Chen, David and Stroup, Walter - General Systems Theory

8/7/2019 Chen, David and Stroup, Walter - General Systems Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chen-david-and-stroup-walter-general-systems-theory 1/14

General System Theory: Toward a Conceptual Framework for Science and TechnologyEducation for AllAuthor(s): David Chen and Walter StroupSource: Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 447-459Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188553 .

Accessed: 26/01/2011 21:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Science Education

and Technology.

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188553?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40188553?origin=JSTOR-pdf




Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1993

General System Theory:Toward a Conceptual

Frameworkfor Science and TechnologyEducation for All

David Chen1 and Walter Stroup1'2

In this paper we suggest using general system theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical frame-

work for "science and technology education for all." Five reasons are articulated: the mul-

tidisciplinary nature of systems theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to

describesystem dynamics

andchange,

theability

torepresent

therelationship

between the

micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and

human worlds. The historical origins of system ideas are described, and the major conceptsof system theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophicalconstructs. The various efforts to implement system thinking in educational contexts are

reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simu-

lation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educa-

tional implications of system thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world

and simulated learning environments is advocated.

KEYWORDS:Scienceeducationfor all;generalsystem theory;system thinking;learningtechnology;complexity;simulation;real world.

INTRODUCTION

For several decades scientists, philosophersand mathematicianshavebeen workingto construct

an exact theory capable of unifying the manybranchesof the scientificenterprise.The productof

this effort- system theoryis seen to provide a

powerful framework for understandingboth the

natural and the human-constructedworld. System

theoryis fundamentallyan approachto intellectually

engaging change and complexity.Such ability,we

believe, is essential to functioningeffectivelyin to-

day'sworld.We advancesystemtheoryas an impor-tant framework

capableof supportingcurrentefforts

at science educationreform.

Why System Theory in Education?

Many of the current efforts aimed at schoolscience reform make the following point: If a de-

mocracyrequireseducation for all, then science and

technology3education must have as a core compo-nent a commitmentto educatingall citizens. Scienceand technologyfor all is the intellectualanalog tofunctional literacyin the traditional sense. Just astraditionalliteracyhas played a central role in al-

lowing citizens to participatein the traditional as-

pects of society,full participationin our increasinglytechnologicalfuture will require a citizenrythat is

scientificallyliterate.Unfortunately,even as achiev-

2TheWrightCenter for Science Education,Science and Tech-

nologyCenter,4 ColbyStreet, Tufts University,Medford MA

02155.

Correspondenceshould be directedto WalterStroup,H. The

WrightCenter for Science Education,Scienceand TechnologyCenter,4 ColbyStreet,Tufts University,Medford,MA 02155.

^Traditionalepistemologicalframeworkshavehistoricallyconsid-

ered science and technologyas two distinctways of knowing.As a practicalmatter,the developmentsof the twentiethcenturyhave movedthe two frameworkscloser to each other. This evo-

lution hashappenedeven as some distinctivefeatureshave been

maintained.

447

1059-0145/93/0900-0447S07.00/0 © 1993 Plenum Publishing Corporation



448 Chen and Stroup

ing functionalliteracyin science and technologyhasbeen an articulatedgoal at both the national andinternationallevel, a coherent theoreticalframework

capable of guiding such an undertakingis still ab-

sent. The enthusiasticgenerationof lists of contentareas,topics,and issues to be coveredin variouscur-riculacannot,in and of themselves,makeup for thisabsence. A theoretical frameworkcapableof clari-

fying and supportingscience and technologyfor allneeds to be advanced.Systemtheoryis the strongestcandidateof which we are aware,capableof guidingthe science education reform effort.

The majorstrengthsof systemtheorythat rec-ommend it as an approachto science education areas follows.

1. TowardIntegration:General systemtheory

(GST) providesa set of powerfulideas stu-dents can use to integrate and structuretheir understanding in the disciplines of

physical, life, engineering, and social sci-ence.

2. EngagingComplexity:Complexityis the fun-damentaltrait of the everydayenvironmentin which the student lives. Traditionalsci-ence educationhas avoidedengagingcom-

plexity by promoting curriculabuilt uponoverlysimplifiedactivitiesand frameworks.GST providesthe tools for activelyengag-ingcomplexity.Thisoffers the possibilityof

bridgingthe gap between the world of thelearner and the world of scienceeducation.

3. UnderstandingChange:The world as it is

experiencedis dynamic.To ignorethe cen-

tralityof change over time is to present a

picture that is alienated from reality.Tra-ditionalscienceeducationhas tendedto fo-cus on static and rote sequences. The

system theory offers the intellectualtoolsfor learners to build understandingbasedon dynamics.

4. RelatingMacro- and Micro-Levels:A soundscientific account requires

facilityin mov-

ing between the macro- and micro-levels.These levels work in concert. An under-

standing built on the two levels must bemediated.Generalsystemtheoryoffers the

possibilityof making explicit the comple-mentary relation between these levels of

analysis.5. Functioningin a Human-MadeWorld:Fun-

damentally, humankind has the distinct

abilityto articulate and negotiate its rela-tion to the world. The arts, includingthe

technologicalarts, are the manifestprod-uctsof thisability.Recentcurriculapropos-

als focusing on science, technology, andsociety (STS) are an effort to place thisdis-tinct human trait at the core of scienceeducation for all. General system theory,since its inception,has had issues of design,goals, and purpose at the center of its

analyses. GST is in a unique position to

providea sound theoretical foundationfor

science, technology,and societycurricula.

ClearlyGST has potential for science educa-tion. To date, system dynamicsand GST have in-

spireda few innovativeefforts to constructcurricula

and learningenvironments.While these efforts havebeen guided by sound understandingof systemthe-

ory, an equally developed understandingof how

learningdevelops in relation to system theoryis not

yet in place. In order for system theory to live upto its potential,a substantialprogramof fundamen-tal researchand appliedcurriculumdevelopmentis

required.

What is System Theory?

At the core of systemtheoryare thenotionsthat:

1. A "system"is an ensemble of interactingparts, the sum of which exhibitsbehaviornot localized in its constituentparts.(Thatis, "the whole is more than the sum of the

parts.")2. A systemcan be physical,biological,social,

or symbolic;or it can be comprisedof oneor more of these.

3. Change is seen as a transformationof the

system in time, which, nevertheless,con-serves its identity. Growth, steady state,and decay are majortypes of change.

4. Goal-directed behavior characterizes the

changesobservedin the state of the system.A system is seen to be activelyorganizedin terms of the goal and, hence, can be un-derstood to exhibit"reversecausality."

5. "Feedback" is the mechanism that medi-ates between the goal and systembehavior.

6. Time is a centralvariablein systemtheory.It providesa referent for the very idea of

dynamics.



