Here is a paper I wrote regarding chaos and PCT in educational
administration. I would appreciate any feedback I could get. Please be
frank and honest about the content. I am a big boy - I won't cry.
Thanks in advance.
Joseph Slowinski
Educational Administration and Supervision
Bowling Green State University
Administrators in Wonderland: Chaos, PCT and other Quantum Paradigms of
Administration
Abstract
In recent years, physical science paradigms have been considered extremely
relevant to the realities which govern the interaction of individuals as
well as groups. Educational Administration must also consider the
importance of these methodologies in order to produce an
environment proceeding toward maximum growth potential. Chaos theory and
Perceptional Control Theory are two such methodologies which arose out of
theories based in the physical sciences. Chaos theorys fundamental
premise is that although physical reality is in a constant
state of flux, there exists ordered patterns within that chaotic system.
In the realm of the social sciences and educational administration in
particular, this notion is important to consider. With
an increase in external variables placed on the list of educational
responsibilities, as societal ills increase, schools must adapt quickly to
environmental forces and respond rather then waiting
until a problem exponentially compounds. Perceptional Control Theory
suggests that perception is reality. An individual is dictated by
internal control loops which regulate influences and
respond accordingly. Therefore, how a person perceives an interaction
will dictate their response. By combining these theoretical models,
educational administrators can adapt to external as well as internal
fluctuations and respond in a productive manner.
INTRODUCTION
Recent theories associated with physical reality have increasingly been
adapted as social science paradigms. Pedagogy and educational
administration have also been affected by this social science paradigm
shift. These emerging theoretical paradigms have forced educational
administrators to consider new methodologies for implementation into
school evaluation and improvement. Chaos Theory and Perceptual Control
Theory (PCT) are two such advances which, in my opinion, are applicable to
the field of educational administration. Chaos theory has appeared
substantially in educational literature in the last five years.
Currently PCT, on the other hand, remains unpublished in the area of
education. Educational administrators have always operated under diverse
conditions dictated by complex realities which exist in schools affected
by a plethora of constantly changing variables. The new sciences, like
chaos theory, allow for an administrator to acknowledge the continually
changing environment of a school and adapt to these variations in order to
maximize a schools productiveness. With the acknowledgment of critical
phenomenon associated with chaos theory, administrators can lead their
schools into a prolific and productive twenty first century.
CHAOS THEORY
When Edward Lorenz serendipitously discovered chaos theory in
1961, conceptual comprehension of the world around us was forever altered.
No longer would human understanding be restricted to mere linear and
mechanistic paradigms derived form Descartesian dualism, Newtonian physics
and the scientific revolution. When Lorenz, the meterologist, was
experimenting with modeling and predicting weather, he simply altered
input data slightly. He then witnessed profound output changes resulting
from these infinitesimal variations in input values. Chaos theory was
born. Lorenz referred to these variations in output, from minuscule
changes in input, as the butterfly effect. To understand the importance
of this concept , envision a butterfly floating over a particular country
in East Asia. When this butterfly flutters its wings, a small current of
air is formed which inevitably alters the weather pattern. These changes,
over a period of time, result in a hurricane off the coast of California.
This is the butterfly effect; profound changes in the outcome generated by
small variations of input.
Chaos, for the majority of human beings, refers to a situation
where anarchy reigns supreme and no hope of control can possibly exist.
Yet chaos theory doesnt adhere to such a paradigm of reality. In chaos
theory, a phenomenon exists which demonstrates a formation of
patterns in chaos systems. This phenomenon is referred to as strange
attraction. When output of these non-linear functions are graphed, points
seem to wobble around central areas. Strange attraction is analogous to
the concept of a center of gravity (LeCompte, 1994). These areas,
which attract data, are referred to as a strange attractor due to their
seemingly odd propensity to entice values of the function around certain
areas. This clustering effect is quite fascinating and illustrates the
true nature of chaos theory; patterns exist in the perceived world of
chaotic systems.
