- HTML Translated Version -

 

Educational Theory from the Paradigm of Complexity to form Critical and Complex Thinking

 

Author: Ángel Yasmil Echeverría Guzmán

Universidad Latinoamericana y del Caribe, ULAC

angelecheverria71@gmail.com

Caracas, Venezuela

 

Abstract

The Present Test has as objective consider the need from an educational theory that is seen from the complexity paradigm for the formation of critical and complex thinking. In order to achieve this, in starts, at first, with a historical exploration of the epistemological problem, starting with the pre-Socratics and ending with the twentieth first-century psycho-pedagogues. Then, the emergence of critical theory is taken into account and how it influenced the need to create critical thinking within the social and educational system; and finally, the paradigm of complexity is taken into account since from Edgar Morin, and how this perspective considers the formation of complex and critical thinking in the contemporary educational process necessary.

 

Keywords: educational theory; thinking; epistemology.

 

 

 

Teoría Educativa desde el Paradigma de la Complejidad para Formar Pensamiento Crítico y Complejo

 

Resumen

El presente ensayo tiene como objetivo considerar la necesidad de una teoría educativa que sea vista desde el paradigma de la complejidad para la formación de pensamiento crítico y complejo. Para lograrlo se parte, en un primer momento, de una exploración histórica del problema epistemológico, teniendo como inicio a los presocráticos y terminando con los psicopedagogos del siglo XXI. Luego, se toma en cuenta el surgimiento de la teoría crítica y cómo influyó en la necesidad de crear un pensamiento crítico dentro del sistema social y educativo; y por último, se tiene en consideración al paradigma de la complejidad desde Edgar Morín, y como ésta perspectiva considera necesaria la formación del pensamiento complejo y crítico en el proceso educativo contemporáneo.

 

Palabras clave: teoría educativa; pensamiento; epistemología.

 

 

 

1.    Introduction

From the historical perspective, it can be said that the human being is a being that constantly lives transforming himself and in turn transforming his thought and his environment. We could define this transformation using a term from the English naturalist, Charles Darwin: evolution. This term is framed, in this essay, not in the appreciation of a change in phenotypic genetic inheritance but rather as a cause to biodiversity at each level of biological organization, that is, as an inherent property of living beings to search the best, to develop in order to achieve greater goals.

 

Within that evolutionary process human history has lived in a constant tension and transformation between the being and the should be, this tension must be understood not as a complication of human nature, but rather as the understanding that man is a Being complex by nature, which is in a situation, in a reality and therefore, seeks, tends to something beyond. In that tension could be located the epistemological process and, even more, the educational process, which should have as its ultimate goal, the creation of critical thinking. In addition, this process must be framed within the complexity of the human being.

 

Therefore, with the purpose of contributing to the contemporary educational controversy by trying to synthesize and clarify theory of knowledge, this essay aims to consider the need for an educational theory that is seen from the complexity approach for the formation of critical and complex thinking.

 

To achieve this goal, a brief historical investigation of the epistemological problem is carried out, starting with the pre-Socratics and culminating with the twenty-first century psycho-pedagogues in order to understand, what are their characteristics and their way of proceeding. Then, there will be a consideration of the emergence of critical theory and how it influenced the need to create critical thinking within the social and educational system; and finally, the paradigm of complexity is taken into account since Edgar Morín, and as this perspective considers the formation of complex and critical thinking in the contemporary educational process necessary.

 

2. Development

2.1. Historical exploration of the epistemological problem

Making a brief synthesis of the problem, we could contextualize it in three major stages: the problem in antiquity, in the Middle Ages and in the contemporaneity. With regard to the problem in the old era, summarizing and paraphrasing the work of Fraile (1997a, pp. 1-10), we have the following:

a.    The epistemological problem has its beginnings in the pre-Socratics (year 624 BC), with Heraclitus, Parmenides, among others, which founded that man has a fixed, stable, necessary way of knowing.

 

b.    Then the problem of science enters into solution pathways with Socrates, who finds the true path of scientific knowledge by discovering the universal concept, the definition and the inductive process to elaborate them.