GeneralSystemTheory 449

7. The "boundary"serves to delineatethe sys-tem from the environmentand any subsys-tems from the systemas a whole.

8. System-environment interactions can be

defined as the input and output of matter,information,andenergy.The systemcan be

open, closed, or semipermeableto the en-vironment.

Ultimately,it is not for us to decide whetheror not generalsystem theory is capableof unifyingallbranchesof humanunderstanding.We do believeit provides the most rigorous and thorough-goingframeworkfor developingscience education for allnow in existence. As such, it provides a powerfulplace to begin the effort at science education re-form.

In this document,we will present a brief his-toryof the developmentof systemtheory concepts,an overviewof educational researchand develop-ment efforts in this area, an outline of the learningenvironmentsexplored to date and some conclu-

sions.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SYSTEM THEORY

Aristotle expressedthe basic tenet of system

theory:Thewhole is morethan the sumof the parts.This emphasison synthesiswas eventuallydisplacedbyan analyticapproach.Galileo's mathematicalcon-

ception of the world replaced Aristotle's descrip-tive-metaphysicalapproachand paved the way forwhat has becomemodern scientificanalysis.Follow-

ingDescartes,the scientificmethodinvolvedanalyz-

ing complex phenomena into elementary particlesandprocesses.Thisapproachwas (andis) phenome-nally successfulin helping to understandprocessesthat can be readilydecomposedinto simple causalchains. However, multivariablesystems have re-

mainedproblematicwithinthis framework.As manyof the majorproblemsfacingscience and societyto-

dayinvolve

complexmultivariable

systems, ap-proaches that draw on the activity of synthesisrecommendthemselves.

Modernefforts to constructa unifyingtheory

capable of addressingcomplex systems in the do-

mains of natural,social, and engineering sciences

can be tracedto the early 1920s.A. J. Lotka(1920,

1956) in his Elementsof MathematicalBiologyfor-

mally articulatedthe principlesof what would be-come modern system theory. He applied these

principlesto importantbiologicalphenomena.Lotkarealized the scientificenterprisehad to move in anew direction:"Trueprogresscan be expectedonlyby ... strikingout in a new direction;forsakingthe

way of quasi-dynamicSjand breakinga trail towarda system of true dynamics,both of the individual

(micro-dynamics) and of the system as whole

(macro-dynamics)[1920,1956,p. 52]."Lotkadevel-

oped detaileddynamicmodels of the circulationofcertainelements in nature(e.g., carbon andnitrogencycles), growthof organisms,and other importantdynamicsystems.

The interactionbetweenphysicsandbiologyatthe beginningof the centuryled Defay (1929) and

Schrodinger(1944, 1967) to utilize thermodynamicsprinciplesto explore biologicalsystems.This kindofresearchmakes it clearthat the

organismas awhole

cannot be considereda closedsystemin equilibrium.An organismis an open systemthat remainsstableunder continuoustransformationsand exchangesofmatterand energy.

The physicist Weaver joined with ClaudeShannon to write a seminal work on information

theory.The MathematicalTheoryof Communication

(Shannonand Weaver,1949)discussedthree stagesin the developmentof scientificanalysis:

1. Organizedsimplicity- classical mechanicsis built on the idea that the orderlinessofthe worldis built

upfrom

simpleunits and

relations.2. Unorganizedcomplexity- statisticalphys-

ics accountsfor complexitybutonly insofaras it can be built up from random orchance occurrences.

3. Organizedcomplexity- information the-

ory looks to account for complexity byidentifyingthe fundamentalorderingrela-tions that give rise to the complexity.

The examplesgiven serve to illustrate the na-ture of the stages. Under their analysis,the third

stagewas to be the model for the science of the 20th

century.Weiner(1948) discussedorganizedcomplexity

in his work, Cybernetics:Control of Man and the Ma-

chine. He articulated an integrated theoreticalframeworkbuilt on the kinds of analysesLotkapro-vided. Cyberneticsdraws on three theories:system

theory,informationtheory,and control theory.For

Weiner the notion of system was a given. He ad-vanced a more complete analysis of feedback



450 Chen and Stroup

mechanismsand goal-directedbehavior.He appliedthese constructsto social,biological,and mechanical

systems. Weiner envisaged the central role of the

computerin industrialand intellectualprocesses.In

so doing he providedthe impetus for what wouldbecome system dynamicstheoryand,still later,whatwas to become cognitivescience. The powerfulideasof cyberneticswere taken up by computerscience,

engineering, biology, philosophy, psychology, and

many branches of social science. So complete wasthis integrationof cyberneticsideas into other areasthat the disciplineof cyberneticsceased to exist asan independentfield of study.

Ludwig Bertalanffy established the field of

general system theory (GST). The comprehensivetheorywas first publishedin 1955 and drew heavilyon basic ideas he

developedin the 1930s. It is worth

notingthat in his outline of the "majoraims of gen-eral system theory,"Bertalanffyis explicitin seeingthe implicationsfor education. His list of the majoraims included:

1. There is a general tendency towards integration in

the various sciences, natural and social.

2. Such integration seems to be centered in a gen-eral theory of systems.

3. Such theory may be an important means for aimingat exact theory in the nonphysical fields of science.

4. Developing unifying principles running "verti-

cally" through the universe of the individual sci-

ences, this theory brings us nearer to the goal of

theunity of science.5. This can lead to a much-needed integrationin sci-

entific education [emphasis added] [1988, p. 37].

Such a comprehensivevision has to be takenas the model for whatfollowed in systemtheoryandin its vision of the integratedstudyof science.

The philosophical aspects of general systemtheorywere taken up by Laszlo (1972), who advo-cated "seeing thingswhole"and seeing the world asan interconnected,interdependentfield continuouswith itself. This syntheticstance was to provide a

powerfulantidote to the intellectualfragmentationimplied by compartmentalizedresearch and piece-meal analysis. Knowing and intentionalityare as-pects of systemtheory.This inclusionof the knowerand goals is seen as a strength of the system ap-proach.Scientificknowingis used instrumental t̂o

bringthe organizedinterdependenciesof the worldinto a greater totality.This totality specificallyin-cludes the human.

Laszlo's version of system theory uses twokinds of interacting hierarchies.Micro-hierarchies

and macro-hierarchiesare to be interwovenin mod-

eling the naturalworld. In his emphasison knowingandgoals,Laszlobringsto the fore aspectsof systemtheory that serve to unite Aristotelianinsightswith

contemporarytheories of complexity.In a collectionof Bertalanffy'spapers publish-

ed after his death (1984), systemtheoryis described

as consistingof three elements:1. Mathematicalsystemtheory:The description

of a systemin termsof a set of measuresthatdefinethe state of that system. Formal mathematics areused to account for the transformationsin the stateof the system. The changes in the system are ex-

pressed by a set of differentialequations in time.

