Achievements teaching Systems Thinking and Systems
Dynamics to Graduate students through e-learning
Maria-A ngélica Martinez Gloria Pérez Salazar Carlos Scheel-
Graduate Program in Department of Industrial Mayenberger
Engineering and and Systems Engineering, EGADE
Technologies Tecnologico de Monterrey Tecnologico de
Virtual University - Campus Monterrey Monterrey
Tecnologico de Monterrey gloria.perez@ itesm.mx cscheel@ itesm.mx
angelica.martinez@ itesm.mx
angemtzm@ gmail.com
Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, 64849
Monterrey, Nuevo Leon. Mexico
Telephone +52 (81) 83284114
ABSTRACT
This paper shows a course’ design and its knowledge transfer process when teaching
the changing paradigm of systems thinking, systems dynamics and simulation, through
e-learning. The course uses the methodology for changing the analytical approach to
the Systems dynamics thinking paradigm -in three months-; and was designed under the
“thought on-line” approach. Action research method is used to observe the course
evolution and to evaluate: new knowledge, skills developed by students and student's
improvements on the changing paradigm. This is an on-going research; we present
preliminary results about the achievements up-to-date. Even that ST, SD and simulation
are difficult topics, they can be successfully taught on the right e-learning environment.
We can state that, teaching this kind of topics can result in a good learning experience
for students. These results can contribute to broadcast the e-learning experience to
other related topics.
Key words: e-learning, system thinking, system dynamics, simulation, learning
experiences, skills development, action research, “thought on-line”.
INTRODUCTION
Tecnologico de Monterrey (ITESM) is one of the top 3 universities in Mexico and Latin
America with more than 60 years of experience. System thinking, Systems Dynamics
and Simulations topics are taught on a face-to-face format in two level courses: at the
undergraduate’ and graduate’ programs. These courses have the following common
| Industrial and Systems Engineering course: Systems Dynamics (Code: IS00-851); Dynamic Modeling
(Code: ISO00-853).
? Mater on Information Technology Management course: Modeling the Systems Dynamic (Codes:
$1000-219, SI95-219, SI98-219).
characteristics: small groups (varies from 20 up to 60), reading, case’s analysis,
lecturers, etc. Professor helps student at the moment clarifying the misunderstandings of
ideas or concepts. The difference between these courses is the duration: 6-months for
undergraduate and 3 months for graduate program.
Practitioners, professors and teachers who had worked with systems concepts and
systems dynamics know the big challenge implied when it comes to introduce and to
teach this topics to newcomers. For students it is not easy to understand this new
paradigm in a short time. It requires developing the right mood for an open-minded in
order to innermost this new vision and understanding of our environment. On adult
education the process of teaching can be harder and requires more time to innermost the
learning.
Through the past 15 years, the three months course based on a face-to-face format had
proved the possibility to get a well-understanding of systems thinking, system dynamics
and problem simulation. A new challenge arrived: Would be possible to teach this
changing paradigm topic on an e-learning approach?
The Virtual University of Tecnologico de Monterrey
Tecnologico de Monterrey System is composed by the Virtual University and 33
Campus across Mexico, 12 Intemational liaisons offices through the world. Virtual
University delivers online graduate programs and undergraduate courses combining
Intemet and satellite, with students in 18 countries around the world. The Master's
degree on Information Technology Management belongs to the Engineering and
Technology Program where the course “Systems Dynamics Modeling” is taught.
Since August of 2000, I work as full time Professor and teach the Systems Dynamics
Modeling course in team-teaching’. I have give instruction to more than 1050 graduate
students from Mexico, Central & South America and have participated as mentor in
more than 220 projects related to the dynamic systems models on industry, business,
organizational dynamics, strategy and policies (health, public, energy and resources,
environment and ecology), all projects developed by students.
During this period, I have captured the essence of different ways of teaching this topic
from excels Professors’ and have developed special skills in the student’s learning
needs and Professor's objectives to be transmitted and evaluated. I have developed my
own teaching style using technology resources (e-teaching).