 

c.     Platón marks an advance within the epistemological complexity with the foundation of the academy (387 BC), in which the curriculum included the three fundamental sciences corresponding to the three classes of society: mathematics (warriors), mechanical arts (craftsmen) and the dialectic, which was the supreme science of the transcendental ideas of the rulers.

 

d.    Aristóteles and his Lyceum, in which there is a partialization of knowledge, said partialization occurs in three major branches: theoretical, practical and poetic; which in turn are conformed by other more concise biases. Although for the Aristotelian lyceum the supreme summit of knowledge is the theological one, since it deals with the highest object: God.

 

Already advanced a little more in the history of humanity, we enter the medieval era, in which the epistemological is given within the philosophical and theological. It is worth mentioning that there is a distinction between the orders of knowledge, rational and revealed, corresponding to the ontological orders: the natural and the supernatural. In which philosophy fulfills a function of instrumental subordination to sacred science. However, the exception is the "Universal Doctor", Alberto Magno, and the "Doctor Angelicus", Thomas Aquinas. To paraphrase Fraile (1997b, pp.10-19), it can be said that:

a.    San Alberto Magno maintains an encyclopedic vision of knowledge, cultivating the different branches of science equally.

 

b.    On the other hand, Saint Tomas de Aquino preserves the same integral and encyclopedic vision of knowledge as his teacher Saint Albert. The distinction between rational and revealed knowledge is not an antithesis, but a harmonious and complementary set.

 

With regard to the moment of modernity, it must be said that the fourteenth century began a process of distrust of the concept of science. Thus Nominalism emerges, everything is name, universals do not exist, being the root of the movement that little later will give rise to the birth of the experimental sciences, which were defined as exact and natural. There is a re-boom of the partializations of knowledge.

 

Enthroned in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the epistemological problem takes on a new form. Learning theories arise with psychological and pedagogical definitions, which describe the ways and forms in which man learns. Within these theories of learning it is worth mentioning:

a.    Constructivism: in which Piaget, Vygotsky and Ausubel have contributed. This position maintains, as Araya, Alfaro and Andonegui (2007) state: "the subject constructs the knowledge of reality, since it can not be known in itself, but through the cognitive mechanisms available" (p.77), that is to say, constructivism sustains the importance of the subject in the acquisition of knowledge, because he considers it active, which has to build or reconstruct knowledge through action. In short, the central idea of constructivism is that learning is constructed, the intellect elaborates new knowledge from previous learning.

 

b.    Behaviorism: educational theory framed within psychological science, is founded by the American Watson. In the words of Yela (1998): in his article the evolution of behaviorism, this "is the most ambitious and tenacious attempt in the history of psychology to build a strictly logical and objective scientific system and the project to improve with its application, effective and verifiably, human behavior" (p.165). Behaviorism, therefore, focuses on behavior and defends the application of experimental procedures to study such behavior. In terms of learning, they are conceived "as the sum of an accumulation of behaviors learned through practice and the constant reinforcement of patterns and desired behaviors, which explains the conception of learning as an observable, measurable and quantifiable fact" (Gudiño, 2011a, p.300). The subject, in this theory, therefore plays a passive function, learning will respond to a series of stimuli-responses and their reinforcement.

 

c.     Cognitivism is a theory based on Chomsky, Neisser, James and others. Which focus their theory on cognition, that is, on the processes related to knowledge, in the way in which the human being learns. In cognitivist theory, as Gudiño (2011b) states: "learning is an internal process, whose fundamental basis lies in the ability of the individual to assimilate and accommodate new cognitive structures or new learning repertoires in cognitive structures" (p.306). For this reason, in the words of the author, learning is an intimate, intrinsic process, which is achieved through cognitive structures that are acquired and developed as the individual learner is interrelated with the environment that surrounds it. In cognitivism, knowledge is complex, where the internal capacities of the subject and the environment where it develops are related.