CHAOTIC APPLICATIONS TO EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
Administrators must constantly engage in public discourse and
justify expenditures, test scores, behaviors, etc. Without continual
evaluation these external sources of concern can develop into
problematic situations which are difficult or nearly impossible to
resolve. In recent years, site based management attempts have resulted in
an improved psychological working conditions for teachers. Yet external
gate keepers remain dissatisfied with academic and standardized test
results. Stephen Haeckel, A business consultant, provides a model which
allows for organization to adapt more easily to external changes. Rather
than adhering to bureaucratic policy which is instituted in a top - down
fashion, organizations should operate out of a sense and respond
paradigm. [Administrators] dont spell out how people do things. Rather,
they set limits on how these things can be done, states Haeckel (Haeckel,
1995:10). This model allows for objectives to act and operate as guides
similar to the concept of strange attractors. Policy guidelines regulate
outcomes but not function limitations. Limits provide the teachers and
other staff to remain empowered yet build accountability into the policy.
Decentralization efforts must continue to institute accountability
hierarchies in order to yield productive results (Haeckel, 1995).
Although this model seems similar to a neo-scientific approach, where test
scores operate as the manager monitoring progress and job quality, in
reality the criteria for evaluating outcome completion is not based
entirely on test score results. Attitude adjustments, improvement in
skills and knowledge acquisition, etc. can also operate as accountability
structures to balance performance based assessment and other standardized
test evaluation of teacher effectiveness.
Remaining sensitive to input variations assures an organization
will adapt and respond to external changes (LeCompte, 1994). Consider
the Rodney King court case in Los Angeles. A verdict decision, a
microscopic input on the scale of society, resulted in the tragedy of the
Los Angeles riots. Small decisions or interactions, if not observed under
proper context, can yield actions which result in irreparable damage.
Dissatisfaction, which had accumulated over hundreds of years, was vented
through this particular output. Chaos theory allows an administrator to
practice prevention and adaptation. Past socio-historic knowledge has
demonstrated the fact that in order for organizations to survive they must
adapt to external conditions or risk extinction. Yet systems in order to
adapt to external conditions must be flexible. Institutions of learning,
which were designed in the past, lack flexibility (Garmston &
Wellman, 1995). If we dont sense environmental changes we risk witnessing
organizational failure or at worst extinction. Schools which are
resistant to change are increasingly at risk for failure (LeCompte, 1994).
We must move for school reform which integrates a model of
external adaptation.
The Los Angeles riots, mentioned above, are a prime example of how
a seemingly stable environment can erupt into a societal perceived notion
of chaos. Primary to the concept of chaos is turbulence. Events over
time result in random shocks which force the system out of equilibrium
(Griffiths et al, 1991). A resilient organization is able to balance
itself quickly. Yet as these random shocks accumulate and a system
resists adaptation and evolution the organization places itself in
jeopardy of extreme trauma or ,in the worse case scenario, collapse.
Therefore, in order to maintain an adequate level of stability,
organizations must utilize a sense and adapt methodology. By sensing
external and internal environmental variations, an organization can
implement change which leads to productive survival.
Through understanding the chaos model of reality, we can utilize
a sense and respond model to improve adaptation in educational
organizations. To initiate this process an administrator must ask
her/himself two questions: (1) whats occurring on the outside of our
environment (consider external adaptation) and; (2) how do we operate
within our organization (internal integration)? (Haeckel, 1996). Through
focusing on the answers to these two questions there is a continually
acknowledgment of the schools focus, mission and vision. Haeckel
suggests a continual check and balance cycle: sense, act, interpret,
decide. Through this circuit, an observation of external influences is
imminent at all times. Once objectives are determined, an adaptation loop
can be designed to meet these goals. An adaptation loop is a cycle of
sensing external changes and determining an action in accordance with
these changes. With designing an adaptation loop it is best to work
backward from the desired outcome objective. Through a series of asking
questions and arriving at solutions, your adaptation loop is created from
outcome to initial actions which must be facilitated in order to assist in
your schools desired outcomes becoming reality(Haeckel, 1996).