The online course version challenges
8 Team-teaching with Dr. Carlos Scheel (Professor, EGADE Tec de Monterrey).
“ Dr. Carlos Scheel; Ing. Gloria Pérez Salazar (Associate Professor, Industrial and Systems Engineering
Department, Tec de Monterrey), MC; Dr. Rafael Bourget (Assistant Professor, Industrial and Systems
Engineering Department, Tec de Monterrey).
To be considering when designing the course:
e The topic: it is a changing paradigm topic.
e The time: a3 months course (11 weeks in effective time).
e Student's hours for the course: 12 hours/week (average).
e Group diversity: undergraduate from different background, and disciplines.
e Student's availability: part-time and full-time.
e Group size: massive groups from 100 to 250 students.
e Course format: on-line course.
e Resources provided: by electronic format through the website.
e Resources used: readings, individual and group activities, project development,
short videos, non-synchronic mentoring, feedback evaluation, exams, on-line
coaching.
e Approach: single student, group students, geographically diverse (multi-campus
all over Mexico and Latin America and some parts of USA and Europe).
e Coaching / Mentor: 14 hours/week.
e Teacher assistant / Tutor: 40 hours/week.
e Synchronic communication: interaction by on-line coaching, phone line.
e Non-synchronic communication: interaction by forums inside the webpage,
groups restricted areas and email.
e Response time to answer an email: before 24 hours.
e Response time for activities feedback: 7 days.
e Student's feedback requirements: individual and group activities.
e Type of activities: leaning activities for paradigm change, improvement on
system thinking, system dynamic and simulation concept and paradigm
a and skills development (on paradigm and simulation software
tools’).
System
Thinking
System Dynamics Simulation
40 per week__, }
JOSSAJOl
‘Management and logistics
Response time | ie a
2477 brs, *
Hours for the ©»
course 12 per week
Six-phases model Phase 4,5,6
process Cesecnacngiay na AHN NaRNeEMees, 2S
Figure 1 The online version course’ s challenges.
5 The Professor talks and the students write on a chat window their questions.
® We have used Ithink® and Vensim® simulation software. Nowadays we use VEMSIM PLE ®.
Figure 1 shows the course restrictions to be considered in the design. Other important
considerations when designing a course for online are:
e The topic: it is a changing paradigm topic.
e Group diversity: undergraduate from different background, and disciplines.
e Student's availability: part-time and full-time.
e Group size: massive groups from 100 to 250 students.
e Resources provided: by electronic format through the website.
e Resources used: readings, individual and group activities, project development,
short videos, non-synchronic mentoring, feedback evaluation, exams, on-line
coaching’.
e Approach: single student, group students, geographically diverse (multi-campus
all over Mexico and Latin America and some parts of USA and Europe).
e Synchronic communication: interaction by on-line coaching, phone line.
e Non-synchronic communication: interaction by forums inside the webpage,
groups restricted areas and email.
e Student's feedback requirements: individual and group activities.
e Type of activities: leaming activities for paradigm change, improvement on
system thinking, system dynamic and simulation concept and paradigm
application and skills development (on paradigm and simulation software
tools’).
Following pages describes the conceptual framework, the implementation, the
continuous course improvement cycle through action research, results, a brief
discussion section and conclusions in order to evaluate the complexity of the knowledge
transfer through e-learning and to validate the successful learning achievements shown
in this paper.
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
E-learning framework of the Virtual University of Tecnologico de Monterrey
The Virtual University’s learning model is based on the Constructivism theory, and
from this, a very sophisticated teaching-leaming mechanism has been elaborated and
tested for many years.
E-learning model from the experience
There are two different roles in a virtual course: issues related to the course
administration and logistics, and as the expert in the topic.
’ The Professor talks and the students write on a chat window their questions.
5 We have used Ithink® and Vensim® simulation software. Nowadays we use Vensim PLE®.
When implementing a virtual course the responsibilities as the course administrator are:
answer emails related to administrative, logistics issues and personal situations (with
emotional and feelings content such as: stress, tension, angry, sadness, worried, anxiety,
Tun out of steam, enthusiasm, full steam a head too, etc.); do grading based on pre-
defined criteria (almost all were split in to qualitative and quantitative items); to keep
the students records -grades- up to date; attend to student’s phone requirements and
prepare statistics and reports..