Propertiesof the systemsuch as stability,wholenessand sum,growthmechanization,competitionand fi-

nalityare

givenprecise expressionusingthis mathe-

matics. This is essentially a "structural"internal

descriptionof a system.An external description of a system can be

analyzedas a "blackbox."From the outside,the sys-tem can be describedin terms of inputsandoutputs;and uses terms from the languageof control tech-

nologysuch as feedback and goals.This "functional"

approachcan be used to talk aboutsystem-environ-ment behavior.

2. Systemtechnology:Society and society'suse

of technologyhave become so complexthattheyarenot amenable to traditionalanalysis.Systemtheory

allows one to effectively engage this complexity.Ecosystems,industrialcomplexes,education,urban

environments,socioeconomicentities, and a varietyof organizationsexhibit behaviors that lend them-selves to analysiswithin the systemframework.

3. Systemphilosophy:System theory strivestobe a fully articulatedworld view, which is to standin contrast to the analytic,mechanistic, linear,and

externally causal analytic framework of the tradi-tional scientific paradigm.System philosophyis tobe a new paradigmcomplete with a new ontologyand epistemologycovering"realsystems,conceptualsystems,and abstractsystems."

Bertalanffy'sdiscussion servesto reconcile the

competing traditions of general system theory, cy-bernetics,and system dynamics.

More recently, the availabilityand increased

power of the computer enabled Jay Forrester ofM.I.T. to show that "the same principlesof cause,effect and feedbackunderlyingvariousweapon sys-tems were applicableto explainingthe dynamicbe-haviorof governments,businesssystems,and human



General System Theory 451

behavior." He called this "new" field of study system

dynamics. Forrester's major works on the principlesof system dynamics, industrial dynamics, and world

dynamics were published in 1961, 1968 and 1973 re-

spectively. Not only did Forrester outline and applysystem dynamics theory, he mentored many of the

central figures in the current generation of systemtheorists. This list includes such central figures as

Denis and Donella Meadows {Limits to Growth;

1972), Nancy Roberts {Introductionto Computer

Simulation), Barry Richmond and Steve Peterson

(STELLA; 1984, 1990) and Peter Senge {The Fifth

Discipline; 1990).The major advances in system theory of late

have not occurred at the level of theory but at the

level accessibility and availability of computational

platforms. Improvementsin interface and the devel-

opment of various finite-difference modeling envi-

ronments for the microcomputer have made it

possible to consider the introduction of system the-

ory into school settings.

A REVIEW OF LEARNING SYSTEM THINKING

The origin of the idea of using system theoryas the basis for an integrated science curriculum is

not recent. In the articulating his general system the-

ory (GST) in the early 1950s, Bertalanffy explicitly

drew attention to the possibility of using general sys-tem theory as a basis for education. His thesis was

that GST provides basic interdisciplinary principlesthat could structure an integrated curriculum and

help move away from the compartmentalized studyof physics, biology, and chemistry. Under Bertalan-

ffy's analysis, the introduction of system conceptsholds out the prospect of meaningful reform at the

level of classroom curriculum.

A second level of possible reform also exists.

In the 1960s, Jay Forrester extended the basic analy-sis of system thinking to social contexts. He saw this

work as part of an effort to conceptualize an over-

arching discipline of system dynamics that would in-clude both natural and social processes. In his

analysis of social system management, Forrester ob-

served

there are fundamental reasons why people mis-

judged the behavior of social systems, orderly proc-esses are at work in the creation of human

judgment and intuition, which frequently lead peo-

ple to wrong decisions when faced with complex

and highly interactive systems. Until we come to a

much better understanding of social systems, we

should expect that attempts to develop corrective

programs will continue to disappoint us [Forrester,1975; p. 211].

Peter Senge used Forrester's ideas to analyzethe working of specific institutions. Institutions -

including schools - would be covered by Senge'sanalysis, and so system thinking can happen at an-

other level in the context of school. Not only can it

lead to an integrated school science curriculum; it

has the potential of providing an important method

for reflecting on the institution of schooling itself.

The history of projects involving the introduction of

system ideas in formal learning contexts can be seen

to have two levels: understanding at the level of the

students andunderstanding

at the institutional level.

System Thinking in Education Projects

The 1960s saw the first efforts to realize the

potential of system thinking at the level of school

curricula. The Science Curriculum Improvement

Study (SCIS) of the mid-1960s developed curriculum

units that introduced the concepts of system, inter-

actions, subsystems, and variables to elementaryschool children. An evaluation study, "SCIS: Chil-

dren's Understanding of the Systems Concept"

(Garigliano, 1975) found that "there are some real

problems when people attempt to put the systems

concept to work." In particular, the systems conceptsuffered from two confusions: children "believed

that a system of objects has to be doing somethingin order to be a system" and "children are confused

by a system that loses some part of itself." As a key

component in his work, Garigliano developed an as-

sessment activity that could be used to evaluate

learners' understandings of the system concept. Half

of the children "responded incorrectly" to activities

involving a comparison of the "number and kind of

objects." Garigliano argued that more studies with

children needed be done with activities "requiringthe ability to conserve a number of types of systems"

including "volume, area, size, number and kind of

objects." Garigliano suggested an analysis of the

conservation activities be done in terms of Piaget's

development theories about how and when conser-

vation ideas are constructed by children.

More recent research based on the SCIS

model produced results consistent with Garigliano's

findings. This effort used the SCIS physical science



452 Chen and Stroup

unit "Systems and Interactions" with the experimen-tal group and a "descriptive, non-inquiry science

program which did not attempt to develop the sys-tem concept" with the control group. Hill and Red-

den (1985) reported the experimental group's meanon the assessment activity developed by Gariglianowas higher than that of the control group. Both

groups, however, had significant difficulties with cer-

tain items in the assessment. Like Garigliano, Hill

and Redden reasoned that conservation-related con-

cepts were at the root of the difficulties. In particu-lar, "the notions of equality of systems and allowable

transformations within a system are not understood

by many children."

As conservation concepts play a pivotal role in

system theory, these difficulties point to real prob-lems for curriculum

developmentefforts. Hill and

Redden make the point by noting "the difficulties

in developing systems concepts have been underes-

timated in the SCIS program." Echoing Garigliano,Hill and Redden stress that issues surrounding con-

servation concepts must be further investigated if ef-

forts to pursue a quantified approach to system

theory are to be advanced in school settings.A somewhat different effort to use system con-

cepts in primary school settings was undertaken byRoberts (1975). Roberts studied how fifth and sixth

graders learned to read dynamic feedback system

causal-loop diagrams. The use of feedback concepts

and causal-loop diagramsconstitute an importantpartof system thinking. Roberts' emphasis on these com-

ponents of system thinking distinguishes her work

from the research discussed above. Conservation-re-

lated activities were not a part of her experimental

design. The students in Roberts' project developedand explored relationships among variables discussed

in written materials. Using Bloom's taxonomy levels,Roberts showed that the students performed well on

the levels of comprehension, application, and analysis.The results supported her conclusion that the fifth

and sixth graders could, in fact, study the concepts

"underlying problems usually taught at the collegelevel and beyond" (Roberts, 1978). These results

would suggest that some components of system think-

ing do not seem to be as dependent on conservation

concepts, and hence can be successfully engaged bystudents in elementary grades.