For example, if your intended outcome is to maximize student
learning you ask the question, how can I maximize student learning?
Learning is maximized when students are active learners in the classroom.
The answer to this initial question becomes the next objective.
Now how do we arrive at this objective? Learners are active when course
work is presented through a variety of mediums. Again you ask yourself
how to achieve this objective and so on in the process. This process
leads you to initial actions which can facilitate the entire process.
Yet caution should be applied to this process. This process is meant to
be implemented in the adaptation loop. Through a continual sensing of the
external environment, methods to achieve desired outcomes will continually
evolve with the utilization of such a loop.
PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY
Perceptual Control Theory originated from engineering experiments
completed by Harold Black, in 1927. Black facilitated and completed
analytical research on closed loop control systems (Forssel & Cziko,
1996). These pioneering works led to the introduction of PCT, as applied
to social systems, by William T. Powers in 1973. Powers utilizes the
notion that behavioral control operates as a process within each
individual. The main emphasis of PCT theory is that individuals behave
according to their perceptions (McClelland, 1996). In other words,
control systems facilitate purposive behavior by controlling
perceptions(Powers, 1973 in Marken, 1990). The term control in this
setting is intended to refer to purposive behavior (Marken, 1990). Each
individual is comprised of lower-level and higher-level control loops
which dictate our behavior. Higher-order loops can be viewed as our value
and belief regulators. For example, consider Sigmeund Freuds view of the
super-ego moral center. Lower level loops dictate , for example, muscle
movement. As an individual experiences an event, they view this
situation through their system of higher order control loops. Reference
signals, in the control loops, act as value and behavior regulators.
Comparisons between perceived outcome and reality dictate a course of
action for the individual. Perception is the reality.
Control systems, which operate inside each individual, are
comprised of three components and three signals (Marken, 1990).
Components include a sensor, compatitor and an output amplifier while the
signals consist of perception, reference and error. Through an
interaction, these components and signals make up the concept of control
theory. The sensor transforms external input into a reference signal.
Determining the difference between the reference signal and the perceptual
signal, the compatitor converts this discrepancy into an error
signal. Output amplification utilizes this error signal and returns a
reference variable. Controls, then, are hierarchically structured
information processing operations which result in corrective
action undertaken for the purpose of reducing the perceived disparity
between actual and desired performance (Dobuzinskis, 1992: 357). To
understand this process consider an example of emotions and dating. One
individual anticipates a meeting with their mate on an anniversary
evening. John arrives home with only complaints about the daily work
routine. As John continues his complaints, Marys internal perception
senses that John has forgotten about the anniversary. Marys expectations
are different than the reality which currently exists. Her internal
control system returns an error signal which is then altered into an
emotional response of sadness and frustration. An emotion is a perception
of a body state which starts from an error signal, states Goldstein
(Goldstein 1989, in Goldstein 1990).
The importance of control theory is the notion that perception is
reality. We act each day through perceived intent yet we cant be
assured of outcome until we receive feedback from another individual or an
effect of our action. Yet consider the times of your life were the
feedback was negative although you and other witnesses agree that there
was indeed a positive intent of your actions. The other party involved in
this social discourse perceived your action through their control system.
Internal feedback produced an error signal which facilitated their
action and emotion of discontent. Although this information at this
particular stage is quite theoretical and postulates a model of purposeful
behavior, we can utilize this theory to move toward a practical approach
to leadership and administration. In fact, Marken has derived a test
to determine an individuals reference signals in order to begin to
reorganize control loops in order to arrive at desirable organizational
outcomes. We will discuss this test momentarily but first we must examine
how behavior is altered through the paradigm of control theory.
