Decentralized Classrooms: How Spontaneous Order Can Help you Teach
In economic and evolutionary theory there is a concept generally known as spontaneous order. In very rough terms spontaneous order means that natural processes can and will give rise to complex systems. Specifically when discussing human behavior it postulates voluntary activities will create unimaginable, but still complex, order. For libertarians it is the concept of spontaneous order which, in part, offers a normative explanation for why markets should be given a place of primacy in policy making. It is this place of creation and destruction that allows a complex set of voluntary institutions known as the market.
The culmination of spontanious order is found in I, Pencil. I, Pencil is the autobiography of the common pencil and how nobody in the world knows how to make it — although it is seemingly so obivous. The process of manufacturing a pencil is hugely complex and diverse. Yet a complex infostructure arrose spontaniously and freely to allow the pencil to be manufactured. For more details you can read about I, Pencil or listen to a podcast about the subject more broadly.
I want to suggest that the concept of spontanious order might help professors (and others in education) create a more sophisticated classroom by, ironically, giving up a level of control over it. In short, I am proposing that you allow your classroom to take on its own organic order instead of trying to force a dictatorial path upon it and see what creative energies you might unleash. What might happen if you decentralize control?
The Issue of Proximity
When I suggest the idea of giving up control, many faculty are hesitate. They worry that the lack of conversations in their current lectures is part of the larger truth: “nobody will interact.” We have all been in that classroom. A professor pauses for a breath. As an afterthought he or she throws out a question. Students look up. They know a discussion is suppose to take place. People look to the left and right. They may turn around a chair. They chat about whatever the question is in a potentially superficial level. The professor then moves on to the next bit of class. For the students, at a fundamental level, it was the choice of seat which determined the interaction.
Students may end up having a pretty good conversation on the topic. They did the reading on Max Weber. They discuss the nature of the state. Another group either didn’t read or didn’t understand the reading. They talk about Kim Kardashian. No information flows between the groups. Good or bad the professor isn’t sure what the students did. The professor has no idea how to evaluate what has occured.
Further, even if the whole class is invovled, unless you are fortunate enough to be teaching eight students, there is the problem of scale. How can you offer a space where everyone can have a voice to be heard? Interaction in these instances offen devolves to the few loudest or most confident voices being heard repeatedly. Soon the dialouge that was desired is lost.
In the face of these issues many professors perfer to end the seemingly pedantic, poorly named, conversations for the more learning focused lecture. At least then someone, anyone, will be filling the silence. Knowledge will be imparted.
The Small Group Classroom
I think the situation described is actually a bit of a straw man. It ignores the possibility than in a different structure students might have better interactions with each other. So I return to the main point: what if we let students organize? What kind of spontaneous order might arise? I am not suggesting that we give up complete control over the classroom. What I am suggesting is that the classroom could benefit from, in part at least, student shaped. Shaped in ways that might never have occurred to the faculty member.
How then do you balance the issue of structure and spontaneous order? I would like to suggest that permanent small groups might be the solution. If professors, especially early on, create small groups, these students can bond. They can create their own order. They can be great places to get work done. They are also the perfect starting point for collaborative note-taking.
My suggestion is to put students into small groups (more than four less than seven). Give students a degree of choice about their group, but ultimtely create groups that have a level of hetergeniality. The goal is to create a small group with enough diversity to create meaningful, and cross-cutting, conersations. Then refocus class material so that work can be done within groups.
When it comes time for the entire class to interact, make each group pick a spokesperson (have it rotate). That way groups can have structured cross-talk, without the impossibility of having a large class all speak on a specific topic. Finally give students space to create a group that works for them. Give students some bounded choices.
The QUANTA Way
At Daytona State College our honors college is called QUANTA. It is built around the idea of collaboration. At it’s heart is the small group. We call these home groups. Let me describe how home groups have put the concept of spontaneous order into practice.
Home groups have their own individual tables where students sit in a circle. They are not led by an individual faculty member. Instead they are part of the larger class (which combrises upward of nine homegroups per class). Home groups are set up in the first week of class and they continue for the entirity of the semester. They are reconstituted each semester to give students a variety of perspectives. Eventually during their career a student will be in a home group with every other member of the class.
It is fascinaitng to see the orders emerge in QUANTA home groups. Some groups have clear leaders. Others are based on consensus. Some continue to meet outside of class for review. None of these things are required. They simply occur as students want. As students return each semester the complexity and self-awareness of the groups increases.
Professors now have a menu of options when interacting with the class. They can do work that is individual, they can have home groups focus on something collectively, or they can have the groups have cross interactions. We often try and build assignments to offer all three spaces a place during the day. Students need time to think about issues individually. Then students need a safe place to discuss those issues. Finally, they can present a more “finalized” view on the problem or issue to the class. Everyone has the oppertunity to be heard.
I have become a fan of this model of teaching. It clearly is benefitual to have students be a big part the classroom structure. It also seems key to get them interacting in meaningful ways. The typical classroom is just simply not equiped for this kind of interaction — especially the more common large classrooms that dominate the academy today. It is easy to implement and there are really no immediate barriers.
The model does come with challenges. The biggest shortcoming is hyperbonding. Students become empowered via their group and this gives them the psychological leverage to try and direct more of the class. That level of confidence requires faculty to be firmer in setting boundaries early. It also requires faculty make sure that those boundaries become part of the group norming process.
It can also be difficult as a professor to not be the person in focus. Student groups become the loci of focus — not professors. Removing oneself from that focus can give the psychological appearence of not teaching enough. The problem here takes time, but is not hard to understand: teaching and lecturing are two distinct things. It is just simply easy for the typical classroom professor to assume less lecturing means less learning (i.e. teaching).
At it’s base it also means that no two classes are alike. Different student groups will emerge. Some relationships last for a semester, others will go on for years. This is part of what makes the entire process so fascinating: letting students be part of the classroom creation process.
Small Groups and Your Class
In QUANTA we have implemented small groups and student led spontaneous order in our own way. Let me suggest that you think about how the concept might improve your own classroom. It might not start by reorganizing a class into small, student led groups. But think in big and small ways that you can change the fundamental power dynamic and allow students to have a meaningful part in the creation of the structure of the class. In short, consider some ways in which you might be comfortable putting students in charge. Consider the advantages of spontaneous order. Consider breaking your classroom’s power dynamics and see what kinds of fascinating things your students do next.
About the Author
Dr. Harold “Trey” Orndorff is an associate professor of political science at Daytona State College. You can learn more about him at his website or follow him on Twitter.