By other hand, the expert in the topic has two different role’s responsibilities when
designing and implementing a virtual course:
a) During the designing phase: do the planning, design’ and course preparation;
design the evaluation student's learning (through grade examinations); prepare
lectures, assignments and reports to students.
b) During the implementation phase: advise students on course and academic
matters, mentoring and advisor activities; encourage the individual,
interpersonal, team competencies for learning and collaboration among
multidisciplinary professionals and virtual groups; answer all questions related
on content send by emails or posted on forums; do grading and be the student’ s
topic advisor and project's mentor.
Three stages when designing virtual courses
I have experienced what I call the three stages of a virtual course evolution: Web-page
supported by satellite’s lectures, the transition (Web-page with lectures reused -
recorded from past satellite’s lectures) and “thought on-line” approach.
The first stage courses were designed on a three months period and the leaming
activities were individual and group, exams and a lot of different readings from different
authors; plus an hour of satellite session!” for Professor's lecture and a short period for
student’ s participation. In the second stage the use of the satellite the diminished. This
was the first strategic step forward to on-line courses where students could have more
flexible courses under the concept: “any time, any where”. Previews professor's lecture
and its presentations were included in an electronic format. Additional to this, new
readings and short videos were including explaining more concepts. Professor invested
too much time to interact with students who demanded concepts clarification. Student's
stress level increased and the leaming was regular. The beginning of the third stage was
on 2004, with the first version designed under the “thought on-line” approach.
The “thought on-line” approach
° Detailed design of academic and e-leaming course, prepare specifications.
10 There were Institutional changes that decreased the use of satellite sessions to 1 session each 2 weeks.
‘thought on-line” © is a newly minted concept conceptualized by Ma. Angélica Martinez Medina,
resulted from my experience on distance learning techniques and tutoring activities. This concept
establishes the need to create from nothing an on-line course in order to incorporate the students and
professors goals when going into an e-leaming experience. This is an holistic perspective which includes:
the student (background, leaming needs, etc.), the Professor (teaching objectives, learning activities,
evaluation, e-teaching experience, expertise, etc.), Instructional designer (providing leaming
This is a holistic perspective approach when designing an on-line course which
incorporates the students and professors goals when going into an e-learning
experience. This perspective is based on the knowledge what an on-line course must be
based on technology resources able to provide the content, be the media for learning and
coaching with excellent support to students.
The “thought on-line” approach focuses on design an e-learning environment were the
student develop the learning ability (“able to”), with a positive attitude (“want to”) in
order to acquired new knowledge or skills (“know-how to”).
Methodology for teaching system thinking and systems dynamics modeling
This methodology includes the leaming spiral which scaffold the design and planning
process on the construction of lessons, activities, or projects; not only eliciting target the
development of students' thinking skills and habits of mind, but also sets standards for
those performances. It also includes the Six-phase model process for generating
dynamic models and uses the Project Oriented Learning (POL) methodology for project
development, providing readings, learning activities and examinations, coaching and
simulation’s software skills development. Table 1 and 2 give more details (see
annexes).
methodologies, mix of activities and technology resources for a better knowledge transference), the topic
(identify the best way to innermost the concepts and skills), technology resources (knowledge of the best
technologies to use), a multimedia team (producer, web-designer, graphical designer) and the application
of the “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer” ©.
IMPLEMENTATION
face-to-face
Bee ‘System Dynamics Simulation
By Professor:
= Learning actitivies
> Milestones
+ Lecturer
= Proyect Support
a
2
3 Student
By students:
mi Learning actitivies
> Examination
225 Readings
Proyect davelopment
Time (weeks)—> | 1 |
Po.—> [a E ep
Sixphasesmodel —>| Phaet | Phasez.a | Phases. |
process
Figure 2 Methodology for teaching system thinking and systems dynamics modeling
(three months course).
E-learning additional components when designing a course on-line
e Mentoring and coaching challenges.
¢ Knowledge and skills evaluation.
e E-teaching requirements and strategies
e Information security (confidentiality of the information).
¢ Dishonesty academic actions.