In order to affect anther individuals action, we must create a
disturbance with adequate strength to change the reference signal of their
control loops. As McClelland demonstrates, the reference signals must be
altered in order to facilitate behavioral change:
As discrepancies arise between the reference value one
has adopted for[a groups] action....one adjusts ones
behavior to maintain the hypothesis about the others
intentions, or else, if the discrepancy continues and
increases, one is forced to re-categorize the others
behavior by forming a new hypothesis about the others
intention, which then becomes the new reference value
to be maintained if possible in the ensuing interaction.
(McClelland, 1996:)
PCT operates under the obvious assumption that individuals are
unable to manually go inside someones brain to operate control systems
located inside (Powers, 1973 in McClelland, 1996). Furthermore, to alter
behavior we must attempt to align reference signals to guarantee
purposeful behavior which matches our desires outcomes. Through coercion
or other methods of force, individuals may change their actions yet
adherence is not guaranteed. When people decide to conform to what has
been asked of them they maintain control of their perceptions
(McClelland, 1996). Furthermore, the victim of force, frustrated in one
initiative, selects from his repertoire of reference signals a
different line of action to meet his own higher-level goals, not the goals
of the person using force. (McClelland 1996:25). In order to assure
behavior, which is cohesive with the mission of the organization, we must
align reference signals of the all individuals with that of the
organizational philosophy.
PCT requires a major shift in thinking from traditional
approaches: that what is controlled is not behavior, but perception,
states Powers (Forssel & Cziko, 1996:1). Under this paradigm shift,
internalized perception is what yields behavioral outputs. Under PCT,
control is defined as purposeful behavior (Forssel & Cziko, 1996).
Methods of coercion or incentive are not affective if individuals targeted
choose to avoid this message (McClelland, 1996) therefore alternative
influences must be considered. Niklas Luhmann adds that, The glue of
social systems is meaning and one only selects actions, or communications,
that are meaningful (Luhman in Beavis, 1996:14). PCT yields control,
purposeful behavior, when a group of individuals aligns there reference
signals (McClelland, 1996). Therefore control arises out of
social group alignment. As discussed above, the power of an organization
is inherent in its ability to align reference signals. McClelland
illustrates this point:
For practical purposes, alignment is social power. The social
structures we think of as powerful--armies, government
bureaucracies, capitalist enterprises-- derive their power
from the willingness of large numbers of people to
align their perceptual reference standards and focus on shared
goals. (McClelland, 1996: )
UTILIZING PCT AS AN ADMINISTRATOR
Administrators are continually concerned with determining how
individuals construct meanings that control their actions and how these
actions as well as discourse with others converts or molds future behavior
and meaning (LeCompte, 1994). Operating under the assumption that PCT is
a valid model of how control, behavior and action operate, we can
proceed with a practical guide offered by Gregory Bateman. Bateman has
developed a concept referred to as Double Description. Double Description
is coterminous to viewing multiple realities since, as PCT ascribes, we
are unable to enter the reality which exists in another human
being. As an administrator, through a PCT paradigm, it is important to
determine an approximation for truth/reality to the best of your ability.
