therefore, a third task for the educators is to preserve the gifted students from the detrimental effects of mechanical measurement of the performance. In this way, students have criterion set at their own pace for their success rather than external criteria set by others.

The above suggestions, which can be the basic steps of the fundamental changes in the system, can be further enumerated. The dilemma with the gifted education mentioned above is institutionally induced; therefore, the solutions should be addressed at the institutional level. By virtue of those changes in the educational settings, the programs for gifted education can become more individual-based and less mechanical, ultimately caring more about the critical human virtues such as humility. The political developments helped the gifted education programs to blossom, but it brought some side-effects. Educators must see those gaps and generate solutions that care about the gifted individuals.

References

• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
• Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814.
• Schunk, D. H. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attribution in academic settings. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Vera, D. & Rodriguez-Lopez, A. 2004. Strategic virtues: Humility as a source of competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 4: 393-408.

Chaos Theory

Over the last fifty years Chaos Theory has evolved as a new science which assumes that the natural order is irregular, discontinuous and erratic (Gleick, 1987). Newtonian physics implies that there is a rational order to everything, that we can predict the events of any system if we are able to plug in enough variables. The idea behind “chaos theory” is that we can predict what systems might do, but we cannot be sure. Everything exists as a series of possibilities.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century several other sciences have evolved that have sought to solve the problems in prior models. For example, the theory of relativity eliminates the illusion of absolute time and space. Quantum mechanics eliminates the Newtonian dream of controllable measurement processes, as well as the fantasy of deterministic predictability. Chaos theory, the third new science, embraces irregularity as a norm. Scientists from different fields have begun to observe the regular patterns within the irregularity of the natural world.

In the old views of nature, notes Gleick (1987), it was held that simple systems behave in simple ways while complex systems imply complex causes. In the new view, it is believed that simple systems give rise to complex behaviors and complex systems give rise to simple behaviors (Snyder, 1995).

The new science of chaos centers around two points. The first is the exploration of the hidden order that exists within the chaotic systems. The second is the study of how self-organization emerges from chaos (Hayles, 1990).

The three principal conditions for a chaotic system are: (1) that it operates in a non-linear way; (2) that it is iterative (the output of one cycle becomes the input of the next); and (3) that small variations in initial conditions lead to large differences in outcomes. Many systems within educational organizations appear to meet these conditions (Cunningham, 2000).

The concepts of chaos theory can explain the way schools work. For example, teachers do not exist as separate entities, but are affected by the relationships that exist within schools. It may also shed some light on how we can deal with and understand how things in our classrooms, schools, and entire communities are interrelated and all reflect in some manner upon each other.

There are several aspects of chaos theory such as nonlinearity, complexity, butterfly effect, fractals and feedback mechanisms that may have significance for educational settings.

Nonlinearity

In a linear system there is a simple cause and effect relationship; A causes B which causes C, and so on. However, a chaotic system is nonlinear. A may not necessarily cause B at all times. Lots of variables come into play and interact with each other. School systems look like nonlinear chaotic systems, too. In school district A, the purchase of new computers might have a positive impact on student achievement, while in school district B, this might bring little or no gain in student achievement.

It is widely believed that experienced teachers have better classroom control. If you have a veteran teacher in a classroom, you will have an orderly environment and the administrators, thinking in a linear way, might believe that the more veteran teachers in a building, the more orderly the environment will be. That might not be the case in every school district, especially in urban schools; there are instances where young and inexperienced teachers contribute positively to the school environment much more than veteran teachers.

Complexity

Chaotic systems take complex forms, making their precise measurement difficult if not impossible (Glickman, 2001). Different measurement instruments have been put in place to evaluate and compare the performance of a school. However, due to the complex nature of schools, none of these assessment methods seem to measure precisely the school performance and have very limited validity for the following reasons (Cunningham, 2000):

• The prior achievement of pupils is not taken into account and this is a major factor in pupil achievement at a later stage.

• Schools are differentially effective in different subjects and with pupils of different ability, which is not reflected in a single figure.

• Schools change over time; however, the achievement data used reflects only one group and is essentially historical data.

• Student mobility between schools is not reflected in the assessment.

• Social factors, sex of students, ethnic origin and social background are not taken into account. These factors are out of the school’s control.

Therefore, assessing school performance and comparing one to another have become increasingly difficult given the complex nature of today’s schools.

The Butterfly Effect

The butterfly effect means that a small and seemingly unrelated event in one part of a system can have enormous effects on the other parts of the system. Theoretical meteorologist Edward Lorenz made the term ‘butterfly effect’ famous when he argued that a butterfly stirring its wings in Bejing today could unleash powerful storms in New York city next month. One implication of sensitive dependence on initial conditions is the impossibility of predicting not only next year’s weather, but the long term future of any chaotic system (Glickman, 2001).