 

Once seen roughly, the historical journey that the epistemological problem has had, we consider the emergence of critical theory as a new epistemological form and how it influenced the need to create critical thinking within the social system and for educationally.

 

2.2. Critical theory and critical thinking

The Critical Theory represented an epistemological rupture with respect to science and traditional philosophy, a rupture that occurred in the emblematic intellectual / academic areas during the first decades of the 20th century and originated in the Frankfurt School in 1924. It had a strong Marxist influence and as such establishes a critique of traditional theories, capitalism and domination. Among its most important theorists are Horkheimer, Adorno, Habermas, Marcuse and Gadamer, who considered critical theory as a new vision of philosophy, originally defined, in opposition to traditional philosophy and theory, as stated by Frankenberg (2011):

The traditional theory represents the type of << The Scientist >> theorization guided by the ideals of the modern natural sciences and their prerogative of «free valuation» research. The authors of critical theory start from the assumption that both the observed objects and the observing subjects of science are socially constituted and, therefore, must be analyzed and interpreted within their socio-historical context (p.68).

 

In short, the critical theory, is positioned in parallel to the way of theorizing that was traditionally carried out. Because these authors considered that the context is fundamental in science, and not only the phenomenon as such. With the critical theory a new vision of study was used with "whose optics analyzed with rare uniformity the great variety of theoretical, cultural and social problems that they tried to solve" (Fraile, 1998a, p.106).

 

Critical theory as an educational epistemology "tried to take up a new path that reestablishes the authentic dimension of rationality" (Fraile, 1998b, p.108). Which should not be technical or utilitarian, but on the contrary should be autonomous and emancipatory.

 

Consequently, it is considered that critical theory is ultimately a critique of reason by this movement, because they considered that reason had been instrumentalized, "reduced to be an instrument of certain purposes that deviate from their own object of knowledge and they prostitute it, making it serve domination over men" (Fraile, 1998c, p.108).

 

For the precursors of critical theory, such as Adorno and Horkheimer, instrumentalized reason would bring with it a dark and irregular thought, enlightenment. Therefore, they set out to define reason as a << criticism >>, and thought is no longer obscure, but is considered controversial and critical, capable of analyzing and refuting, leaving knowledge as a << mediation >>, "An image or a copy of things" (Fraile, 1998d, p.108).

 

The critical theory ultimately wanted to recover the concept of reason, for that reason, as a new epistemology considered the need to build in society a new type of thought that broke with the old structures of philosophy (enlightenment), this thought was called : critical thinking, which is defined following Saladino (2012): as "all intellectual approach product of analysis, interpretations and rational problematizations about the manifestations of reality, its phenomena, situations and ideas, to generate questions, judgments and proposals oriented to the promotion of changes for the benefit of humanity" (p.1).

 

Consequently, critical thinking becomes the method of the new epistemological perspective emerged from the twentieth century, because it seeks to "face" reality, problematize it, pose new issues, generate proposals for progress, where the human being is questioned even of his thought, as Villarini (2003a) says: "it is true that other animals think, only the human being can think his own thoughts. Metacognition is precisely this ability of thought to examine, criticize and adjust the thought process in their skills, concepts and attitudes" (p.37), in other words, the critical capacity that human beings have leads them to rethink their way of thinking, to evaluate and examine oneself, all this in order that the man does not remain in cognitive myths, but that transforms into an emancipated being, free of ties and capable of questioning reality.

 

Villarini himself (2003b): affirms that metacognition is the cause for critical thinking, when "it is carried out from five critical perspectives, which throughout history human beings have been creating to examine and evaluate thought , the thought rises to the critical level" (p.40), these perspectives are the logic, the substantive, the contextual, the dialogical and the pragmatic, all converge in the ability to examine thought.

 

At this point, where the definitions of critical theory and its basic principles were generally considered, two questions arise: How is the epistemological problem understood today (half of the 20th century onwards)? Will it help the educator to incentivize the formation of critical thinking from a complexity perspective? Is it necessary an educational theory that has the perspective of complexity to help in the formation of critical and complex thinking?