Mintz (1987) studied ninth-graders learningabout ecological systems in a computer simulation

environment. A major focus of this work was how

student comprehension of the components of a sys-

tem and the interaction between variables could be

advanced by working in a computer program that

had "pictures, graphs and numerical tables." The ef-

fectiveness of this kind of learning environment for

having students come to an understanding of com-

plexity was addressed. The researcher's conclusions

in this area were significant. While "[pjassiveviewingof the system dynamics is sufficient for the learningof simple principles," to achieve the understandingof the "high level principles," the active manipulationof "at least two variables is needed." Benefits of

working within this environment were observed for

students across ability levels. Issues related to learn-

ers' cognitive styles did arise, and the researcher

found that "[f]ield-independent students derived

more learning gains from the simulations than do

field-dependentstudents." The overall conclusion for

this work is that "[vjariable manipulation is an in-

structional tool which leads to intelligent learning

through attention to relevant details, and it helpsboth field-dependent and field-independent students

to some extent."

Hopkins et al (1987) studied how veterinarystudents and cardiovascular research experts made

judgments of the relationship among properties and

variables of complex systems. The system under

study was the heart/blood vessel system. A number

of analyses found that novices "tended to conceptu-alize the system in static anatomic terms." Experts

showed "a more integrative conceptualization anddistinguished more clearly than students between re-

lations involving only system properties and those in-

volving system variables." The authors found "that

using the simplest form of representation, a digraph,has several advantages over other representations."This study arrived at the conclusion that "the dis-

tinction between properties and variables is funda-

mental to the understanding of dynamic systems."Mettes (1987) has incorporated system think-

ing in an elaborate model called a systematic ap-

proach to problem solving (SAPS). At a certain

stage in his analysis of problem solving, the ideas of

system boundaries, system content, and system state

are needed. Using this model, Mettes has developedand studied academic courses at Twente Universityof Technology in the Netherlands. Courses of

mathematics, physics, and chemistry were developed

whereby the learning process was divided into two

phases. In the first phase, the learner receives in-

struction and information in the skill to be acquired.This is the declarative phase. In the second phase,




this knowledge is graduallyconverted into proce-duralformby practicingproblemsolving.Evaluationstudies have shown that in a course on thermody-namicsand a course on magnetism,the effect was

significant.The System Thinkingand CurriculumInnova-

tion Project (STACI), coordinated by researchersfrom the EducationalTesting Service,was an earlyeffort to use a computer-basedmodeling environ-ment with high school students (Mandinach and

Thorpe,1987, 1988).For this project,the STELLA

(Richmondand Peterson, 1984) computerenviron-ment was used. STELLA is a very powerfullymod-

eling environmentwherein learners can both buildand manipulatesystemmodels. The modelingenvi-ronmentwasused in physics,biology,chemistry,and

socialstudies classes. The basic researchdesign

wasto comparethe abilitiesof these studentsto studentswho were taught using traditional classroom ap-proaches.The researchersdeveloped a testing in-strument titled the system thinking instrument

(STI).STI emphasizedthree aspectsof what the re-searchers took to be the key concepts of systemthinking:variables,causality,and looping. The re-sults were inconclusiveusing this instrument:"theincidence of overlapbetween test and systemcon-

cept coveragewas not sufficientfrom whichto draw

anyconclusions."The researchersarticulateda con-cern that the actual classroom time committedto

system work probablywas insufficient to producesignificantresults. In general,the studentswere notable to constructtheir own models.

The actual constructionof models by learnersis an importantcomponentof systemthinking.The

development and evaluation cycle associated with

makingmodels serves to reinforce the idea of dy-namicfeedback,whichlies at the coreof systemthe-

ory. A paper titled "Learning about Systems byMakingModels"by Riley (1990) focuses more spe-cificallyon issues related to havingstudents make

models using a computer simulationenvironment.

Rileyused the software modeling environment

STELLAin the context of an advancedhighschool

geography class (sixth form students in London,

England).He notes early on in his discussionthat

"dynamicsystemsare difficultfor studentsto under-stand and for teachersto presentwhetherthe sub-

jects are industrialplants, economic activities, or

environmentalsystems."His effort to have students "expressand con-

struct their own understandingsof systemsbehavior

through model-making activities" encountered anumberof difficulties,which are describedin the ar-ticle. Rileyconcludedthatsuch an approachmaybe

"impractical"becauseof "excessivedemandson the

expertiseand time of the teachersandstudents."Heholds out hope, however, that researchinto "pro-gressionin student activities"and the developmentof "appropriatesoftware environments"assistingstudents'progressfrom "ready-madesimulationsto

making their own models" will make the processmore practicalin the near future.

A morespecificoverviewof the featuresof theSTELLAenvironmentand an outline of some of the

potential implicationsof learning system dynamicsis providedin Steed's (1992) article, "STELLA,ASimulationConstructionKit:CognitiveProcess andEducational

Implications."Drawingheavilyon the

discussion of STELLA and dynamicsystemprinci-ples found in the manualsthat accompanythe soft-

ware, Steed mentions a host of issues related to

usingthe softwareenvironmentand dynamicsystemprinciples.A list of the issues raisedincludes:linearvs. circularnotions of causality,the challengeof ele-

gantsimplification,discoveryand experientiallearn-

ing, constructivism, simulation as intellectual

"mirror,"modelingboth physicaland affectivesys-tems, metacognitiveskills, complexity,whether thetime involved in using the STELLAenvironmentis"worththe effort,""what-if' kinds of experimenta-

tion, and seeing "structureas cause" of behavior.Other issues are also raised in the article.Unfortu-

nately, none of the assertions made by Steed are

supportedby empiricalresearch or extended theo-retical analysis.In the end, the author is only leftwith the following:"It is concludedthat model con-structionsoftwaremightproveto be a usefulwayof

makingexplicitour assumptionsabout dynamicsys-tems and bring us to a better understandingof a

system'sbehavior."The operativeword in the con-clusion is "might."The potential continues to un-

deranalyzedand underrealized.

Blauberget al. (1977), in their book SystemsTheory: Philosophical and Methodological Problems,have conceptualized a number of paradoxescon-

cerning system thinking.One paradoxconcernsthe

capacityto analyze system hierarchy.The effort todescribe a systemas such calls upon the descriptionof the subsystems;and the descriptionsof the sub-

systems depend on the description of the system.Anotherparadoxinvolves the concept of wholeness.It is impossibleto cognizea systemas a whole with-



454 Chen and Stroup

out decomposing it into its parts. A further paradoxinvolves the tension between the knowledge (and

corresponding methodologies) associated with spe-cific systems and the methodology of system theory

itself, which is to be general and hence not tied tothe specific content of the systems under considera-

tion. There are many levels of complexity that need

to be resolved as the new science of system theory

emerges and attempts to articulate its relation to the

analytic method of traditional science.