Application of the “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer”
The “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer” © is a dynamic perspective of
how the knowledge is transferred. In it, we can identify clearly the incorporation of the
student and professor's goals and can be use on any learning object (course topic,
lessons, activities and project). It involves the evaluation of the: context, inputs, the
process and the product, as well as the instructional description.
” The “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer”© is a newly dynamic perspective of the
knowledge transfer, developed by Ma. Angélica Martinez Medina. This involves concepts such as: action
learning, the learnativity cycle, learning objects, the leanativity spiral for learning objects, knowledge
transfer knowledge; and include the supportive ideas developed inside the CIADS Group formed by
Angélica Martinez M., Rafael Bourget and Jose Luis A latorre.
Based on the “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer”, we applied in the new
course design in two levels: the course structure and in selected learning activities with
different taxonomies. Figure 3 shows these dynamics.
‘Student = Professor
a ie. eaeen caring:
\ std
Professor
~ capturing & managing -
~ managing, capturing & performing ~
Instructional designer
Professor > Quality of the instruction.
‘Student > Applications for the new knowledge or ability.
Instructional designer > Technical and instructional standars.
Figure 3 The application of the “learning’s dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer” to
teach the systems dynamics thinking paradigm.
Figure 3 shows the dynamics of the knowledge transfer which different flows inside the
cycle. The black line (1-7), represents the guidance proposed by the (1) teaching
objective until it is reach. The green line (2-5), represents the student’s previous
knowledge along the guided instruction until this knowledge is transformed. The blue
line (4-7) represents the new knowledge acquired. The long-dotted line (4-5) creates
feedback loops that represent the acquisition process that begins with a green line
(student's actual values and beliefs), those are transformed (green dotted line) in to a
blue dotted line (student's begin to acquire new values and beliefs) to becomes a blue
line representing the end of the transforming process. The back small dotted lines (5-1,
6-1, 7-1) represent the validation’s attainment. The transverse small lines represents the
existence of a delay period during the process, this is the lap needed to be adapted to the
know state.
E-learning design for the Virtual University of Tecnologico de Monterrey
Based on the Methodology for teaching system thinking, systems dynamics modeling
and simulation
General plan (Course design):
IMPLEMENTATION System System Dynamics Simulation
On-line Enkin
Professor
SaRIAnOY
Hours for the course. ——»!
14 per week
Hours for the course [
Ayorvaat + || (acca Teacher assistant
Response time 24/7 hrs,
i
ay
Hours for the course ——>
12 per woek
Time (weeks)——> 1 2 3 4 6 6 = 8 g 10 1 12
POL—>
Six-phases model process.
‘remaznaceeg ne a. ages Marz wean 2 xs
GIDUp CHa ACIENELIEN: By professor: Byteacherassistant. By student:
«Backgrounds S Sudent’s expectations [] Managementissues D> student's learning expectations
“pve lati > Student's leerning | Student's learning > Examinations
“Massive evaluation activities evaluation Reacings
sport I Menthor activities Es] Logistic issues Leaming actvities
“Geographic diversity © Coaching activities Project doveloomert.
@ Project evaluation Project evaluation
cemiavarmewiaagtiamne 2] Project leaming @ Knowledge
Figure 5 The online version implemented covering the course’s challenges and using
the Methodology for teaching system thinking, systems dynamics modeling and
simulation in three months.
The figure 5 shows the general plan for the course online. This design include all the
challenges, constrains and limitations described in the previous sections of this paper.
The detail description of the course evolution is stated in the Implementation section as
part of the research methodology.
RESEARCH METHOD
This investigation is based on a qualitative study since the investigator observed and
described several aspects of the experience from three perspectives: course, professor
skills and student’ s behaviors and learning improvement.
Our evaluation focus was on the course evolution, and observed and measure three
perspectives: the course goals, the professor role and student's learning improvement.
As course level, we evaluate course’s balance in the learning activities, as well as the
professor and students activities and behavior. We supported our observations based on
the action research method to study a social situation in order to see improving in the
quality during the action within the implementation (Elliott, 1991). This research
method aims to feed practical judgment in concrete situations, and the validity of the
‘theories’ or hypotheses it generates depends not so much on the ‘scientific’ test of
truth, so on their usefulness in helping people to act more intelligently and skillfully.
