Evaluating Effects of A Systems Thinking Model
on Curriculum and Instruction Reform in Taiwan
Chao-Li Hsu, Hsiao-Shen Wang & Yuen-Ju Chen
National Taichung Teachers College, Taiwan
Department of Elementary Education
140 Ming-Shen Road
Taichung, Taiwan 403
Tel: 04-2229-0852
E-mail: chaoli@ mail.ntctc.edu.tw
Abstract. Given that systems thinking is a useful methodology in organization leaming,
the main purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate how and in what ways we
could use systems thinking on curriculum/instruction planning in schools.
In this study, we used ethnographic methods of observation and in-depth
interviewing to gather information. The study took place in six public elementary schools.
The evaluation was focused on the following questions: (a) What happened when systems
thinking model were used in the planning of curriculum/instruction?, (b) What did
principals, academic administrator, and teachers think about using systems thinking
model in the planning of curriculum/instruction? (c) What did teachers think about using
systems thinking during instruction? and (d) In what ways did the use of systems thinking
model influenced teacher professional development and satisfaction? Evaluation data was
collected from five primary sources: (a) principals’ and administrators’ interview on the
teachers’ level of engagement in curriculum planning and interactions, (b) teachers’
curriculum and lesson plans; (c) teachers’ interview on the use of systems thinking model
and their attitude toward the use of systems thinking model; (d) teachers’ responses to an
attitude survey; and (e) researchers’ observational notes during implementation of the
project.
Conclusions made based on the results of this study. First, systems thinking can
increase the quality of administrator-teacher and teacher-teacher interaction, teachers’
curriculum/instruction planning, continuous assessment of curriculum/instruction, and
immediate and formative feedback. Secondly, it can also decrease overall time required
on task of curriculum/instruction designing in the long run. Consequently, it promises
curriculum/instruction design with more accountable quality.
Key words: organization learning, systems thinking, professional development,
elementary schools, curriculum development
INTRODUCTION
Reports show that systems thinking has always been valued in many disciplines like
biology (Myers-Bowman, 1998; Wolf, 1994), information technology(Lumb, 2004;
McDavid, 1996; Tasgal, 2003), economics(Oldridge, 2003; Tasgal, 2003; OOM00M0
OOOOMNOOO), medicine(A spy, 2001; Sorrells-Jones, 1999; 0000 0 OOO 0 M0000),
engineering( OOOWNO010 O00 (0000000 M0O0M00000, and psychology(Beels, 2002;
Davidson, 2000), to name a few. As Senge(1993) stated, systems thinking is "a way of
thinking about, and a language for describing and understanding, the forces and
interrelationships that shape the behavior of systems". One of the primary advantages of
systems thinking for educators, when implementing openly, is that it fits well with team
work and continuous improvement. A person with an understanding of systems sees the
elements in common in diverse settings rather than focusing solely on differences.
Furthermore, it can encourage creative thinking and generate new ways of doing things
(Forrester, 1994).
While systems thinking has pervaded in the field of modem management such as
TQM(Overholt, 2004; Reichelt, 1998) and education(Checkland, 1993; Altamirano &
van Daalen, 2004; Biber & Kasperidus, 2004; DiFrancesca & Dale, 2004) around the
world, it’s still hard to quantify the number of public schools using systems thinking and
the way it has been used to improve educators’ competency, simply because the
methodology has never really been a need to schools due to the central curriculum policy
before the 1996 textbook reform and 2001 steps further curriculum reform launched in
Taiwan.