Recently, Senge (1990), in The Fifth Discipline,has extended Forrester's work and studied exten-

sively systems thinking in what he calls "learning or-

ganizations." In a detailed analysis of behavior of

corporations as learning organizations, Senge de-

picts several "archetypes" of system thinking crucial

for managing organizational behavior in complexsituations. It would be interesting to study whetheror not the organizational behavior problems coin-

cide with individual cognitive problems concerning

systems thinking. The following system thinking ar-

chetypes were captured by Senge:

1. "Balancing process with delay." When the

feedback from the goal is delayed, and the

organization is not conscious of the delay,it will end up taking more corrective action

than necessary.2. "Limits to growth." A classical growth

curve consists of log, log and saturation

phases. In order to avoid approaching thesaturation phase, the best strategy is to re-

move the limiting factors and not to rein-force the growth.

3. "Shifting the burden." When a short-term

solution is used to correct the problem we

seemingly see positive, immediate results.

The long-term corrective measures are

used less and less, leading to reliance onthe symptomatic solution.

4. "Shifting the burden to the intervener."

When an external agent attempts success-

fully to correct the system, the peoplewithin the system never learn how to deal

with problems themselves.5. "Eroding goals." This situation occurs

when short-term solutions let a long-term

goal decline.

6. "Escalation." When one system sees its

welfare depending on a relative advantageover the other, each side sees its own ag-gressive behavior as a response to the

other's aggression. This leads to a buildupwhich goes far beyond what either side con-

siders desirable.

7. "Success to the successful." When two sys-

tems compete for limited resources, themore successful one becomes the more suc-

cess it gains, thereby starving the other.

8. "Tragedy of the commons." When indivi-

duals use a commonly available but limited

resource solely on the basis of individual

need. Eventually, the resource is signifi-

cantly eroded or depleted.

According to Senge, system thinking would al-

low the individual, group, or organization to have

an overview of the structure and the dynamics of the

local system and adapt the behavior accordingly.

Senge's account of the concept of system thinkingon the level of organizational behavior is probablythe most detailed study of its kind. However, this

study does not tell us why problematic behavior

emerges and what is necessary to learn and employ

system thinking.The most recent effort to engage system theory

in school settings is being carried out at the Catalena

Schools in Tucson, Arizona. It is in this setting that

Forrester (1991) has set up the Systems ThinkingEducational Project. Rather than beginning the edu-

cational enterprise with facts, Forrester advocates

reversing the traditional educational sequence. Stu-

dents would start with the activity of synthesis. Partsare to be brought together into a whole, where the

whole assumes characteristics not capable of beingreduced to properties of the elements. Only later

would students break material into constituent partsand apply facts to generalizations. To support this

teaching strategy Forrester draws on Bruner's idea

that "unless detail is placed into a structured pat-tern, it is rapidly forgotten." This effort is still on-

going and the formal results are not yet in. Because

this effort attempts to build on the work of Roberts

and not Garigliano, the issues surrounding conser-

vation concepts are not raised. Insofar as Forrester's

project uses the software environment STELLA and

this environment specifically requires an under-

standing of conservation concepts to make it work,it will be interesting to see if difficulties related to

children's ability to conserve such quantities as vol-

ume, area, size, as well as number and kind of ob-

ject, will arise anew in this context.

The effort by Forrester is also significant at an-

other level. It is the first project that articulates a




commitmentto implementingsystemthinkingbothat the level of the curriculumand at the level of

analyzingthe behaviorof the educationalenterpriseof the school itself. In order for systemthinkingto

be effective at this level, system concepts must belearnedby the people workingat that level. Ques-tions about learning system thinkingmust be ad-dressed at this level: what is possible, when, andhow? The need for fundamentalresearchinto learn-

ing about system theoryis once again highlighted.

A REVIEW OF TYPES OF LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS

There are three basictypesof learningenviron-ments or learningapproachesthat have been used

to teachsystem thinking.The learningenvironments

maybe used in conjunctionwith one anotherin con-

structingcurriculaand are not mutuallyexclusive.

Expert Presentation

Texts of the sort writtenby Lotka,Bertalanffy,Forrester,Roberts,or Senge are but one format for

engagingsystem ideas. Texts serve both as a pres-entationof the theoryand a kind of learningenvi-ronment.Some of the texts on systemtheoryrequirea highlevel of technicalexpertiseon the partof the

reader.Other texts are aimed at a much moregen-eral audience. Still others serve as textbookswithin

relativelytraditionallearningsettings.Texts written for experts are not intended to

serve as an ideal learningenvironmentfor a largenumberof people. Experttexts are for those with a

gooddeal of expertisein place,and hence the abilityof the texts to advanceunderstandingin the nonex-

pert populationis not a centralconcern.

Populartexts, in contrast,are designed to beaccessibleat some level by a significantnumberof

potentialreaders.For populartexts,there is tension

betweenthe richnessof ideas that can bepresentedand the need to maintainaccessibility.Moreover,it

is not clear that even for very good popular texts

the numberof people able to makesignificantshifts

in their understandingbased solely on reading is

large. While popular texts are aimed at a largeraudience, the assumptionsabout how the learning

mighttake place are not made explicit.Thus it ap-

pears that while accessibilityis important,populartextsare simply"flyingblind"when it comes to hav-

ing that accessibilitybe based on a frameworkforhow understandingis advanced.

Texts that are to serve as textbooksare gen-erallydesignedto functionwithin a relativelytradi-

tional pedagogicalparadigm.Thus their success iscloselyassociatedwith the effectiveness(or ineffec-

tiveness)of that paradigm.Lectures are a second kind of expert presen-

tation. As an approachto learningaboutsystemthe-

ory, such a paradigmmight be expected to be nomore or no less successfulthanwhen this paradigmis used to teachvarioussubjectdomains(e.g., phys-ics or chemistry).Based on results in specific disci-

plines (Halloun and Hestenes, 1985; McCloskeyet

aL, 1980), the use of formal verbal presentation(even when accompaniedby a textbook)can be ex-

pectedto have

verymodest success.

A specific example of a textbook-basedcur-riculumprojectis The Man-MadeWorldprojectbe-

gun in 1965. This project involved both researchuniversitiesand industries.It focused on introducingconcepts from the engineeringcurriculuminto theliberalarts curriculum.The goal of this effort wasto startdowna roadleadingto technologicalliteracyfor all. The curriculumconcentratedon the systemconceptsbecause "the systemsapproachis increas-

ingly important in modern technology, economic,

politicalandsocial studies"(Davidet ai9 1980).The

hope was that the curriculumwouldbe animatedby

the fact that the text "presentsa series of significantcurrentproblemsin which the concepts provideun-

derstanding."Within the context of technologyand

society,the content of this curriculumdealswith de-

cision-making, optimization, modeling, systems,change, feedback, human-machine systems, logic,and communications.