DESIRED
OBJECTIVES
Monitor
RECONNAISSANCE implementation &
(fact finding & analysis) Course design effects
o
a
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION = a
Version 1 Version 1 5 3
Version 2 ae
Veron 3 ii
z 3 aie
Pa Q °
2<|5 we] s §
§
oa |S Qa] s 3
we }s Gay 3
go je Za] Pe — evatuation
S |
wy |
ec =
| | RECCONAINSANCE
(Explain any failure to
Feedback to implement, and effects)
continuous improvement
Figure 4 The continuous course improvement cycle through action research and the
teaching-learning process.
Figure 4 shows the continuous course improvement cycle through action research and
the teaching-learning process. It begins with the desired objectives to obtain. A
previous analysis of the situation’ leads to identify the reconnaissance to be included.
The improvement cycle begins with the course design with a general plan defining the
number of version needed to reach the desired objectives. Each course version is
implemented and monitoring its effects. During the action the students’ behaviors are
observed on the different technologies resources as: the web platform (forums, restricted
group pages, assignment’s repositories, quizzes, exams, etc.), emails, phone calls and
faxes. The professor’ behaviors are observed in the efficiency and warming of his/her
responses to manage the amount of assignments to mark, emails answered, coaching
and mentoring activities, phone calls received and the use of the different technologies
resources. When the implementation finishes the course is evaluated in relation with the
desired objectives, if those are reached, the cycle closes. If not, we go to two feedbacks
steps. The first lead us to the evaluation of the version implemented in order to have a
reconnaissance of the failures and effects. From the results, a continuous improvement
feedback must be defined. Failures improvements generate a revise implementation or
'S Lack of presence of student's leaming objectives in the course design. Learning activities aligned to the
course objective.
there are major changes to be done in a revision of the general idea affecting the
course design.
The _ Professors’ behaviors were monitored in the students’ individual and
collaborative inquiries. Focuses on the type of questions received, warming of his/her
responses, quality of the feedback (content) and time for feedback.
Professor’ efficiency were observed on how the amount of assignments were managed,
emails answered, the coaching and mentoring activities attended, phone calls received
and how the different technologies resources were used.
The Students’ behaviors were observed in their individual and collaborative
environments within the different technologies resources as: the web platform (forums,
restricted group pages, assignment’s repositories, quizzes, exams, etc.), emails and
phone calls.
Observed students’ learning improvement:
e In their clear ideas showed in their posted messages or emails sent to the
Professor as individuals or collaborative.
The questioning of their inquiries of information and guidance.
The criteria applied on their cross- evaluations.
The inter-students coaching in messages posted at content forums.
Their consciousness of their knowledge’ acquisition stated in their two
individual course’s expectations reports.
e During the mentoring sessions (synchronic and non-synchronic).
e Inthe products of each project phases.
e In the methodological appliance of the model and quality of the research
presented in the final report.
e In their deep understanding of the problem modeled noticed in their final
presentation.
IMPLEMENTATION AND COURSE IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH ACTION
RESEARCH
Objectives
To design an on-line course that improves the student's learning experience and assure
the innermost of this paradigm through e-learning, balancing the course learning
activities, using the technology resources for course management, the technology
resources for course-learning evaluation and software simulations tool’s skills
development.
Reconnaissance:
e Course administration difficulties.
e Time for feedback.
e Learning course evaluation.
e Learning student's evaluation.
e High student’s negative emotional feelings (stress, tension, angry, sadness,
worried, anxiety, run out of steam, enthusiasm, full steam a head too, etc..
Implementation version 1 (Design)
Course structure: none, it remains the same. (See annexes. Table 1).
Coaching: increased and delivered using different technologies.
Learning activities: well selected and some adapted following the “The learning’s
dynamic cycle for knowledge transfer”. (See figure 5).
Team integration activities.
Examinations: theory and practice.
Feedback: pre-programmed.
Evaluation activities: cross-activities, team’s activities evaluation, team’s
project evaluation.
e Research activities.
e Poster presentation with project’s achievements.
New support activities:
Videos to support concepts, feedback activities and guess speakers.
Visual support material for selected leaning activities.
Short guided videos of the simulation software.
Student expectation’s learning: statement and evaluation.
