A COMPLETE SET OF SYSTEMS THINKING SKILLS

Insight ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross D. Arnold ◽  
Jon P. Wade
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Complete Set

A Complete Set of Systems Thinking Skills

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 1355-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross D. Arnold ◽  
Jon P. Wade
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Complete Set

scholarly journals Beyond the Central Dogma: Model-Based Learning of How Genes Determine Phenotypes

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. ar4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Reinagel ◽  
Elena Bray Speth
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Molecular Genetics ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Protein Function ◽  
Model Building ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Skills Acquisition ◽  
Model Based ◽  
Scaffolded Instruction ◽  
Introductory Biology Course

In an introductory biology course, we implemented a learner-centered, model-based pedagogy that frequently engaged students in building conceptual models to explain how genes determine phenotypes. Model-building tasks were incorporated within case studies and aimed at eliciting students’ understanding of 1) the origin of variation in a population and 2) how genes/alleles determine phenotypes. Guided by theory on hierarchical development of systems-thinking skills, we scaffolded instruction and assessment so that students would first focus on articulating isolated relationships between pairs of molecular genetics structures and then integrate these relationships into an explanatory network. We analyzed models students generated on two exams to assess whether students’ learning of molecular genetics progressed along the theoretical hierarchical sequence of systems-thinking skills acquisition. With repeated practice, peer discussion, and instructor feedback over the course of the semester, students’ models became more accurate, better contextualized, and more meaningful. At the end of the semester, however, more than 25% of students still struggled to describe phenotype as an output of protein function. We therefore recommend that 1) practices like modeling, which require connecting genes to phenotypes; and 2) well-developed case studies highlighting proteins and their functions, take center stage in molecular genetics instruction.

scholarly journals Enhancement and assessment of students’ systems thinking skills by application of systemic synthesis questions in the organic chemistry course

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (12) ◽  
pp. 1455-1471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Hrin ◽  
Dusica Milenkovic ◽  
Mirjana Segedinac ◽  
Sasa Horvat
Keyword(s):  
Organic Chemistry ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Higher Order Thinking ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
School Students ◽  
Complex Dimension ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Teaching Learning

Many studies in the field of science education have emphasized the fact that systems thinking is a very important higher-order thinking skill which should be fostered during classes. However, more attention has been dedicated to the different ways of systems thinking skills assessment, and less to their enhancement. Taking this into consideration, the goal of our study was not only to validate secondary school students? systems thinking skills, but also to help students in the complex process of their development. With this goal, new instructional and assessment tools - systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs], were constructed, and an experiment with one experimental (E) and one control (C) group was conducted during organic chemistry classes. Namely, the instructional teaching/learning method for both E and C groups was the same in processing the new contents, but different on classes for the revision of the selected organic chemistry contents. The results showed that students exposed to the new instructional method (E group) achieved higher performance scores on three different types of systems thinking than students from the C group, who were taught by the traditional method. The greatest difference between the groups was found in the most complex dimension of systems thinking construct - in the II level of procedural systems thinking. Along with this dimension, structural systems thinking and I level of procedural systems thinking were also observed.

Transformational spaces: educators discuss map the system and supporting Canada’s emerging generation of systems thinkers

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine McGowan ◽  
Latasha Calf Robe ◽  
Laura Allan ◽  
Elinor Flora Bray-Collins ◽  
Mathieu Couture ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Social Innovation ◽  
Collaborative Work ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Third Mission ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Post Secondary ◽  
Internal Work ◽  
Treat All ◽  
The Impact

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore multiple Canadian educators' experiences with the Map the System (MTS) competition, designed to foster and grow systems thinking capacity among students exploring complex questions. The challenge has been an opportunity for social innovation programs (from the nascent to the established) across Canadian post-secondaries to engage both with their own communities and with social innovators internationally, connecting social innovation spaces as part of their third mission. Across the organizations, students valued the interdisciplinary and systems thinking qualities, and organizations benefited from the external competition, there remain questions about organizational engagement in social innovation as a deeply transformative process internally. Design/methodology/approach All Canadian post-secondary institutions who participated in the 2020 MTS competition (17) were invited to a digital roundtable to discuss their experiences. Ten were able to participate, representing a range of post-secondaries (including large research institutions, undergraduate-only universities and colleges). To facilitate discussion, participants met to discuss format and topics; for the roundtable itself, participant educators used a google form to capture their experiences. These were summarized, anonymized and redistributed for validation and clarification. To reflect this collaborative approach, all participant educators are listed as authors on this paper, alphabetically after the organizing authors. Findings For students participating in MTS, they have built both their interdisciplinary and systems thinking skills, as well as their commitment to achieving meaningful change in their community. But MTS arrived in fertile environments and acted as an accelerant, driving attention, validation and connection. Yet while this might align with post-secondary education’s third mission, educators expressed concerns about sustainability, internal commitment to change and navigating tensions between a challenge approach and collaborative work, and internal work and national competition limitations. This complicates the simple insertion of MTS in a post-secondary’s social innovation-related third mission. Research limitations/implications This study was limited to Canadian post-secondaries participating in MTS, and therefore are not representative of either post-secondaries in Canada, or all the MTS participants although Canada is well represented in the challenge itself. Additionally, while the authors believe their approach to treat all participants as authors, and ensured multiple feedback opportunities in private and collectively, this is a deliberate and potentially controversial move away from a traditional study. Social implications More than half of Canadian universities (a subgroup of post-secondaries) had at least one social innovation initiative, but questions have been raised about whether these initiatives are being evaluated internally, or are triggering the kinds of transformative internal work that might be an outcome. Understanding the impact of MTS one example of a social innovation-related initiative can help advance the broader conversation about the place (s) for social innovation in the post-secondary landscape – and where there is still significant work to be done. Originality/value As Canada has only participated in MTS for four years, this is the first inter-institution consideration of its related opportunities and obstacles as a vehicle for transformational social innovation. As well, educators talking openly and frankly to educators reinforces the collaborative quality of social innovation across the post-secondary landscape.

