Emergent Learning Outcomes: acknowledging complexity for liberated learning in International Politics

The HEA’s subject network for Sociology, Anthropology and Politics (CSAP) funded a project at Aberystwyth University to investigate the traditional model of intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and, using the relatively new paradigm of Complex Adaptive Systems, considered whether Hussey & Smith’s model of emergent learning outcomes (ELOs) can be better utilised to enhance the cohesiveness of student modularised learning and expand the boundaries of knowledge par excellence.

The project ran in three stages. Firstly, analysing and benchmarking existing modules against the QAA’s own guidelines on learning outcomes in relation to the Academic Infrastructure. Secondly, gathering student input and responses to the concept of emergent learning. Thirdly, considering whether emergent learning outcomes are a feasible addition to the module planning and assessment process, as well as theorising on a broader concept of a ‘liberated / liberal learner’.

The headline results were:

  • Complex adaptive systems (CAS) is a useful framework for investigating issues of pedagogic development. It allows for competing pedagogic ideas to be synthesised within the framework and enables the creation of a more flexible methodology of practice.
  • Constructive alignment (Biggs and Collis, 1994) is a useful tool for the construction of the learning process; however, ILOs should not be the principal mechanism for defining summative assessment.
  • Improved assessment criteria should be defined which expand basic ILOs. Kember’s (2009: 114-131) expanded SOLO taxonomy is a useful tool for defining assessment criteria, however, the lecturer’s own perception is essential in defining representation of SOLO categories.
  • Intended learning outcomes (ILOs) are essential in module planning to indicate the direction of teaching, however, it must be recognised that ILOs represent the lecturer’s intentions for study, not the student’s.
  • Students’ ipsative (that is student defined) intended learning outcomes should also be considered. By using complex adaptive systems as a framework students’ prior history and future needs can be assessed and recognised as highly relevant to the learning process.
  • The study notes that learning is a process of emergence from an interaction of the student with the lecturer and the curriculum. Emergent learning however, can be greater than and different to or less than and different to the intended learning outcomes.
  • The study contends that a ‘learning fulcrum’ exists whereby intended learning outcomes, ipsative learning outcomes and emergent learning outcomes need to be balanced.
  • Stacey (1995, 1996)[1] notes that complex adaptive systems (including educational systems) are paradoxical: that is they seek both stability and instability simultaneously. If a system becomes too stable this may lead to ossification and inability to change. Likewise, if the system is subjected to too much change this leads to instability and disintegration: both outcomes though lead to organisational decay. In an educational context therefore attention must be paid to balancing the fulcrum. For example, too much emphasis on intended learning outcomes will lead to instability in the system and emergent and ipsative learning outcomes will be ignored to the detriment of the systems. Likewise, if too much emphasis is placed on ipsative learning outcomes, then the intentions of the module or emergent learning will be sacrificed.
  • In a complex adaptive system, feedback is the driver of adaptation and emergence. This is supported by Kember’s (2009: 66) curriculum planning model which is a useful representation of the learning and teaching process. It notes that feedback is central to the development of quality learning. Therefore, to ensure quality learning the system must be driven by quality feedback.
  • The principal mechanism for system feedback should be formative feedback and in the case of an educational system this should be two-way formative assessment.
  • However, due to the complexity of the system, innovative types of feedback should also be considered including pre-formative feedback (understanding the students’’ prior history and ipsative learning requirements) as well as ‘sustainable assessment’ (Boud and Fachikov, 1999) which embeds a culture of formative appraisal after the educational process has ended.

The full project report is available at

Outcomes of the project were disseminated at the HEA’s Annual Conference in July 2011. The presentation can be viewed online at

The project outcomes are to be submitted to two journals: International Studies Perspectives; and the US based journal of the International Studies Association.

Key contacts:

  • Dr Elena Korosteleva, Senior Lecturer, Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University,
  • Mr Giles Polglase, Assistant Coordinator, Centre for the Development of Staff and Academic Practice, Aberystwyth University, .

[1]Stacey, R. (1995), The Science of Complexity: an alternative perspective for strategic change processes, Strategic Management Journal, 16 477-495

Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and Creativity in Organizations, Berrett-Koehler, San Fransisco