Eventually, the National Taichung Teachers College received a grant from the
Ministry of Education in Summer, 2003. Part of the project’s purposes was to explore the
possibility of implementing systems thinking to improve elementary principals’
curriculum leadership urgently needed in the 2001 Nine-Year Integration Curriculum
Reform almost 20 years after the concepts of systems thinking were first introduced to
the education community in Taiwan (Kemp, 1985; Associations for Education
Communications and Technology, 1988; Hsu, 1989). To accomplish the proposed
project's goals, the Department of Continuing Education initiated a workshop in which a
systems thinking model (Figure 1) and main concepts such as information era, knowledge
3
Nation || Society
Development| | Needs
Organization leaming--- Dialogues among administrators, teachers; action research, innovation, and
administration support to develop school-based curriculum
t [Academic
|Attainment|
National [Testing
¢—_________
Education Goals Interpret ¥
National |
: So
Cuniculum Oo «
ey qt
Guidelines: = I
Competence 25) ]e z 5 z
a 19 Seven Indicators or g 3.o 5 a SH q
|Curiculum Areas Benchmarks [>] B>) 2S] SP) & >) SP] &
in Seven a Ez = 2 & = 3
Areas a B I B
Other
Resources
Feedback loop
Figure 1 System thinking model for 1-9 curriculunyinstruction(Hsu , 2002)
era, edge of chaos, fluidity, constant change, knowledge networks, knowledge communities,
complexly interactive processes, global economy, knowledge-creating dialogue, co-creating
value, non-linear, teaming/collaboration, innovation, tough challenges and education for next
generation, and especially interconnectedness, were introduced 3 hours of the totally 12 hours
lectures. Afterwards, some schools have begun to explore how systems thinking could be used to
facilitate organization leaning and improve teachers’ curriculum/instruction planning
competency following the principals’ positive experiences from leaming the systems thinking
concepts.
Gradually, in K-12 education across Taiwan, schools has started to set foot in using systems
thinking and primarily implemented it as a supplementary, like extracurricular learning activities.
Other than schools, the His-Fu Cultural Foundation which is a part of the Megatop group of
Taiwan has introduced “The Fifth Disciplines” to its society and built a learning infrastructure by
developing reading forum for managers. In education, they have organized systems thinking
camps for grades 3-6 since 1995 (Tu, 1998). Still, there has not been much systematic research to
investigate the effects of systems thinking on school management; nor has there been much
research evidencing that systems thinking can improve the quality of teachers’ engagement in
curriculum/instruction development. As a result, schools that have adopted systems thinking to
date have done so without the benefit of research to guide them. Consequently, the fact that there
is not much evidence to indicate how the use of this methodology affects school accountability
has deterred schools and teachers from integrating them into their professional development.
Given that the system thinking is a useful methodology in organization learning (Senge,
1993; Forrester, 1997), the question was not to investigate whether or not the use of systems
thinking is effective in aiding teachers’ professional development. Rather, a more important
challenge was to identify how and in what ways we could use systems thinking in schools. The
purpose of this paper is to use the literature on methodology of systems thinking to develop a
model for curriculum-integration and instruction design for administrators and teachers in
elementary schools. It specifically explains how such a model was developed and further
implemented and what the evaluation results are. The paper also provides some insights on what
was learned from this study.
METHODS
Design and Subjects
We employed a descriptive, naturalistic evaluation design in which a curriculum/instruction
systems thinking model was implemented as the guidelines of the schools’ curriculum/instruction
planning. Using ethnographic methods of observation and in-depth interviewing to gather
information and to address the complexities of systems thinking implementation in schools, the
study took place in six public elementary schools located in one county next to a central
metropolitan area, Taichung, of nearly one million people. All of the schools were situated in
various suburban areas, enrolling 140(school A), 374(school B), 1040(school C), 1109(school D),
1678(school E), and 2256(school F) students; and employing 16, 28, 56, 58, 89, 116 teachers
respectively in 2004 academic year. Class sizes in the schools ranged from 30 to 35 students.
Although, based on the Curriculum Regulation issued by the Ministry of Education (Ministry of
Education, 2003), the school-based curriculum and instruction should be managed by a
Curriculum Development Committee. In the real world, however, they were loosely functioning
due to the lack of experiences/competency in curriculum development although these
committees were well-structured in documents presented almost in all schools (Bureau of
Education, 2004).
During the initial stage of designing this study, the researchers realized that it was a need to
design and develop a systems thinking model specifically for the elementary schools struggling
in complex circumstance under massive curriculum reform. In the following sections we will
first discuss how we used the existing literature on systems dynamics and systems thinking to
develop the model. We will then explain how we implemented and evaluated this model in
school setting and present the results.
Before implementation, the key of model designing can be categorized into two steps as
follows: developing a dynamic hypothesis explaining the cause of the problem, and building a
systems thinking model for curriculum/instruction planning at the root of the problem.