 

Here, in order to answer these questions, we can consider the position of the French philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morín, who, with his Theory of Complexity, seeks to give a correct answer to the problem posed, since as Gómez (2010) states: "It is a new generalizing scientific paradigm, capable of encompassing all sciences" (p.2).

 

2.3. Complex thinking within the current educational process

Edgar Morín to consider the epistemological problem first considers the anthropological problem. Said problem evaluates him, he considers it, he structures it in his first years of scientific research, and it is in the year of 1951, with his work El Hombre y La Muerte, which considers "man as a total being, individual, species, society" (Morín, cited by Gómez, 2003a, p.11).

 

Therefore, it can be considered that Morín has a holistic view of man. He considers it no longer as a homo fabe or homo sapiens but as a homo complexus, as Gómez (2003b) states: "man has become <omnivore> in front of the world, open to all reality. He himself is a microcosm, given to all the participations in the macrocosm "(page 12). Man, in short, is a complex being that has immersed the antagonistic characters, because its totality is the result of its omnivorality, "devours", assumes everything. The complexity of man is assumed by all that man is, does, lives and experiences.

 

When considering man as a complex being, we must also consider his way of learning. The educational process, that is, its way of acquiring knowledge, must be considered not only as a conditioning or as a construct, but as a complex process, which should foster a multidimensional intelligence, trained in a general and global knowledge.

 

Morín proposes a complex thought and, therefore, a critical thought, which can refer to the educational field. This thought necessarily leads to considering reality as a complex reality, where thought, as Morín (1990a) states: "must confront the framework of the solidarity of phenomena with each other, the contradiction" (p.33).

 

For this reason, thought as well as the educational process should not be conformed, as stated by Morín (1990b): only "with the disjunction / reduction / unidimensionalization paradigm, but it must be replaced by a distinction / conjunction paradigm that allows us to distinguish and associate" (p.34). Considering reality as complex, necessarily leads to saying that it can not be simplified, synthesized, defined in a single dimension. Therefore, the reality to be multidimensional and complex can and should sustain a thought that has its own characteristics: complex-critical and multidimensional.

 

Simplifying reality and therefore biasing knowledge is the result of contemporary science. As a result of this, it was considered only an edge of reality, which when subjected to the disjunction-reduction paradigm, is reduced to a single dimension. However, an emerging rationality, a new epistemology, expressed under the term complexity, emerged in the mid-twentieth century, relegating this simplification, returning to the cosmos the value it really possesses: the fabric of its being (complexity) and multidimensionality.

 

This paradigm seeks to articulate, as Morán (2006a) states: "the disciplinary fragmentation, broken by disintegrating thought, in order to build a multidimensional knowledge that opposes the supremacy of one science over another, to an omnirationality" (p.4). For this reason, the new paradigm proposed by Morín seeks the connection and interrelation of all knowledge. The paradigm of complexity seeks to look at all the edges of the polygon (reality) and, in turn, to link them all to the formation of a knowledge, which by its very ontology and principle will be complex.

 

This necessarily leads to the recognition of all entities involved in the gestation of knowledge, distinguishing it but not isolating it, but instead linking them. It is not necessary to mutilate knowledge and distort reality. According to this, Morín (1990c): expresses that the complex thought, "is animated by a permanent tension between the aspiration to a knowledge not parceled, not divided, not reductionist, and the recognition of the incomplete and incomplete of all knowledge" (p.23). This new approach points to a new reality in the epistemological world: knowledge is not total or definitive, but progressive.

 

Consequently, knowledge must be global, border divisions are no longer necessary. It is clear that omniscience is not possible, however, as Morín (1990d) states: "complex thought aspires to multidimensional knowledge ... one of the axioms of this epistemological proposal is the impossibility, even theoretical, of an omniscience" (p. 2. 3).