scholarly journals Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Lally ◽  
Cory Forbes
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Environmental Literacy ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Written Responses ◽  
System Components ◽  
Student Models ◽  
Written Explanations ◽  
Interdisciplinary Course

One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p < 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p < 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills.

The Impact of Practitioners’ Personality Traits on Their Level of Systems-Thinking Skills Preferences

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Nagahi ◽  
Raed Jaradat ◽  
Simon R. Goerger ◽  
Michael Hamilton ◽  
Randy K. Buchanan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
The Impact

Systems thinking in school organizations – perspectives from various leadership levels

2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Norqvist ◽  
Helene Ärlestig
Keyword(s):  
Systems Thinking ◽  
School Organization ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Future Behavior ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Deputy Superintendents ◽  
Practical Implications

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to understand how leaders within a school district system understand their own and others' leadership positions from the perspectives of systems thinking and systems thinking skills.Design/methodology/approachThe findings are based on interviews with superintendents, area managers (deputy superintendents), principals and first teachers in Sweden. Sets of systems thinking skills guide the analysis, specifically how various leadership positions are related (their structure and relationships), how leaders understand themselves in relation to the whole and the parts (mindset), what they think about how the organization is organized (content) and how they relate to the organization's history and future (behavior).FindingsLeaders at all levels in the school organization have regular communications, but a wider systems thinking perspective is underdeveloped. The systems are hierarchical, with each level taking responsibility for its subsystem to such a high extent that it does not use or learn from other levels. We also found that change in the investigated schools is subtle, and in the schools, it did not seem important to understand change over time or the nature of important leverage points; the organizations' histories and futures were emphasized less than current issues and relations.Practical implicationsIncreased knowledge on systems thinking skills can provide insights as to whether mindsets, content, structure and behavior are supporting each other or not. These perspectives can help actors on all levels to learn together.Originality/valueIn addition to the study outcomes, this paper offers a unique approach for studying the leadership positions of the governance chain and their impact on an organization's work and results. It obtains a broader picture of school districts' systems when various members of the governing chain express how they understand their organizations, in relation to systems thinking.

Identifying the challenging characteristics of systems thinking encountered by undergraduate students in chemistry problem-solving of gas laws

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ya-Chun Chen ◽  
Kimberley Wilson ◽  
Huann-shyang Lin
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Teaching Strategies ◽  
Chemistry Education ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Complex Chemistry ◽  
Chemistry Education Research

Systems thinking has been an educational priority for more than a decade, yet its related assessment and teaching strategies have been understudied in the chemistry education research community. Through the lens of systems thinking, this study explores how undergraduate students connect and translate their conceptual representations when they are involved in contextualised problem-solving. The ‘Contextualised Problem Solving’ (CPS) assessment instrument contains four open-ended questions about gas law. Three different cohorts of students registered in a physical science course (2016 Fall, 2017 Spring, 2017 Fall semesters) participated in the problem-solving component of CPS. The results showed that only 8% of students were capable of higher order systems thinking ability when they engaged in problem solving. Over half of the students failed to retrieve essential concepts in problem situations. Most of the participants demonstrated difficulties in organising related systems’ components, understanding the cyclic nature of relationships among systems, and identifying limitations in a specific problem context. By identifying the difficulties and challenges of systems thinking experienced by undergraduate students in solving complex chemistry problems, these findings have the potential to provide fresh insights into effective teaching strategies to promote students’ higher order thinking skills.

scholarly journals Systems Thinking Skills of Preschool Children in Early Childhood Education Contexts from Turkey and Germany

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Şebnem Feriver ◽  
Refika Olgan ◽  
Gaye Teksöz ◽  
Matthias Barth
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Preschool Children ◽  
Early Childhood Education ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Case Study Research ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Childhood Education

This study presents an attempt to contribute to the field of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) by conceptualizing systems thinking skills of four- to six-year-old preschool children with the role of age in this particular skill. For this purpose, we developed and tested a method and instruments to assess and conceptualize systems thinking skills of 52 preschool children in early childhood education contexts from Turkey and Germany. By employing qualitative case study research, we concluded that the young children showed some signs of complex understanding regarding systems thinking in terms of detecting obvious gradual changes and two-step domino and/or multiple one-way causalities, as well as describing behavior of a balancing loop. However, their capacity was found to be limited when it comes to detecting a reinforcing loop, understanding system mechanisms by acknowledging the unintended consequences, detecting hidden components and processes, demonstrating multi-dimensional perspective, solving problems through high-leverage interventions, and predicting the future behavior of the system. Age had a notable effect on the total systems thinking mean scores of the participants.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document