New coaching and learning activities for the online course: See table 6 (Annexes).
Implementation version 1 (Monitored implementation & effects)
Version’s objective reached: the student's most common leaming
requirements" and the Professor’ s requirements!°.
Reconnaissance: Course administration is little easier to manage, time for
feedback is faster and with quality, the student’s stress decreased significantly,
course’s global evaluation was improved.
Implementation version 2 (Monitored implementation & effects)
Version’s objective reached: problem on descriptions or non-clear instructions
on learning activities were presented.
Reconnaissance: some learning activities descriptions must be improved.
Revise implementation: Course administration is easier to manage, feedback is
faster and with quality, the student's satisfaction has increase significantly,
\ Related with personal’ s learning objectives, course expectations.
'5 Related to the course objective, student's evaluation leaming and administrative issues.
course’s global evaluation was improved. The coaching process is good but
could improve with support (2 facilitators).
CONCLUSIONS
The objectives defined for these research discussed in this paper were:
e To describe the e-learning model on a web-based course.
¢ To describe differences and experiences designing e-learning courses.
e To describe the “thought on-line” approach.
e To describe the design and implementation process through e-learning of a 3-
months on-line course to fulfill the student and professor’s learning objectives
through the understanding and application of the changing paradigm of the
system thinking, system dynamics and simulation.
e To describe the implementation outcomes; in particular, the outcomes related to:
student’s expectations learning, learning activities; course evaluation, course
management, feedback and project development.
e To generalize and capitalize the experience and its results to contribute to the
continuous course improvement and to share this approach to other e-learning
courses.
Although this research is mainly a qualitative study, according to Bodgan (1982), the
observations and descriptions from the investigator present several aspects of the
experience such as the course evolution, the professor skills and students learning
improvement when going in to a new on-line course designed under the “thought on-
line-approach”. We are still working on it, so the feedback will be welcome.
REFERENCES
Anderson V. and Johnson L.. Systems Thinking Basics. (March 1997) Ed. Pegasus
Communications. ISBN: 1883823129
Anderson V. and Johnson L.. Systems Thinking Basics: From Concepts to Causal
Loops. (March 1997) Ed. Pegasus Communications. ISBN: 1883823129
Aracil J. Introduccion a la Dindmica de Sistemas.(1983) Ed. Madrid: Alianza
Universidad. Primera Edicion. ISBN: 8220680583
Bodgan, R.C and Biklen, S. K. (1982) Qualtitative research for education: an
introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon 1982.
Bourguet R. (2003) Qualitative knowledge acquisition using fuzzy logic and system
dynamics. Thesis (Doctor in Philosophy in Artificial Intelligence) - ITESM
Campus Monterrey. Monterrey, NL
Dever, M.; Hobbs, D. (1998). The learning spiral. Childhood Education; Fall 1998; 75,
1; Career and Technical Education. Page 7
Kauffman, D. L. (June 1980) Systems One: An Introduction to Systems Thinking.
Ed.Future Systems, Inc
Forrester, J.W. (1958) Industrial dynamics: a major breakthrought for decision makers.
Harvard Business Review, July-August, 37-66
Forrester, J.W. (1975) Industrial dynamics - alter the first decade. In: Collected
Papers of J.W. Forrester, Cambridge, Wright-Allen Press. (Original paper in
Management Science 14(7), 398-415, 1968
Martinez M.A. (Feb. 2005) Notas sobre origenes, antecedentes y supuestos de la
dinamica de sistemas. Curso Modelacion Dinamica de Sistemas 2005.
ITESM. Monterrey, N.L. Mexico
Martinez M.A. (Feb. 2005) Notas sobre Modelos en la Dinamica de Sistemas y el
Proceso de construccion. Curso Modelacion Dindmica de Sistemas 2005.
ITESM. Monterrey, N.L. Mexico
Pantel, C. (1997) A Framework for Comparing Web-Based Learning Environments.
Thesis for Master of Science in the School of Computing Science. Simon
Fraser University. October 1997.