In terms of school improvement, what we understand from the butterfly effect is that it is impossible to predict the long-term effects of school improvement efforts. Planning in a chaotic system like a school should be medium range (one or two years) rather than long range (five to ten years). Formal planning in an unpredictable system needs to focus on process rather than product with the goal of producing “a stream of wise decisions designed to achieve the mission of the organization” (Patterson, Stewart and Purkey, 1986).

The butterfly effect ensures that no lesson will ever go completely as planned, or have the same effect on any two students. It indicates the need for teacher flexibility in teaching, as well as the need for individual attention to students, each of whom is experiencing a given lesson within his or her own personal context (Glickman, 2001).

Fractals

A fractal is a geometric shape that is similar to itself at different scales. Mid-sized branches of a tree are remarkably similar in shape to the larger branches from which they come. Smaller branches, in turn, are the same shape as the mid-sized branches from which they come, and so on.

Through work with fractal generations, it has become apparent to scientists that predictability does exist (known shapes re-appear), and randomness plays an important and unexpected role. What has been learned is that, within chaotic and seemingly unpredictable systems, structures of order exist through which the system recreates itself.

Complex social systems can also reveal self-similarity on different scales: at each level of the system, specific patterns of organization and culture reappear. Like fractals in nature, schools reveal self-similarity in different scales. For example, a school-wide staff development day, a department meeting, a classroom lesson, and a halfway interaction between a teacher and student might all reveal the same cultural characteristic. Thus, reflective inquiry at the school, team, classroom and individual level can help educators better understand their school culture, change needed, and pathways to improvement (Glickman, 2001).

By being reflective practitioners, teachers can develop their teaching skills, acquire more insightful experience in their fields and learn to look at problems from a different perspective. They also understand their weaknesses, areas of strengths and recognize the repeating patterns of their teaching styles.

Feedback Mechanisms

Chaotic systems contain feedback loops enabling outputs to feed back into the system as input. Feedback can bring stability or turbulence to a system. For example, a thermostat is a feedback mechanism that causes temperature stability. Conversely, when the sound from a loudspeaker feeds back through a microphone, it is rapidly magnified to create a disruptive shriek (Gleick, 1987). Feedback can also cause a system to move toward greater levels of complexity.

Feedback in schools can take the form of student performance data, survey results, quality circles, third party reviews, and so forth. The important thing is that meaningful data on the results of change efforts be made available to teachers, and that they be given opportunities to reflect on the data and redirect their change efforts accordingly.

With all the unpredictability present in classrooms, beneficial feedback is critical for both teachers and students. For teachers, student performance data, direct student feedback, and classroom observation data can all assist them to improve classroom instruction. For students, feedback on their cognitive and affective performance-from teachers, parents, and peers-is an essential part of the learning process. The fact that in chaotic systems like classrooms output becomes input means that the artificial distinctions we often draw between learning and assessment need to be removed: in reality, learning and assessment cannot be separated (Glickman, 2001).

Conclusion

The deterministic view of education that schools are simplistic, cause-effect systems which can be easily manipulated, quantized and controlled is not addressing the problems of today’s schools. From an alternative perspective, chaos theory gives us an understanding that the things we consider unimportant or trivial in our daily lives might have an equal weight in terms of affecting the results as the things we consider important. Just as it is characterized in the Qur’anic teaching that every minute thing or action is recorded in a Book regardless of its proportion. “Whatever your preoccupation (O Messenger), and whatever discourse from Him in this (Qur’an) you may be reciting, and whatever work you (O people) may be doing, We are certainly witness over you while you are engaged in it. Not an atom’s weight of whatever there is in the earth or in the heaven escapes your Lord, nor is there anything smaller than that, or greater, but it is (recorded) in a Manifest Book” (Yunus 10:61). It further suggests that everything we do has a significant impact on us, our communities and ultimately society as a whole.

In conclusion, chaos theory has the potential to offer deeper understanding of how today’s schools function in an ever changing world of our times.

Aydin Kara is a graduate student at University of Dayton. He studies educational leadership and administration. He can be reached at aydinkara33@hotmail.com.

References

• Cunningham, R. 2000. Chaos, Complexity and the study of Education Communities. Institute of Education.
• Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
• Glickman, Carl D. 2001. Supervision and Instructional Leadership: Allyn and Bacon
• Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Patterson, J. L., Purkey, S. C., and Parker, J. V. 1986. Productive school systems for a nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.