This was a serious effort to present complexconceptsin a waythat would be accessibleto nonen-

gineeringstudents while still providingan introduc-tion for students who did decide to go on in

engineeringdisciplines.The project,however,did notarticulatea coherentapproachto learningissuesnor

didit do substantiveevaluationsof learningoutcomes.For both kinds of expert presentation- text

and verbalpresentation- the nature of the inter-action is largelyfixed. Fewopportunities,if any,existfor getting access to and then actively engaginglearners'understanding.It seems highlysuspectthat

such presentation-based learning environments

might provideeffective vehicles for actuallylearningsystemthinking.



456 Chen and Stroup

ComputerSimulation

The most commonform of activelearningenvi-ronmentfor learningsystemthinkingis the computer

simulation.There are two approachesto simulations.Eitherlearnersare asked to developtheir own simu-lationsor ready-madesimulationsare provided.

Robertset al. (1983) developeda introductorycourse in computersimulationfor system dynamics.The computerenvironmentis used as a "methodfor

understanding,representing,andsolvingcomplexin-

terdependentproblems."The environmentanimates"three critical aspects" of the system perspective:cause-and-effect thinking, feedback relationships,and system boundarydetermination. The learnersare requiredto constructcomputersimulations us-

inga

system dynamicsapproach.The followingsix typesof activitiesserve as the

teachingand learning strategyoutlined by Robertset al. The first phase is concerned with "problemdefinition,"which leads to the second phaseof "sys-tems conceptualization."In the thirdphase modelsare represented using the DYNAMO simulation

language.The fourthphase has the simulationbeingused to determine how the variables behave overtime. The model is then evaluatedby comparingtheresults of the model with the phenomena beingmodeled. Refinements are made in the model. Inthe final phase the model is used to test alternative

policiesand approachesfor engagingthe systemun-der consideration.After the introductionto systemtheory,the textgoes on to use the six phasesto con-sider such topics as the oil crisis, urban planning,population, family dynamics, predator-prey rela-

tions,and the progressof flu epidemics.Despite therichness of the models and learningstrategy, veryfew insights into actual teaching and learningare

given in the Robertswork.

Recently,Forresterassumeda principalrole in

developingthe SystemsDynamicsin EducationPro-

ject. Computer simulations implemented in theSTELLAsoftwareenvironmentare the core instru-

ments in these curricula.Currently,the simulationsareintroducedusingsimplekinematicsconcepts(e.g.,free-fall,uniformmotion,etc.), a studyof epidemics,andan examinationof glucoseregulationin the body.

Incontrastto the approachoutlinedbyRoberts,the studentsarenot responsibleforbuildingthe mod-els. Instead,models very similar to those developedby the SystemsDynamicsGroupat MIT in the late

1960s,1970s,andearly1980sare centralto thiseffort.

The rationalerecentlyarticulatedby Forrester

(1991)for hiswork in schoolsis that "systemdynam-ics offersa frameworkthatpromisesto givecohesion,

meaningand motivationto [j]uniorand [sjeniorhigh

school education." Moreover, "learner-directedlearning importsto pre-college education the chal-

lenge and excitement of the research laboratory."Forrester'sapproachto reform revitalizesone of thecentral themes of the curriculumreform efforts ofthe 1960s.Notably, it centers on the idea that thecontent and methodologiesassociatedwith the uni-

versity model for educating should be "imported"into the secondaryschoolsas the primaryinstrumentsof reform.The gap between universitylearningandschool learningis to be closed by makingschool edu-cation more like universityeducation. Because itsiconic interfaceis assumedto providea more acces-sibleinterfaceforbuildingcomputersimulationsthanthat used to constructthe originalsimulationsin the

1960s, 1970s,and 1980s,STELLAlies at the core ofForrester'seffort to move school education to bemore in line with universityeducation.

Recently, a number of high-quality,prepack-aged simulationshave become commerciallyavail-able. As is true with the STELLAenvironment,thelearner is able to manipulatethe basic inputs and

outputsof the model. Unlike the STELLAenviron-

ment,however,the learner is not givenaccess to theinternal structure of the model itself. The models

are manipulatedas a kind of intellectual black-box.SimEarthandSimCityare powerfulexamplesof thiskind of black-boxsimulation(Wright,1992a,b).

Lookingjustover the educationhorizon,a new

parallel processing language called *Logo (pro-nounced "star-Logo")has been developed at theMedia Lab of MIT (Resnick, 1992). Building oncommandsandconcepts developed for Logo, *Logocan be used to model the behaviorof complexsys-tems. The languageis now available for micro-com-

putersand representsa very powerfulnew directionin which computer simulation related to learningsystem thinkingcan move.

Real World

General system theory is about engagingtherichness and dynamismof the world aroundus. Sci-ence educationreformsof the last 30 yearshave em-

phasizedgivinglearners access to hands-onlearningenvironments.This marksa significantimprovementin science education in its own right. Those con-




cerned with advancingsystem theoryas a basis forschool curriculaneed to take care to build on this

strengthin the future. In providingan alternativeframeworkto traditional science programs,system

theoryshould retain a commitmentto havingstu-dents learnand act in the real world.Systemthink-

ing has to be seen to involve more than simulation.To date, very few curriculahave had children

use system concepts to understandreal-worldenvi-ronments.The SCIS programis one of these. Un-

fortunately,the environmentsprovidedin the SCIS

programwere relativelysimpleand static(e.g., fold-

ing and cutting up sheets of paper).The potentialof using systemthinkingto engage complexdynamicsituationswas not fully explored.

A host of environments that would draw onthe full

potentialof

system thinkingto

engagecom-

plex dynamicsituations are readilyavailable.Manysuch environmentscanbe developed usingresourcesfound at home, in the school,and in the largercom-

munity.Commerciallyavailableproductslike Lego-Logo also have much to offer system-theorybasedcurricula.The goal is to draw on the richnessfromwithinan inclusive frameworklike thatprovided bygeneralsystemtheory.