Developing a dynamic hypothesis explaining the cause of the problem
Using the method of identifying a problem as the first strategy of constructing the model, we
first identified that the 2001 curriculum reform is not only massive but also serious which
included the aspects of textbook open market reform, paradigm shift, national curriculum
6
guidelines revision, and school autonomy. In addition, the "year hopping plan" (Table 1) of
reform make the so-called “nine-year integrated curriculum” neither lateral nor vertical
integrated in the real world.
Table1 Year hopping plan policy of the Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum Reform
School year | 1st 2nd 3rd Ath 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
2001-2002 a
2002-2003 a a if a
2003-2004 i} o a a a Q o
2004- i} o a a a a in] a Q
First of all, the key concept in nine-year integrated curriculum is “integrated”, but in fact
there are many cases of redundant or conflicting elements in the national curriculum guidelines
itself. Secondly, elementary education curriculum standards had always been extremely detailed
under the central policy in the past. As a result, there has been little to choose other than the
textbooks compiled by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation and the task of
choosing a textbook as “Bible” never involved much controversy (Figure 2). The boxes in grey
meant that teachers were not involved in those tasks.
Instruction
Following b+
Textbooks
ts
Figure 2 Curriculum/instruction loop before 2001 curriculum reform
Summative
Evaluation
However, the new curriculum provides only general guidelines. Publishers who are joining
the newly open texthook market compiling textbooks under these guidelines will naturally differ
in content. According to a recent civic survey (China Times, 2005/3/7), the massive reform
makes significant people like teachers, parents, and students uncertain and nervous that
standardized tests of high school entrance examination might require knowledge of something
not covered by a given publisher's textbook. Finally, encouraging diversity in instruction and
learning is another key aspect of the concept of the school-based curriculum. Based on the
regulation of “school autonomy”, the so-called "school-based curriculum" means 20% of the
curriculum has left for schools and teachers to create.
Since textbooks have long held the status of like a classroom Bible, it seems that textbooks
play very important role in translating the national curriculum guidelines into a classroom reality
and schools keep expecting so. Unfortunately, the diverse and hopping reform reality force
textbooks no longer provide teachers the easiness they have always had leaned on in the past.
With all the problems come to a head, who is supposed to iron out the problems? How to achieve
lateral and vertical integration between the content of different textbooks as quickly as possible if
textbooks still play a key role in instruction? While the innovative/creative teaching plays an
indispensable role in the information era, it looks like that schools as a whole have to organize
their curriculum and teachers have to make adjustments accordingly to involve in curriculum
development and to further prepare themselves for the new professional era.
Since literature has shown that Education is an important area of application for system
thinking, with organization learning, it will guide teacher as learner to become actively involved.
Unlike scientists who study the world by breaking it up into smaller pieces, system dynamics
researchers/thinkers look at things as a whole. The objects and people in a system interact
through feedback loops, where a change in one variable affects other variables over time, which
in tum affects the original variable, and so on. Therefore, the application of system thinking
makes it an excellent tool for integrating diverse elements into a whole which is the key task in
current curriculum reform.
Building a systems thinking model of Curriculum/Instruction planning at the root of the
problem
Although the literature on curriculum/instruction planning does not identify a universal
practice, we can find a number of key principles of instruction design underlying best practices
(e.g., Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999, 2000; Merrill, 2002, etc.). These principles are found
in contemporary instructional design theories and models and are being practiced by instructional
designers and teachers in their design and delivery of instruction (Dick and Carey, 2004; Huang,
2004). These principles can be summarized as “identify goals, conduct analysis, identify entry
behavior, develop instructional strategies, develop instructional materials, design lesson plans,
8
formative/summative evaluation, feedback & revision.”
Based on the above instruction design principles and more systems thinking principles
incorporated, the model in Figure 1 was simplified to a curriculum/instruction feedback loop
(Figure 3a) instead of “textbooks as Bible” (Figure 2) for easier use under the consideration of
the participants’ entry behavior. The model was used to design, develop and evaluate integrated
curriculum from first to sixth grade in the participant schools. In this study, an integrated
curriculum meant the completion of course nature analysis, first to sixth grade vertical
consecutive goals, related materials, and a minimum of two, 45-minute sample lesson plans for
at least one subject.