 

All this induces the non-partialization of knowledge under any scientific or philosophical dogma, since doing so means mutilating knowledge and disfiguring reality. Consequently, any way of understanding reality and knowledge should recognize and weigh both the nature and the subject. With the new paradigm, proposed by Morín, "it is a point of view that counts on the world and recognizes the subject. Moreover, the epistemology of complexity presents one and the other in a reciprocal and inseparable way" (Morín 1990e, p.64). From the above quote it is deduced then, that the new paradigm presents a balance between reality and subject, and will not be given weight only to the subjectivity of the subject or only to the objectivity of reality, instead there will be a reciprocal relationship between both.

 

The new paradigm allows, as stated by Morán (2006b):

criticize Western epistemology, arising from modernity, based on the positivist elimination of the subject from the idea that objects, having independent existence of the subject, were observable and timely explained as such (p.4).

 

That is to say, in the West, knowledge is based on reality, but based on modernity, the subject is left aside, thus breaking the medieval premise that knowledge is an apprehension of reality, in which a active role both reality and the subject. Therefore, the paradigm of complexity, what he wants is to return somewhat the premise of the medieval as Thomas Aquinas, where knowledge is complex, therefore, there are two important factors for the construction of it: subject and reality, without pondering one over the other, so as not to fall into the extremes of idealism or empiricism.

 

In short, the knowing subject is not passive, but active, but his way of knowing should not be biased but expanded, where not only what you want to learn is taken into account, but how you want to learn, and the reality from where you you want to learn It is no longer myth, it is no longer just an instrumentalized reason, but reason plays an active role in forming a critical thought, where it does not accept the truth as imposed dogma but the truth that has been refuted, "chewed" and digested. The complexity necessarily leads me to the "criticality".

 

To be critical, is to understand the complexity of reality, is not to remain with only one perspective. It is the non-acceptance of a data without first not being looked at from different perspectives, because thus the thought is not mutilated, but on the contrary enlarged. Morín understands the world as a network, where everything is linked, therefore, the way to face it must be multidisciplinary and, in turn, multi-referenced. This leads to the logical consequence of the formation of critical thinking, which "refers to questioning and assessment exercises that allow us to finally make a judgment or take a position with respect to an event, a phenomenon or a idea "(Morales, 2014, page 3).

 

The current educational process requires, therefore, to forge men capable of having a constant search for the truth, a natural inclination for knowledge, this demands facing a content, a data, questioning it and valuing it, so that the understanding of said data, help you to take it as true or not, in that way, the student will be forming complex and critical thinking, and not just "conditioned" knowledge, as a response to a stimulus.

 

It is well known that the paradigm of complexity admits the impossibility of knowing everything about everything, however, it admits that it is possible to know a lot about everything. But for this to happen, it is necessary in the formation, for the student to question reality, to ask himself the why of things. Thus, this new paradigm looks like an option to transform the educational process, accentuating the active role of the student and reality. Everything is a complex, both the reason and everything that surrounds the subject.

 

3. Conclusions

The theorization of education should be defined as objectives and goals: the mission of encouraging the formation of critical and complex thinking. We are facing a complex world, therefore, our way of thinking should not be biased or dogmatized, rather, it should be critical and expanded, where we ask ourselves about the last and first issues of reality.

 

The teaching practice must not remain in a mere repetition of content, in an opinion of theory, rather, it must develop in the learners the capacity to reason and that they themselves create and form a critical thinking, that is, be able to examine themselves and To evaluate oneself and the environment that surrounds them, this will lead them to acquire a complex, structured and systematized knowledge.

 

The fundamental mission that the 21st century educator must have is not only to be transmitters of knowledge, but students must be helped to form their own criticality, where criticism is not considered in its pejorative conception, that is, reprobation and censorship, but in its praiseworthy conception, criticism as an establishment of judgment and decision-making. The educator of today, requires teachers capable of teaching them such capacity, thus they will be able to form a complex thought, where they can articulate all the edges of the polygon called reality.

 

It is necessary, therefore, to be present in current educational theories, as one of the proposals recommended by Morin, which must be a fundamental norm in the educational process today, "all knowledge operates through the selection of significant data and rejection of non-significant data" (Morín, 1990f, p.28). The learning process is based on that premise, the learner wants data that tell him something, that is meaningful to him.