SUMMARY

From its inception, general system theory hasrepresented an effort to provide an intellectualframeworkcapableof unifyingthe various domainsof empirical understanding.General system theoryhas also looked to actively engage the dynamicas-

pectsof the world as we experienceit. Theseempha-ses give general system theoryenormouspotentialasa basis for education reform.We are committed tothe stance that GST is verymuch a humanconstruc-tion and is thereforesubjectto changeand furtherevolution.Nonetheless,GST allowsfor coordinatedmovementtowarda coherent intellectualframeworkforreformefforts

aimingat

disciplineintegration,ad-

dressingscience, technologyand society issues, and

movingtoward science education for all. We have

suggestedthat there are five elements in general sys-tem theorythat seem particularlyappropriateto the

pursuitof this kind of reform.1. Generalsystemtheorytakesupthe challenge

of creatinga powerfulframeworkfor disciplineinte-

gration.As such it stands to providea coherental-ternative to the currentpastiche of reform efforts

based on vagueor underdefinednotionsof what in-

terdisciplinaryscience curriculamightlook like.2. System theory and system technologypro-

vide tools thatenable individualsand societyto ana-

lyze and take action upon a host of complexissueswe now face. Manyof these issues are addressedin

science, technology,and society curricula.These is-sues include: resource depletion, environmental

management, appropriate technology, populationcontrol, energy use, and building ecologicallysus-tainableeconomies.The complexityand dynamicsofthese sorts of issues quicklyoverwhelmtraditionalschool science curricula.System theory provides aframework in which these complex issues can be

powerfullyengagedand addressed.3. Changeis a centralaspectof our experience

of the world.Generalsystemtheory

is aimedatpro-vidinga frameworkfor engagingthe dynamicsof our

world. Understandingchange means being able to

comprehend system transformationand evolution.The ability to conserve number, form, shape, pat-tern, mass,volume,and other specificpropertiesarecrucial to being able to come to gripswith change.Traditional school-based science curricula- be-cause they are based on staticconcepts (e.g., taxon-

omy)- leave learners ill-prepared to engage the

dynamicsof the world around them. Systemthink-

ing, in contrast,has change at the center of under-

standingthe dynamicsof systems.

4. The abilityto understandthe worldon morethen one level is importantfor engagingcomplexity.We believe large and complex systems need to be

analyzedat both the individual(micro) and collec-tive (macro) levels. The abilityto relate individualand aggregatebehavior is crucial for understandingcomplexity.Insight requires shiftingback and forthfrom the micro-level to the macro-leveland back

again. Neither level can be reduced to or fully ex-

plained without the other. System thinkingarticu-lates the tension between these levels and the needto engageboth levels in constructingunderstanding.

5. Last but not least, GST pursuesa kind ofintellectualreconciliationbetween the human worldand the natural world. The reintroductionof goaland design in discussionsof naturalsystemsis con-troversial.Nevertheless,sucha reintroductionallowsour understandingof the world to be broughtinto

line with our experience:we experience our worldas a whole; the human and the naturalare insepa-rable andfully integrated.By emphasizingintention-

ality,the knowingof scienceand the problemsolving



458 Chen and Stroup

of technology are brought much closer than tradi-

tional epistemologies typically allow. In undercuttingthe long-standing alienation of the human and the

natural, the most controversial aspect of system the-

ory stands also as its greatest potential strength.Matter, living organisms, social systems, and tech-

nology are seen as related systems of an interactive

universe.

The theoretical potential of general system

theory for science education is significant. Our re-

view of the few efforts to implement system theoryin the educational setting serves to underscore how

far we currently are from realizing the potential. It

is one thing to identify the central tenets of "system

thinking," yet another to characterize and advance

a learners' understanding of system ideas. Little is

known regarding learners' intuitions and preconcep-tions about complex and dynamic systems. The few

studies that have been undertaken suggest that is-

sues related to conservation, cognitive style, multiple

representation, and relating variables need to be for-

mally investigated.An extensive program of research and devel-

opment is called for. The research agenda should

address, among other issues, learners' intuitions con-

cerning complexity, system dynamics, synthetic

thinking (as it specifically includes design and goal-directed behavior), and causality. The developmenteffort should be aimed at the creation of environ-

ments thatengage

learners'understanding

andpro-vide learners with a setting in which they can

construct more powerful system concepts and in-

sights. While most of the research to date reportson simulated learning environments, we believe it is

crucial to pursue learning research in the context of

real-world settings as well. The many advantages of

using computer-based simulations to advance system

thinking need to be fully investigated and employedin the development effort. We have no reason to be-

lieve that real-world learning environments are anyless rich, and we would advance the idea that re-

search and development should focus on these en-

vironments as well. On the whole, a significant,long-term research and development effort is essen-

tial to any effort to have system thinking realize its

potential for science education reform.

REFERENCES

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General System Theory:Foundations,

Development, Applications, George Braziller, New York.

Bertalanffy, L. V (1975). Perspectives on General System Theory,

George Braziller, New York.

Blauberg, I. V., Sadovsky, V. N., and Yudin, E. G. (1977). Systems

Theory: Philosophical and Methodological Problems, ProgressPublishers, Moscow.

Bruner,J.

(1960).The Process

ofEducation, Harvard

UniversityPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bruner, J. (1991). Literacy:An Overviewby Fourteen Experts,Hill

and Wang, New York.

Bybee, R. (1984). Global problems and science education policy.In Bybee, R., et. al. (Eds.), RedesigningScience and Technol-

ogy Education - 1984 NSTA Yearbook, National Science

Teachers Association, Washington, D.C.

Bybee, R. (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society (S-T-S) theme. Science Education 71(5): 667-683.

Carceles, G. (1990). World literacy prospects at the turn of the

century: Is the objective of literacy for all by the year 2000

statistically plausible? Comparative Education Review 34(1):4-41.

Carey, S. (1985a). Are children fundamentally different kinds ofthinkers and learners than adults? In Chipman, E. A. S.

(Ed.), Thinking and Learning Skills, Lawrence Erlbaum As-

sociates, Hillsdale, New Jersey/

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood, Bradford

Books/M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. Ameri-can Psychologist 41: 1123-1130.

De Corte, E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (1987).

Learning and Instruction: European Research in an Interna-

tional Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press,

Defay, R. (1929). Introduction a la thermodynamique des

systemes ouvertes. Acadimie Royale de Belgique. BulletinClasse de Sciences, 53 Serie.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Productivity Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of Systems, Productivity Press,


Forrester, J. W. (1973). World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press,


Forrester, J. W. (1975). Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester,

Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Forrester, J. W. (1991). System dynamics-

adding structure and

relevance to pre-college education. In Manning, K. R. (Ed.),Shaping the Future, M.I.T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Garigliano, L. J. (1975). SCIS: Children's understanding of the

systems concept. School Science and Mathematics, 75: 245-

250.

Glaser, R. (1987). Learning theory and theories of knowledge. In

Lodewijks, H., De Corte, L. E., Parmenlier, R., and Span,P. (Eds.), Learning and Instruction:European Research in an

International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven UniversityPress, pp. 397-414.

Goody, J. (1977). The Domestication of the Savage Mind, Cam-

bridge University Press, New York.

Halloun, I. A., and Hestenes, D. (1985). Initial knowledge state

of college physics students. American Journal of Physics

53(11): 1043-1055.