Data Collection
Evaluation data was collected from four primary sources: (a) principals’ and
administrators’ interview on the teachers’ level of engagement in curriculum planning and
interactions, (b) teachers’ curriculum and lesson plans; (c) teachers’ interview on the use of
systems thinking model and their attitude toward the use of systems thinking model for different
subjects; (d) teachers’ responses to an attitude survey which measured teachers’ general attitude
toward the use of systems thinking model and their attitude toward the use of systems thinking
model for different subjects; and (e) researchers’ observational notes during implementation of
the project. A combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis was used to make sense of the
evaluation data.
Procedure
Since the main purpose of the study was to assess the school implementation as it might be
used by other schools interested in using systems thinking to plan curriculum/instruction,
evaluation procedures evolved according to specific school circumstance, administrators and
teachers interest and practical considerations. The evaluation was focused on the following
questions: (a) What happened when systems thinking model were used in planning curriculum
/instruction?, (b) What did principals, academic administrator, and teachers think about using
systems thinking model in planning curriculum/instruction? (c) What did teachers think about
using systems thinking during instruction? and (d) In what ways did the use of systems thinking
model influenced teacher professional development and satisfaction? Four stages of
implementation described as follows:
Stage One: Principals’ understanding and support curriculum reform
The first stage assessed willingness of schools to implement systems thinking model.
Before initial entrance into the schools, the researchers met with the Chief of the County Bureau
of Education and principals and briefly explained the project and study methods. The Chief
agreed to support the project and all the school principals seemed to welcome the one-year study
efforts, apparently from the positive learning experiences in the workshop coordinated for the
principals before the study as they stated.
Stage Two: Academic Administrators’ Workshops---To understand the model and to know
how to implement at school
At stage two, the County Bureau of Education initiated a workshop for academic
administrators (As) which was three hours a week, and lasted for seven weeks in Winter, 2003 .
Other 40 As who were not participants of this study also attended. The purpose of the workshop
was to train the As to understand what was the systems thinking model and to know how to
implement and localize it at school (Figure 4). In this study, the systems thinking model
consisted of C& I “WHAT & HOW” loop (Figure 3a), researcher as engine reinforcing loop
(Figure 4a), A1~A6 practiced to be engines of grade team reinforcing loop (Figure 4b), and
researcher as coordinator of 1*~6" grade goal integration reinforcing loop (Figure 4c).
In preparation to extend the implementation of systems thinking, the researcher developed
key guidelines for participants’ references as follow:
A. Preparing the workshop
- Preparing hardware: Set the environment and one notebook or PC for each of the 1° ~6
grade teams to record the content of curriculum and instruction planned
- Preparing materials: Printouts of Competence Indicators; examples of curriculum &
lesson plan; handouts of step by step guidelines; list of materials, handouts and forms
available on web pages (www.ntctc.edu.tw/chaoli)
B. Outlines of the model covered in lecture and demonstration
Overall, the purpose of lecture and demonstration was to increase participants’ background
knowledge on the philosophy, theoretical bases, content and implementation procedure of the
10
systems thinking model. The guidelines were as follow:
The introduction of the systems thinking model
The course nature of each of the seven areas: Math, Language, Science, Social Studies, Arts,
Health and Physical Education, and Comprehensive A ctivities
Identifying the KEY ELEMENTS of each of the National Competence Indicators and its
lateral/vertical integration to construct the 1° ~ 6" grade goal map (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988)
The meaning and benefits of student-centered learning
Textbooks are not Bible anymore.
The method of choosing textbooks and developing school-based materials.
Instructional strategy and leaming pyramid
The interaction between elements
Students and colleagues as mentors: Incorporating feedback from colleagues and students in
the planning and instruction process
To demonstrate the details of implementing the model and to promote high levels of
interactivity among administrators, the researcher first acted as an engine to facilitate
collaboration learning and active participation (Figure 4a).