Double Description works together with PCT to provide and determine
answers to what I was doing; what others told me they were
doing; what I thought I was doing; and, to the extent possible, what
others thought I was doing (LeCompte, 1994:286). Through interacting and
asking these fundamental questions, an administrator can gain multiple
insight into the socio-historic, time, surrounding, etc. of school
policy, teaching, etc. As Allen Beavis demonstrates, in order to
accomplish this, organizations must view themselves differently:
[S]ocial systems no longer merely observe themselves as distinct
from their environments, they can observe themselves as
observers and thus understand themselves in relation to
their environments. They are able to arrive at
interpretative understandings of meanings they give to their
own situations and their interactions with others. (Beavis, 1996:16)
In addition to Double Description, Runkel offers what he refers to
as "The Test." "The Test" is designed to locate internal reference
signals in order to gauge which environmental influences
will operate as a disturbance to the individuals control loop (Runkel),
1990). By evaluating individual reference signals, knowledge of
perception can be found which yields valuable knowledge about an
individuals potential behavior in a variety of circumstances. The test
consists of a variety of steps:
1) Select a variable that you think the person might be maintaining at
some level,
2) Predict what would happen if the person is not maintaining the
variable at a preferred level,
3) Apply various amounts and directions of disturbance directly to
the variable,
4) Measure the actual effects of disturbances,
5) If the effects are what you predicted - the person is not
acting to stop the disturbance - stop here. You have guessed wrong. Choose
another variable,
6) If an actual effect is smaller than predicted look for what the
person might be doing to stop the disturbance. You may have found
the feedback function,
7) Look for the way the person can sense the variable. If you
find nothing then stop. People can not control what they t dont sense,
8) If you find a means of sensing, block it so that the person
cannot now sense the variable. If the disturbance continues to be
opposed, you have found the right sensor. If not, stop. Choose another input
quantity,
9) If all the preceding steps are passed, you have found the
input quantity, the variable that the person is controlling
(Runkel,1991: 14 - 15)
Runkel is merely suggesting to analyze and acquire knowledge of the
individual. Variables ,in this case, are belief structures or important
issues to the individual. This test is a clinical experiment designed to
determine authenticity of an individuals philosophy. Through this
procedure, identification of reference signals and feedback loops can
occur. An administrator, who has built up open communication, can work
together with individuals to determine their respective control loops.
Together with Double Description, personal reference signals can be
determined. After determining these, an administrator can analyze the
staff and work together with them to align signals with the school mission
statement.
Although the above test is theoretical, we can adapt a practical
approach to identifying reference signals and feedback loops. Recall the
notion that reference signals are similar to the super-ego of Freud in the
sense it operates as a judgment center. External stimulus is received
and the reference center analyzes this information in relative terms to
the value judgment center. If this data is not in equilibrium, then an
error signal is sent which is in turn results in an action
or behavior. As an administrator, we can gain insight into the value
center of an individual by reading a personal philosophy of education. If
this document is maintained and updated it becomes a powerful reference
tool. This is the perceived philosophical belief structure of the
individual. With further discussions, teacher observations, peer as well
as student evaluations, the differences between reality and perception can
be determined. I stress the importance of open and non-threatening
communication in this situation. Trust must be in place in order for
these evaluation tools to maintain a positive and realistic effect.
Further analysis can be undertaken by case study investigation.
Discussion of certain situations as well as reflection on past realities
can yield a plethora of data to determine reference signals and feedback
loops. When case study scenarios are developed, a specific community
should be the basis for scenarios. Consider that urban and rural schools
have different needs as well as objectives. By maintaining realistic case
study situations, information will take on a life which is appropriate to
the reality of teaching in your particular school. Here is an example of a
possible case study to gauge a reference signal about cooperative
learning:
John Packos has been teaching mathematics for seven years in which
he has often attempted to implement new teaching ideas in his
classroom. In the last three years, he has maintained cooperative learning
exercises in his classroom. Each morning, students come into class and immediately
move into their work groups to discuss potential problems about the
homework. During this time, John takes attendance and collects homework.
Students then ask him questions or he moves them in the right direction as
he circles the classroom.
After reading this scenario, discussion occurs which leads the
facilitator to gauge the reaction of the participant to the case study.
This session can be video taped for the participants to watch
later as well as other colleagues who can help with the evaluation. If an
administrator or school was considering implementing a cooperative
learning initiative they could gauge reference signals to determine how
aligned the groups reference signals are as a collective body prior to
discussing how and why further.
Yet it must be remembered that perfect alignment of reference
signals can never be accomplished. Therefore, we must proceed with an
attempt at maximizing the alignment of reference signals as to amplify the
power of the organization. Rituals, and other cultural aspects
of the school life, afford a great opportunity for an external visible
foci to allow individuals to align their reference standards (McClelland,
1996). In addition, individuals can gain emotional strength from
organizational activities such as rituals which yield emotion (McClelland,
1996.) Perhaps the responsibility of maintaining cultural patterns and
internal integration are the most vital administrative responsibilities in
terms of aligning reference signals.