Pérez G. (Sep. 2000) Notas del profesor. Curso Modelacién Dinamica de Sistemas
2000. ITESM. Monterrey, N.L. Mexico
Pérez G. (Sep. 2003) Notas del profesor. Curso Modelacién Dinamica de Sistemas
2003. ITESM. Monterrey, N.L. Mexico
Paton, G. (2001). A Systemic Action Learning Cycle as the Key Element of an Ongoing
Spiral of Analysis. Systemic Practice and Action Research; Feb 2001; 14, 1;
ABI/INFORM Global. Page 95.
Richardson, G.P. and Pugh, A.L. (1981) Introduction to system dynamics
modeling with DY NAMO. Cambridge (MA), MIT Press.
Rojas F.. (2003) Desarrollo de simuladores basados en casos y modelacién dinamica
para el sostenimiento de sistemas de calidad. Tesis. Monterrey, N.L.
Scheel, C., Martinez M.A. (2006). “Methodology of a Graduate course to change
paradigms, from the analytical approach to the systems dynamics thinking.”
Written for the 24th International Conference of the System Dynamic Society.
July 23-27. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Senge, P. (1992) La Quinta disciplina: el arte y la practica de la organizacion abierta
al aprendizaje. Editorial Granica. ISBN: 84-7577-351-6
Sterman, J. (2000) Business Dynamics: System thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World. Editorial Mc Graw Hill. ISBN: 0-07-231135-5
Titone, R. (1981). Psicodidactica. Editorial NARCEA. Madrid.
Vennix, J. (1996) Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System
Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
ANEXES
Table 1. The course structure of the Methodology for Teaching System Thinking,
Systems Dynamics Modeling and Simulation in a in a three-month period (Scheel,
2006).
Module1 Philosophy
System thinking concepts. *
Introduction to system dynamics: antecedents and assumptions. *
- Feedback, models and decision making, BOT.
Module2 ‘Tools
Systems dynamic: concepts and tools. *
- Loops, Archetypes, Cause loops diagram, Forrester’s diagram.
The six-phases for generate dynamic models: theory and practice. *
- Problem definition, Conceptualization model, Representation model,
Behavior of the model, Evaluation of the model, Politics analysis and
sceneries.
Module3 Applications
Dynamic systems model applications as support decisions tool. +
* Theory and practice; + Theory
Table 2. Coaching and learning activities of the Methodology for Teaching System
Thinking, Systems Dynamics Modeling and Simulation in a in a three-month period
(Scheel, 2006).
Learning activities
Learning spiral
Supported material framework
Readings Week: 1-12 Textbook, manual of Introduce
selected readings ad the new concept
articles. -Performing-
Leaming activities Weeks: 1-8, Contemporary and
11 selected cases (Kaibab,
People Express, among Learning
others), activities and the lenguage
topic research. iain
Project:
e Phase 1 Week: 3 Application to a Integrate new
e Phase2,3 Weeks: 6 complex problem -a learning
e Phase 4,5, Weeks: 11 real situation. -Managing-
6
e Presentation Weeks: 12 Application of
Outcomes the concept
-Learning-
Examination Week: 9
Simulation Weeks: 6-11 Short videos, self
software'® skills studied guides
development (roadmaps)
Coaching activities
Coaching:
e Phase 1 Weeks: 2-3
e Phase2,3 Weeks: 4-6
e Phase 4,5, Weeks: 7-11
6
16 iThink®, Vensim®.
Table 3. Students graduated since 1985 (face to face).
Division Program Year | Quantity
DTIE MTI 2005 22
DTIE MAT-I 2005 1
DTIE MTI 2005 5
DTIE MTI 2005 22
DECIC MTI 2004 32
DECIC MTI 2004 13
DECIC MTI 2003 46
DECIC MAT-I 2002 9
DECIC MTI 2002 56
DECIC MAI 2001 1
DECIC MAT-I 2001 10
DECIC MTI 2001 55
DECIC MAI 2000 4
DECIC MAT-I 2000 8
& DECIC MTI 2000 42
DECIC MAT-I 1999 3
DECIC MTI 1999 23
DECIC MAI 1998 7
DECIC MAT-I 1998 3
DECIC MTI 1998 34
DECIC MAI 1997 39
DECIC MAT-I 1997 1
DECIC MTI 1997 6
DECIC MAI 1996 68
DECIC MAI 1995 57
DECIC MASI 85-94 106
Students graduated since 1985: 651
Total students who took the course since 1985: 673
Total students who took the course (2000-2005): 326
MAT-I, MTI Master in Information Technology Management
MASI Master in Information Systems Management
MAI Master in Information Management
Table 4. Students who took the course since 2000 (virtual).