Secondly, administrators trained were promoted to engines to replace the role of the
researcher played. Administrators from the same school district worked as a team. Using the
one of the curriculum plan tables (Appendix A), each team first identified key grade goals
(Figure 4b). Administrators were expected to exchange dialogues based on the national
curriculum guidelines, share knowledge with their own team members to identify key
school-based grade goals.
Finishing grade goals, 1°~6" curriculum (goals) integration activity was conducted (Figure
4c). Administrators were expected to assess each other team’s interpretations of the
guidelines and check the vertical integration between goals of consecutive grades. Grade
goals were revised if necessary.
Based on the grade goal map, textbooks were evaluated and curriculum and instruction
plans were preliminarily developed.
11
Bureau of Education’s Support =
[a Vopotsctt 4
Select | | Learning |
H Identify 7 aa a Design | i Semmes |
| : School-based| | Analyze Curriculum || i !
|| Identify qstgih SWOT Develop & | 4! instruction] !
Course Nature! >); [>| Student >) Materials >| |e |
| integrated Entry level Instruction |! | ¥ i
grade Goals f Plans! |/ Formative/ |!
q (Based on Other |) Summative
q National Resources | ! uve yi
H aaa | || Evaluation |)
j----[______LGuideline) | | ee oe ——
Reflection or Action Research
Figure 3a Curriculum & Instruction “HOW” loop
Major task:
1. Using the loop above to identify
grade goals
2. Integrate 1°*~6"" grade goals
3. Evaluating textbooks
4. Develop preliminary C & I plans
3437
Figure 4b A1~A6 practiced to be engines Figure 4c Researcher as Coordinator 1°~6" grade
grade team reinforcing loop goal integration reinforcing loop
Figure 4 Academic Administrators’ Workshops ---
Implementing systems thinking model to develop C & I
12
Regarding the research, the purposes were to use the results of this research to identify the
best strategies for the use of systems thinking in elementary schools. Observer notes were used to
collect impressions relevant to the model (e.g., ease of use, perceived effectiveness of the model).
Curriculum and lesson plans were collected as well. After completing the workshop, the As were
interviewed regarding his (her) experiences and reactions. Based on the data obtained,
appropriate model revisions were made for further implementation back to schools.
Stage Three: School Curriculum & Instruction planning workshops
School curriculum & instruction planning workshops were initiated during the stage three.
The purpose of the workshop was for administrators and teachers to internalize the systems
thinking approach and curriculum & instruction planning competency by hands-on activity.
The academic administrator and the researcher collaborated on delivering the lectures and
leading discussions similar to the procedure in stage 2 (Figure 5). Other than the guidelines
implemented at Stage II, more specifications were integrated as followed:
A. Preparing the workshop
- Principal to do: Preliminary communication with teachers on the need of systems thinking
before implementing it at school.
- Academic office to do: Designating the administrator and one teacher as the coordinate
engine of each grade team (T1~T6) during group discussion
B. During the workshop
- The academic administrator played as a leading facilitator and the researcher consulting on
site to help solving problems (Figure 3b). The number of each grade team depended on the
size of the school. After constructing grade goal map (Figure 5a), the academic
administrator leaded all teachers using large screen projection to check the vertical
integration of all grade goals in a large group discussion (Figure 5b). Based on the
integrated grade goals, each grade team evaluated textbooks, then completed the whole year
curriculum plan (Appendixes B & C) followed by lesson plans (Appendix D) respectively
by exchanging dialogues (Figure 5c).
- The researchers used the documents, observation of teacher engagement and records of
problem in team dialogues to reflect on teacher understanding and effectiveness of the
systems thinking model. Revised the implementation details whenever necessary.
13
Principal’s support “=
ae ae Bg ea a 1
| Curriculum & Instruction Planning Select |
|
| Identify Texthooks! Desi |
| - School-based| | Analyze + Camequm |
| Identify qtgih swoT. Ll Develop !
