Why complexity informed learning theories are important for Autistic learners

It is commonly acknowledged that autistic individuals are monotropic thinkers. Monotropism is an interest-based way of thinking about autism, and this way of thinking about autism has been developed by autistic autism researchers (Murray et al., 2005, p. 140). Monotropism explains the tendency of autistic individuals to focus their attention on a single or narrow number of interest areas with a high level of concentration. On average, autistic individuals spend 26 hours per week on their monotropic interests (Kirchner & Dziobek, 2014), and due to their monotropism, autistic individuals often have a high level of knowledge and skills in their areas of interest (Wood, 2021, p. 39).

While engaged in an interest area, autistic individuals can enter into a state of concentration so focused that it amounts to absolute absorption in an activity (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 1). Achieving a flow state can have a positive impact on individual’s happiness and their wellbeing (Milton, 2018). In addition to reducing stress, it can enable autistic individuals to gain a sense of achievement in their areas of interest as they are able to accumulate huge datasets of facts relevant to their interest areas (Murray et al., 2005; Wharmby, 2022; Grandin, 2013).

Education programs that are based on complexity informed learning theories are well suited to supporting the monotropic thinking style of autistic learners. A complexity theory approach to learning sees disciplinary boundaries dissolve with the focus becoming connections among areas of knowledge rather than the areas of knowledge themselves (Morrison, 2008, p. 21). The complexity-based curriculum is less concerned with the content of the curriculum and how it is presented and more concerned that the curriculum enables the emergence of new worlds for the learner (Osberg et al., 2008).

Connectivism and navigationism are two education theories that are based on complexity theory (Hase and Kenyon, 2007, p. 113; Mcloughlin and Lee, 2008; Brown, 2006, p. 116). Connectivism focuses on developing competencies in learners to help them see connections between information such as events and ideas so they can distinguish between important and unimportant information (Mcloughlin and Lee, 2008, p. 644). Connectivism acknowledges information may be quickly rendered out of date (Mcloughlin and Lee, 2008, p. 647) and therefore considers continual learning by making and sustaining connections between information to be more important than just simply knowing information (Mcloughlin and Lee, 2008, p. 644). Connectivist learning activities focus on learners connecting to current and accurate information (Siemens, 2005, p. 7). Other key principles of connectivism include: both learning and knowledge are based on a diversity of opinions, the capacity to know more has greater importance than what is already known, and decision making is a learning process in itself as the information on which decisions are made is continually changing (Siemens, 2005, p. 7).

Navigationism focuses on knowledge creation and the ability to navigate knowledge (Mcloughlin and Lee, 2008, p. 644). Skills and competencies required for navigationism include: the ability to make sense of information; knowing where and how to find relevant and up-to-date information; knowing how to manage, analyse, synthesise, reconfigure and represent information; knowing how to distinguish between diverse yet valid views and flawed information; and the ability to communicate and network in order to effectively participate in communities of practice and communities of learning and meaningfully contribute to their knowledge production (Brown, 2006, p. 116).

References

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The psychology of optimal experience, Harper and Row., New York, NY.

Grandin, T. (2013), “Temple Grandin: What’s right with the autistic mind” Time, 7 October, available at: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2153096-1,00.html, (accessed 14 December 2023).

Kirchner, J. C., and Dziobek, I. (2014), “Towards successful employment of adults with autism: A frst analysis of special interests and factors deemed important for vocational performance”, Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, Vo. 2 No. 2, pp. 77–85. https://doi.org/10.21307/sjcapp-2014-011

Milton, D. (2018), “The double empathy problem: salience and interpersonal flow”, PARC Fringe, 8-9 Nov 2018, Glasgow, available at: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/74106/1/PARC%20fringe%20-%20DEP%2C%20salience%20and%20flow.pdf (accessed 7 January 2024).

Murray, D., Lesser, M., and Lawson, W. (2005), “Attention, monotropism and the diagnostic criteria for autism”, Autism : the International Journal of Research and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.139–156.

Wharmby, P (2022), What I Want to Talk about: How Autistic Special Interests Shape a Life, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.

Wood, R. (2021), “Autism, intense interests and support in school: From wasted efforts to shared understandings”, Educational Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp.34-54.

Brown, T.H. (2006), “Beyond constructivism: Navigationism in the knowledge era”, On the Horizon, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 108-120.

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007), “Heutogogy: A Child of Complexity Theory”, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 111-118.

Mcloughlin, C. and Lee, M.J.W. (2008), “Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change”, in Atkinson, R. and McBeath, C., Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008, Deakin University, Melbourne, pp. 641-652.

Morrison, K. (2008), “Educational Philosophy and the Challenge of Complexity Theory”, in Mason, M. (ed), Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, Blackwell Publishing, Sussex, pp. 16-31.

Osberg, D., Biesta, G., and Cilliers, P. (2008), “From Representation to Emergence: Complexity's challenge to the epistemology of schooling, Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 213-227.

Siemens, G. (2005), “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”, International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, Vol 2, No. 1, pp. 3-10.