Division Progam Year | Quantity
PGIT MAT-I 2006 _190
PGIT MAT-I 2005 156
PGIT MAT-I 2004121
PGIT MAT-I 2003-104
PGIT MAT-I 2002 ‘119
PGIT MAT-I 2001 _—‘163
PGIT MAT-I 2000 231
Current students (January, 2006): 190
Total students who took the course (2000-2005): 894
Total students who took the course since 2000: 1084
MAT-I Master in Information Technology Management
Table 5. New coaching and learning activities for the online course.
Learning spiral
Supported material framework
Readings Week: 1-12 Scheel, Sterman,
Manual’s selected
readings!” h Introduce '
Videos Week: 1,2,3, If available. ea
4,5, 7,9, 10,
lit,
Learning activities © Weeks: 1-8,11 Selected cases”, Learning
activities'® and topic the language
research -Capturing-
Project:
e Phase 1 Week: 3 Integrate new
© Phase 2, 3 Week: 6 Real cases Sane
e Phase 4,5,6 Week: 11
e Presentation Week: 12 Application of
Examination 3 during the Outcomes the concept
course -Learning-
Simulation Weeks: 2-8 Short guided videos, self
software” skills studied guides
development (roadmaps)
Coaching Communication
type & reach
— Topic, administrative and = Non-synchronic
logistics related. (1-all)
Emails During the Topic, administrative, Non-synchronic
course Bg? (1-1)
logistics related and SoREhF out
Phone calls personal comments. ml 1)
Intemet broadcast 3 during the Topic, administrative and Synchronic
radio course logistics related. (1-all), (all-all)
Project:
e Phase 1 Weeks: 2-3 ‘ Non-synchronic
e Phase 2, 3 Weeks: 4-7 Project related. ( 1 team)
e Phase 4,5,6 Weeks: 8-11
Open repositories for
During the activities, individual (1, team members,
course access, and only team- all-all)
member's access.
Information security
1” Notes from selected authors: A racil (1983), Bourguet (2003), Forrester (1958, 1975), Garcia (2003),
Kauffman (1980), Pérez (2000, 2003, 2004), Richarson (1981), Rojas (2003),
Senge (1992), Sterman (2000), Vennix (1996), Anderson (1997) and the Vensim ® Software. Translated
and written in to Spanish by Angélica Martinez Medina.
18 Cases: Kaibab, People Express, among others.
Table 6. Statistics comparing the face to face and e-leaning course implementation.
Learning approach
Face-to-face E-learning
First course
implementation 1984 1991
Since 1984: - Since 1991: -
Courses implemented
Since 2000: 6
Since 2000: 7
Duration & Frequency
3 months”, once a
3 months“, once a
year year
Student graduated 1984-2005: 651 1991-2005: -
be students who took 1984-2005: 673 1991-2005:899
e course
Current students 190 (Jan, 2006)
Students who took the
course 326 899
(2000-2005)
Course global evaluation
opinion on 2005 1.31 1.38
Projects developed - 2005: 7 2000-2005: 200
Current projects 49 (Jan, 2006)
Courses with this
approach related to topics
Systems Dynamics
Systems Dynamics
IST, SD, simulation] Modeling Modeling
Social cases Social Cases
Topics of projects Industrial clusters Tadic deeclepmnent
developed e-business Bussi
ussiness
Professor's global evaluation”
2003 - P -
2003-S 1.95
2004-M 1.68
2004-S 1.75
2005 - M 1.38
2005-S 1.31 1.50
8 Activities: The beer game, Pérez (2000, 2003, 2004), Anderson (1997).
0 iThink®, Vensim®.
21 Period term: September.
22 Period term: September until 2003, January since 2004.
23 Evaluations available at ECOAS System. Rank: 1 to 5. (1.0 is the highest)
24 Data obtained by the ECOAS internal system.