[Course Nature|>| Integrated | Student Materials ee i
i Grade Goals} | Entry level t Plans |!
| (Based on Other ‘
| National Resources i
! Guidelines) t |
ee Ree eee f-———----f-_______} _______}--__| I
Reflection or Action Research
Figure 3b Curriculum & Instruction planning “HOW” & “WHAT” feedback loop
Mra
“ies as
( oz
Rows ee)
Figure 5a Grade goal reinforcing loop Figure 5b 1°~6" grade goal integration
reinforcing loop
t
Due
Major task:
Based on the grade goals + SWOT +
student level to:
1. Evaluate textbooks
S ed 2. Develop curriculum plans
3. Develop lesson plans
Figure 5c Textbooks evaluation & C/I plans developing loop
Figure 5 School Curriculum & Instruction planning workshops ---
Using systems thinking model
14
Stage F our - Instruction/learning and feedback
Instruction proceeded based on the curriculum/instruction plans the following semester. The
following procedure summarizes the implementation strategies.
°
°
The "1°'~6" goals" (e.g. Appendix B) helped teachers monitor student learning (Figure 3c).
At the beginning of the semester, teachers.were asked to record feedback and problems
encountered in the class sessions (Figure 3c, e.g. Appendix E). Academic administrators were
asked to set intra network up for saving feedback records (e.g., Figure 7-1, 7-2 & 7-3) and
followed by grade-mixed group discussions usually held once a week (Figure 6, e.g.
Appendix F), For those large size schools which employing more than 15 teachers, teachers
were proportionately grade-mixed into teams to discuss instruction problems and difficulties.
Students’ portfolios and sample works were regularly exhibited or interchanged (Figure 6).
Principal’s support +A cademic A dministrator's schedule management —=3
t i
Select |!) Learning} |
Identify - il |
School-based aE Rentoul Design |} lOutcomes|
7 yt gh Curriculum |) ! — |
Identify om SWOT.| | Develop & |_| [Instruction] |
ourse Nature[ 7) Integrated F> Student” >>| Materials>) . va |
Grade Goals} {Entry Level Instruction || —__
t Plans | | Formative/ J |
(Based on v
i Other Summative | |
National Resources ‘ |
Guidelines) | | Evaluation
--4-----__T== _—— ns ae | -—-! pay ---!
Reflection or Action Research
Figure 3c Instruction & learning feedback loop (+12 hrs)
cafe ind + Hands <> Discovering
5
‘Reconstructing Group Dynamics
Interaction
between classes}
Mind + Hands <> Discovering
caffoldina
{ >
Reconstructing GJOur Dynamics
Figure 6 Instruction/autonomy learning feedback loop
15
SEH sR WR RHPA TAG se
Oe - O- D/P iC wee | t-
HED) [Sy CADocuments and Settings\usersi Hi\R umning'Systems thinking'Ele school\3=
exannerer “Co sees (Co) wamsen
S Baa
2 ESE Hi BAS ee
co SARA on cP Ee aaRin atte
peered ES San eiiBeres ee SERRA
Figure 7-1 Part of School B’s intra network including folders of curriculum plans, lesson plans,
assessment tools, curriculum evaluation forms, reflection reports, et. al.
me bach:
RO IRE) CRG) BHREa TAD Baa
@+8#-©- | D2 © ae |fr-
BLED) [> CADocuments and Settings\user\sR TER unning'Systems thinking\Ele schools\iSe\biSBVETEt
BRRANRI * a fer | 2a
© eu
@ RawAAsR MBA
co SRB ee ae a =
Fee tee a tl Sia ow OB
@ F*
- eae ee weet ae a ee eal ts
Figure 7-2 School B’s intra network---Sub-category of lesson-plans folder
ear:
CRO RAH WAY RHE IAD Bsa
Gre -O- F| Ose (2 ex | Tae
Hat D) fo (CADocuments and Settings\user\S2 H\R unning\Systems thinking\Ele school 422 MSFRS
@RARAIE Es wo a) foal DER
=) RaeaNERe
(Bane
pris a BEAR a] SEAR
PAIS RNS
aS
2 Rewer war | ras fool oe
x MIRE ASS i #) ELBE
BS | Microsoft Word Act+
Ree =
- = z ae
oe =)? mn)
west rs
Figure 7-3 School B’s intra network--- Sub-category of reflection-reports folder
ADEE
soft Word Saf
16
« The researcher reviewed schools’ records and provided organization-based feedback to
administrators, mostly through e-mails, partly through phone or on-site advices.
