Figure 5-1 - uploaded by Richard R. Plate
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citations
... [16]) to determine the effectiveness of interventions that intend to develop systems thinking (e.g. [17]- [19]) or assess candidates' level when applying to a job position [20]. Still, most work has been developed to assess educational interventions in k-16, although [16] assessed graduate students. ...
... Besides, few have shared a specific rubric that other researchers can use among the different studies. We found such rubrics in Plate [19], Grohs et al. [21], and Lavi [22], who also offered measures of validity and reliability. ...
... Operationalization is bound to suitable forms of representation that apply to all comparable concepts (see previous explanation). In many studies, concept mapping has proven to be a systemic form of representation [20][21][22][23][24]. Structural similarities between concept maps and influence diagrams, which emerge from applying the mystery method as the learning output, suggest that these influence diagrams also can be used for diagnostic purposes [4], because both concept maps and influence diagrams emerge as models of thought from the same process of modeling [25]. ...
Influence diagrams, derived from the mystery method as its learning output, represent an externalization of systems thinking and are, therefore, valid to research; so far they have not been conceptualized in the research literature for teaching systems thinking in education for sustainable development. In this study, 31 of those diagrams are confronted with (1) three different expert references, in (2) two different ways, by (3) three different scoring systems to determine which evaluation option is both valid and easy to implement. As a benchmark, the diagrams’ diameters are used, which allows statements about the quality of the maps/diagrams in general. The results show that, depending on the combination of variables that play a role in the evaluation (1, 2, 3), the quality of the influence diagram becomes measurable. However, strong differences appear in the various evaluation schemes, which can be explained by each variable’s peculiarities. Overall, the tested methodology is effective, but will need to be sharpened in the future. The results also offer starting points for future research to further deepen the path taken here.
... 3 Fortunately, research suggests that systems thinking skills can be developed through carefully designed instruction. 13,22,27,46,47,71,84,88 Although it is generally assumed that systems thinking skills are easier to develop in older students, even young children have been shown to have the ability to develop some systems thinking skills with appropriately designed instruction. 4,46,63,86 Consistently, research indicates that systems thinking skills must be explicitly taught if they are to be learned. ...
Systems thinking is a holistic approach for examining complex problems and systems that focuses on the interactions among system components and the patterns that emerge from those interactions. Systems thinking can help students develop higher-order thinking skills in order to understand and address complex, interdisciplinary, real-world problems. Because of these potential benefits, there have been recent efforts to support the implementation of systems thinking approaches in chemistry education, including the development of the IUPAC Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education (STICE) Project and this Special Issue of the Journal of Chemical Education: “Reimagining Chemistry Education: Systems Thinking, and Green and Sustainable Chemistry”. As part of these efforts, our purposes in this paper are to describe some of the potential benefits associated with systems thinking approaches, to identify the STEM education fields that have employed systems thinking approaches, to summarize some of the major findings about the applications of systems thinking in STEM education, and to present methods that have been used to assess systems thinking skills in STEM education. We found that, in general, systems thinking approaches have been applied in life sciences, earth sciences, and engineering but not in the physical or mathematical sciences. We also found that the primary emphasis of peer-reviewed publications was on the development of students’, rather than teachers’, systems thinking abilities. Existing tools for the assessment of systems thinking in STEM education can be divided into (a) assessment rubrics, (b) closed-ended tools, and (c) coding schemes, with each type of assessment tool having its own unique advantages and disadvantages. We highlight one particular case in which researchers applied an interdisciplinary framework for comprehensive assessment of systems thinking. Although systems thinking has not been widely researched or applied in chemistry education, many of the conceptual frameworks applied to systems thinking in other STEM education disciplines could potentially be applied in chemistry education. We argue that the benefits observed when applying systems thinking approaches in other STEM education disciplines could facilitate similar results for chemistry education. Finally, we provide considerations for future research and applications of systems thinking in chemistry education.
... Part C: Causal mapping exercise. This part comprised of a causal mapping exercise adapted from Plate (2006;. Teachers' understanding of nonlinearity, and open and dynamic nature of complex systems was ascertained from this exercise. ...
... The teachers' causal maps were scored quantitatively for their Web-like Causality Index, which provided the proxy measurement for their understanding of nonlinearity and non-determinism. This index was also used in Plate's (2006; study as an analytical technique to assess respondents' complex systems understanding. ...
... Visualization and causal mapping exercises. The visualization and the causal mapping exercises in Parts B and C of the UoCS questionnaire were direct adaptations of the original studies by Jacobson and his team (2011) and Plate (2006) respectively. ...
This study investigates science teachers' understanding and teaching of complex systems. The field of complex systems is the study of how parts of a system give rise to its collective behaviors. Since the 1990s, scientific and educational agencies have advocated the importance of complex systems in science education. Despite this call for instructional emphasis in complex systems, recent studies have shown that students continue to have poor understanding of these systems.
Current efforts in addressing this problem have focused on promoting student learning of complex systems. There are also a few studies that examine this problem from a teacher perspective. While these endeavors have yielded various successes and discoveries, the findings concerning teachers' complexity understanding and instructional practices are not conclusive. This is because most studies are small-scale, involve selective teachers, or investigate singular aspects of complex systems understanding. In short, we have yet to gain a thorough insight of the extent science teachers understand and teach complex systems.
This research addresses the gaps directly by looking at science teachers' understanding and teaching of complex systems. It examines what they know and teach about complex systems, how their instructional practices may be influenced by their understanding and why the ideas may be difficult to comprehend and teach. This research was conducted with 90 11th and 12th grades science teachers across six Singapore schools. A mixed methods design was used.
The findings revealed that while science teachers might appreciate the complex nature of systems, their understanding was not comprehensive: few teachers had prior knowledge of this domain; and certain complex systems ideas appeared better understood than others. It was also found that complex systems ideas were conveyed in science lessons but the extent the ideas were taught was uneven. These ideas were conveyed more often in biology than in chemistry and physics, and certain ideas were more explicitly taught. Teachers with better complex systems understanding were also better able to convey these ideas in their lessons. Several reasons impeding teachers' understanding and teaching of complex systems were also revealed. Implications for research and professional development for science teachers are discussed.