Havelock, E. A. (1976). Originsof WesternLiteracy, The OntarioInstitute for Studies in Education, Toronto.

Hill, D. M., and R., Michael G. (1985). An investigation ot the

system concept. School Science and Mathematics 85(3): 233-

239.

Hopkins, R. H., Campbell, K. B., and Peterson, N. S. (1987).

Representations of perceived relations among the propertiesand variables of a complex system. IEEE Transactionson Sys-tems, Man, and Cybernetics smc-17(l) 52-60.

Hunt, A. N. R., and C. R. (1986). Children's strategies for dis-

covering cause-effect relationships. Journalof Research in Sci-

ence Teaching 23(5): 451-464.




Laszlo, E. (1972). Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward aNew Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, Gordon and

Breach, New York.

Laszlo, E. (1986). Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward aNew Paradigm of Contemporary Thought, Gordon and

Breach, New York.

Lawrence, J. E. S. (1992). Literacy and human resources devel-

opment: An integrated approach. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 520: 42-53.

Lotka, A. J. (1920, 1956). Elements of Mathematical Biology,Dover, New York.

Mandinach, E. B., and Thorpe, E. T. (1987). TheSystemsThinkingand Curriculum Innovation Project: Technical Report. Part 1

(TR-87), Educational Technology Center, Harvard GraduateSchool of Education, Nichols House, Appian Way, Cam-

bridge, Massachusetts 02138.

Mandinach, E. B., and Thorpe, M. E. (1988). The Systems Think-

ing and CurriculumInnovation Project: Technical Report. Part2 (TR88-12), Educational Technology Center, HarvardGraduate School of Education, Nichols House, Appian Way,Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.

McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., and Green, B. (1980). Curvilinearmotion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs aboutthe motion of objects. Science 210: 1039-1141.

Meadows, D. L., and Meadows, D. H. (1973). Toward Global

Equilibrium: Collected Papers. Wright-Allen Press, Cam-

bridge, Massachusetts.

Meadows, D. H., et al (1972). The Limits to Growth, Universe

Books, New York.

Meadows, D. L., Behrens, W. W., Meadows, D. H., Naill, R. F.,Randers, J., and Zahn, E. K. O. (1974). Dynamics of Growthin a Finite World,Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachu-setts.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., and Randers, J. (1992). Beyondthe Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sus-tainable Future, Chelsea Green Publishing, Post Mills, Ver-mont.

Mettes, C. T. C. W. (1987). Factual and procedural knowledge:Learning to solve science problems. In Lodewijks, H., De

Corte, L. E., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (Eds.), Learningand Instruction:European Research in an International Con-

text, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press, 285-295.

Mintz, R. (1987). Computer simulation as an instructional toolfor the teaching of ecological system. Doctoral thesis, TelAviv University.

Mioduser, D., Venezky, R., L., and Gong, B. (1992). EvolvingModels of Simple ControlSystems, Division of Cognitive andInstructional Science, Educational Testing Service, Rosedale

Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08541.

Pugh, A. L. (1986). ProfessionalDYNAMO Plus ReferenceManual,

Pugh-Roberts Associates, 5 Lee St., Cambridge, Massachu-setts.

Resnick, L. (1983). Mathematics and science learning:A new con-

ception. Science 220: 477-478.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Instruction and the cultivation of thinking.In De Corte, L. E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier, R., and Span,P. (Eds.), Learning and Instruction:European Research in an

International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven UniversityPress, pp. 415-442.

Resnick, M. (1992). Beyond the CentralizedMindset:Explorationsin Massively-ParallelMicroworlds, Dissertation submitted at

Media Lab of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge MA.

Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback Taughtin Social Science and

System Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadel-

phia.

Richardson, G. P., and Pugh, A. L. (1981). Introductionto SystemDynamics Modeling with DYNAMO. Productivity Press, Cam-bridce. Massachusetts.

Richmond, B., and Peterson, S. (1984, 1990). STELLA. High Per-formance Systems, Inc., Hanover, New Hampshire.

Riley,D.

(1990). Learningabout

systems by making models. Com-puters in Education 15(1-3): 255-263.

Roberts, N. (1975). A dynamic feedback approach to elementarysocial studies: A prototype gaming unit. PhD. Boston Uni-

versity (available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,Michigan).

Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking:An elementary view. Management Science 24(8): 836-843.

Roberts, N., Andersen, D. F., Deal, R. M., Garet, M. S., and

Shaffer, W. A. (1983). Introduction to Computer Simulation:A System Dynamics ModelingApproach, Addison-Wesley, xxx.

Rudnitsky, A. N., and Hunt, C. R. (1986). Children's strategiesfor discovering cause-effect relationship. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 23(5): 451-464.

Schrodinger, E. (1944, 1967). What is Life? Cambridge UniversityPress, London.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning

organizations. Sloan Management Review 32(1): 7-23.Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of

the Learning Organization,Doubleday Currency, New York.

Senge, P., and Colleen, L.-K. (1991). Recapturing the spirit of

learning through a systems approach. The School Adminis-trator November: 8-J3.

Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, (1949). The Mathematical TheoryofCommunication, University of Illinois Press, xxx.

Steed, M. (1992). STELLA, A simulation construction kit: Cog-nitive process and educational implications. Journal of Com-

puters in Mathematics and Science Teaching 11: 39-52.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theoiy and Practice, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York.

Stuessy, C. L. (1988). Path analysis:A model for the developmentof scientific reasoning abilities in adolescents. Journal of Re-search in Science Teaching 26(1): 41-53.

Venezky, R. L. (1992a). Catching up and filling in: Literacy learn-

ing after high school (in press).Venezky, R. L. (1992b). Matching Literacy Testingwith Social Pol-

icy: What are the Alternatives? National Center on Adult Lit-

eracy, University of Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.

Venezky, R., and David, M. (1991). Science and technology forthe twenty-first century. TradeSecrets, Universityof Delaware

11(1): 1-3.

Venezky, R. L., Kaestle, C F., and Sum, A. M. (1987). The Subtle

Danger: Reflections on the Literacy Abilities of America's

Young Adults (16-CAEP-01), Center for the Assessment ofEducational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 54-57.

Vinals, M. (1985). A critical analysis of the concepts of cognitivestyle: Benefits for educational practitioners. Qualifying pa-per, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Wagner, D. A. (1992). World literacy: Research and policy in theEFA decade. Annals of the American Academy of Political

and Social Science 520: 12-26

Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete andconcrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel& S. Papert (Ed.), Constructionism. Norwood NJ: Ablex Pub-

lishing Corp., pp. 193-203..

Wright, W. (1992a). SimCily, Maxis, Onnda, California.

Wright, W. (1992b). SimEarth, Maxis, Orinda, California.

Yager, R. E. (1988). A new focus for school science: S/T/S. SchoolScience and Mathematics 88: 181-190.

Documents

Chen, David and Stroup, Walter - General Systems Theory