+ A website was set up to provide basic materials and information or general feedback.
The basic materials placed on the website were (www.ntctc.edu.tw/chaoli):
- The map of systems thinking model
- The philosophy and theory base of systems thinking
- The introduction of systems thinking model: Powerpoint file
- The guidelines of implementing systems thinking model
- Materials of seven areas: Language Arts ( Mandarin, English, Dialects ), Mathematics,
Science and Technology, Social Studies, Health and Physical Education, Arts and
Humanities, Comprehensive Activities
- Reports of action research
- Curriculum and instruction evaluation forms
- Handouts and references for implementing systems thinking model
+ Atthe end of the try-out semester, teachers were interviewed and asked to complete a
short anonymous attitude survey.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The findings are presented in four purposes of the study addressing: (a) What happened
when systems thinking model were used in the planning of curriculum/instruction?, (b) What did
principals, academic administrators, and teachers think about using systems thinking model in
the planning of curriculum/instruction?, (c) What did teachers think about using systems thinking
during instruction?, and (d) In what ways did the use of systems thinking model influenced
teacher professional development and satisfaction?
What happened when systems thinking model were used in the planning of curriculum and
instruction? Academic administrators’ and researchers’ reflection and observational/interview
notes indicated that the use of systems thinking has gradually powered the school dynamics,
consequently, improved the academic environment..
First of all, it has improved personnel interrelationship. Teachers worked as a whole instead
of struggling individually. They were immersed during weekly workshops in contrast to grading
papers while speakers lectured before. Academically, problems such as textbooks as “Bible”,
17
paradigm shift, national curriculum guidelines revision, year hopping policy and school
autonomy were no longer problems to these teachers. Teachers’ attitude toward curriculum and
instruction development has changed from primarily layback and confused to energetic and
confident.
“Teachers’ attitude toward implementing systems thinking model went through stages of
grudging — willing — involved — dedicated, and recently, immersed and can’t stop”, school B’s
and School F’s Chief Academic Administrator stated. However, the timeline of transition from
stage to stage was different across the six schools mainly depended by the executive style and
pedagogy expertise of the “engine” especially in the beginning of the implementation. For
example, after 35/36 years in elementary education field, the Chief Academic A dministrators of
school B and school F were enthusiastic, supportive and energetic with subject matter expertise.
For these two schools, nine hours (three times) of group discussions working on the
interpretation of National Curriculum Guidelines and examining textbooks seemed long enough
to get all teachers prize systems thinking on curriculum and instruction. “Hard work?”
Attendants of “Effects of Systems Thinking on Curriculum and Instruction Symposium” held by
school B asked (May 31, 2005). “Yes, but worth it.” T1 of School B replied and others consent
in their comments. School B’s Chief went further:
“ After two years of using systems thinking, we have developed 1°6" grade integrated C &
I of Math, Language Arts, Science, Health and Physical Education, and Comprehensive
Activities based on the National Guidelines and school-based culture and materials. The
goal maps of these areas were crystal clear to our teachers because they have done the
interpretation and integration as a whole themselves. All the materials and references they
developed were on the intranet. Regarding instructional strategy, teachers provide
scaffolding, facilitate autonomy learning by encouraging students to think and apply
concepts learned into their real life. Teachers no longer deliver redundant lectures or
conduct irrelevant activities only for activities to confuse students. In terms of plans, what
we have kept doing on the prior versions (C & I) was micro-revision whenever necessary.
That's why it decreased overall time/load on teachers and students. Just take a look at our
teachers’ confident and shining eyes and students’ performance. What our teachers and
students have developed within these two years is amazing.” ( Lee, May 31, 2005 )
18
For other four participant schools, they took longer on stage transition of teacher attitude
yet one semester was long enough to get most of the teachers to the dedicated or immersed point.
As these Academic Administrators stated, using systems thinking model made them more
responsive to teachers’ and students’ needs, helped teachers become more engaged during
curriculum/instruction planning, and encouraged to participate more actively in planning
discussions. In all six schools, the academic administrators felt at ease with the use of systems
thinking model after the training workshops.
“ | found that teachers become more active in group discussions. They started presenting
their opinions and knowledge rather than just listening as they used to do before......”.