When reference signals of individuals or coalition groups are not
aligned, potential conflict will occur. During these times, an
administrator must rely on objectives which are central to both parties
and the schools objectives. Conflict can be diminished by instituting
aims which are only obtainable through collective collaboration (Sherif,
1966, in McPhail & Tucker, 1990). Recall the notion of strange
attractors. These meta-objectives can be utilized to align
reference signals to maximize achievement of school needs and goals.
CONCLUSION: ALIGNMENT OF CHAOS AND PCT
Chaos theory, PCT, Double Description and the sense and respond
paradigms allow an administrator to fulfill their critical administrative
responsibilities: goal attainment, cultural maintenance, internal
integration, external adaptation (Sergiovanni et al,
1992). If, indeed, social power arises out of the alignment of reference
standards of individuals in the collective group then we can merge PCT,
chaos, Double Description and the sense and respond paradigm
into a working philosophy of educational administration. Returning to the
idea of strange attractors we can consider the reference signals to be
equated to those vision or mission statements which the collective unit
has derived. Many in education envision the same mission
yet semantic discourses prevent them from reaching perceived consensus.
Putting semantics aside we can accommodate a plethora of teaching styles,
philosophies, etc. as long as the school utilizes the sense and respond
paradigm to continually evolve reflective of the external signals
which influence the school environment.
Chaos theory reminds us that without continual evaluation of
external changes in the environment we risk potential disaster in an
organization. Through the sense and respond model, we are able to evolve
while allowing the participants in the organization to experience
empowerment and decision making. Yet these decisions are guided by
reference points and other strange attractors which prevent self serving
behavior. Integrating these methodologies can act as a potential
reference signal for administrative behavior. Through this procedure of
integration, an administrator can operate as an adaptive and continually
enlightened professional who can interpret external changes while
remaining true to his/her organization.
REFERENCES
Beavis, A.K. (1995). Towards a Social Theory of School Administrative
Practice in a Complex, Chaotic, Quantum World. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 391 243)
Dobuzinskis, L. (1992). Modernist and Postmodernist Metaphors of the
Policy Process: Control and Stability vs. Chaos and Reflexive
Understanding. Policy Sciences 25, 355 - 380.
Forssell, D. & Cziko, G. (1996). Introduction to Perceptual Control Theory
(PCT), The Control Systems Group (CSG), and the Control Systems
Group Network (CSGnet).
Available: http://www.ed.uic/csg/intro.html#perceptual.
Garmston, G. & Wellman, B. (1995). Adaptive Schools in a Quantum
Universe. Educational Leadership 52, 6 - 12.
Goldstein, D.M. (1990). Clinical Applications of Control Theory. American
Behavioral Scientist 34 (1), 110 - 116.
Griffiths, D.E., Hart, A.W.., & Blair, B.G. (1991). Still Another Approach
to Administration: Chaos Theory. Educational Administration
Quarterly 27 (3), 430 -451.
Haeckel, S. H. (1995). Adaptive Enterprise Design: The Sense and Respond
Model. Planning Review 23 (3), 6 - 13, 42.
LeCompte, M.D. (1994). Defining Reality: Applying Double Description and
Chaos Theory to the Practice of Practice. Educational Theory 44
(3), 277 - 298.
Marken, R.S. (1990). A Science of Purpose. American Behavioral Scientist
34 (1), 81 - 93.
McClelland, K. (1994). Perceptual Control and Social Power. Available:
http:// www. ed. uiuc. edu/ csg/ people/ McClelland / PCSP/ PCSP-II.html#RTFToC10.
McPhail, C. & Tucker, C.W. (1990). Purposive Collective Action. American
Behavioral Scientist 34 (1), 7 - 13.
Sergiovanni, T.J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F.S. & Thurston, P.W. (1992).
Educational Governance and Administration (3rd ed.). Needham,
Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.