 

It is like this, where the student will understand that he is an active subject in his formative process and not passive, and for sure he will have the intention to learn and develop.

 

4. Referencias

Araya, V., Alfaro, M., y Andonegui, M. (2007). Constructivismo: Orígenes y Perspectivas. Revista de educación Laurus, 13(24), págs. 76-92. ISSN: 1315-883X. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador.

 

Fraile, G. (1997a,b). Historia de la Filosofía. Grecia y Roma. Tomo I. Madrid, España: Editorial B.A.C., págs. 1-19.

 

Fraile, G. (1998a,b,c,d). Historia de la Filosofía. Siglo XX: Neomarxismo. Estructuralismo. Filosofía de Inspiración Cristiana. Tomo VIII. Madrid España: Editorial B.A.C., págs. 102-170.

 

Frankenberg, G. (2011). Teoría Crítica. Revista sobre enseñanza del derecho, 9(17), págs. 67-84. ISSN: 1667-4154. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Rubinzal-Culzoni Editores.

 

Gómez, P. (2003a,b). La antropología compleja de Edgar Morín. Granada, España: Editorial Universidad de Granada, págs. 6-160.

 

Gómez, T. (2010). El nuevo paradigma de la complejidad y la educación: una mirada histórica. Revista Latinoamericana Polis, núm. 25. ISSN: 0718-6568. [En línea]. Recuperado de: https://polis.revues.org/400

Gudiño, D. (2011a,b). El conductismo y el cognoscitivismo. Dos entramados psicológicos de aprendizaje del siglo XX. Revista ciencias de la educación. Segunda Etapa, 21(38), págs. 297-308. ISSN: 1316-5917. Valencia, Venezuela: Editora, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Carabobo.

 

Morán, L. (2006a,b). De la teoría de la complejidad a la filosofía intercultural: hacia un nuevo saber. Revista de Filosofía, 24(52), págs. 1-16. ISSN: 0798-1171. Venezuela: Universidad del Zulia.

 

Morales, L. (2014). El Pensamiento Crítico en la Teoría Educativa Contemporánea. Revista: Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 14(2), págs. 1-23. ISSN: 1409-4703. Costa Rica: Universidad de Costa Rica.

 

Morín, E. (1990a,b,c,d,e,f). Introducción al Pensamiento Complejo. Barcelona, España: Editorial Gedisa, págs. 1-160.

 

Saladino, A. (2012). Pensamiento Crítico. Instituto de investigaciones sociales. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, págs. 1-10.

 

Villarini, A. (2003a,b), Teoría y pedagogía  del pensamiento crítico. Revista Perspectivas psicológicas, volúmenes 3-4, año iv, Edición especial, págs. 35-42. ISSN: 1992-5131. República Dominicana, Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo.

 

Yela, M. (1998). La Evolución del Conductismo. Revista Psicothema, 8(suplem 1), págs. 165-186. ISSN: 0214-9915. España: Editorial Universidad de la Rioja.

 

 

Ángel Yasmil Echeverría Guzmán

e-mail: angelecheverria71@gmail.com

 

Born in the Bolivarian State of Miranda, Venezuela. Resident in Charallave, Bolivarian State of Miranda. Higher Technician in Education, Mention: Industrial Arts and Professor in Education, mention: Industrial Arts of the Monseñor Rafael Arias Blanco University Institute (IUPMA); Bachelor of Philosophy from Santa Rosa Catholic University (UCSAR); Magister Scientiarum in Technical Education from the Monseñor Rafael Arias Blanco University Institute (IUPMA); PhD student of the Educational Sciences program of the Latin American and Caribbean University (ULAC); Professor Instructor of the National Polytechnic Experimental University "Antonio José de Sucre" (UNEXPO).

 

The content of this manuscript is disseminated under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International

 

- Original Version in Spanish -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29394/Scientific.issn.2542-2987.2018.3.9.13.257-274