(administrator A)
© ses Recently, I was so surprised at the giant improvement of students’ abilities, the change
even improved parents and kids relationship. Many parents told me that their children like
the change very much. The kids shared things happened in classes again and again with
their parents after school.......” (administrator B)
” Our teachers have improved their professional ability. They develop their own instruction
materials. They used to rely on textbooks as unchangeable guidelines before. Now, the
situation has changed and, consequently, they understand their students
more.” (administrator C)
” We were surprised on the positive turnouts both on teachers’ competency and students
learning attitudes. I am working harder to arrange time for dialogues. Teachers chatted and
learned professionally from each other. We have never had this kind of chat quality before.
The result of learning dialogue has changed their ways of teaching, thinking and
interaction.” (administrator D)
“ After our teachers experienced the benefits of systems thinking, they started to observe and
manage things differently. One thing very important is that they need time to conduct
dialogues. Sufficient time will make thorough and accurate thinking. As a result, they will
always get to the points instead of doing things redundantly. This will definitely save a lot of
time and work load......” (administrator E)
Moreover, the use of systems thinking model during planning improved both the quantity
19
and quality of teacher discussions. In addition, all six administrators were confident that their
curriculum and instruction competency and leadership had gradually improved. A dministrators
believed that this result was due to the clear directions of knowledge sharing in organization
learning, as well as the process of displaying each team’s (grade’s ) interpretation and reflection
to teachers of different grades for further discussion and elaboration. However, the new policy
still created some dependency on the consultant of subject matter professionals. The
administrators noted that although it temporarily took much planning time but the professional
development would consequently decrease administrators’, teachers’ and students’ confusion in
the long run.
What did teachers think about using systems thinking model in the planning of
curriculum and instruction? Analysis of responses to attitude survey’s close-ended questions and
interview notes showed that receiving immediate feedback through discussion influenced teacher
curriculum design learning. Teachers also felt systems thinking model created more interaction,
especially more interaction between the academic administrator and teachers and among teachers
compare to between principal administrator/teachers. Systems thinking also enhanced their depth
and width level of involvement during planning, and increased their motivation when developing
curriculum (Table 2).
Table 2 Results of the attitude survey (N = 363)
Questions Mean | Standard
Deviation
1. The use of systems thinking created more interaction between 3.90 | 0.53
principal and teachers.
2. The use of systems thinking created more interaction between 4.10 | 0.28
academic administrator and teachers.
3. The use of systems thinking created more interaction among 4.63 | 0.28
teachers.
4. The use of systems thinking helped me become involved during 4.60 | 0.31
curriculum/instruction planning.
5. The use of systems thinking enhanced my involvement during 4.53 | 0.34
group discussions.
6. The immediate feedback during group discussions made me 4.23 | 0.60
evaluate my thought on curriculum/instruction more than I
did before.
7. The use of systems thinking increased my motivation in 4.07 | 0.50
organization learning.
8. The use of systems thinking made the curriculum/instruction 4.10 | 48
more interesting.
5 - Point scale with 5: Strongly agree, 4: Agree, 3: Undecided, 2 : Disagree, and 1: Strongly disagree
20
What did teachers think about using systems thinking during instruction? Teachers
thought using systems thinking provided good learning experiences and helped them thoroughly
understand and interpret the national curriculum guidelines. Consequently, the outcomes of using
systems thinking was very successful and helpful on lowering cognitive load which were
subsequently positive to facilitate student participation and learning. The following excerpts
summarize some of the comments that teachers made.
_— For example, after interpreting the curriculum guidelines and thoroughly
understand, I had the overall goals of life course crystal clear in mind and used them to
facilitate kids to find out the phenomenon of “force”, to record their findings, to analyze
their findings, to induct their analysis, and finally, to edit their own report based on the
findings. They did the learning, not I did it for them. I facilitated them to induct rather
than I did it for them which was the way I used to do. Now, I return the responsibility of
learning back to kids. I provide guides only when they really need help... ... .”
(Teacher #1)
" cows I have to emphasize that students learned to edit an observation report in life course
and they learned writing at the same time. I realized what the deep meaning and the way
for students to learn “integration” with confidence. I improve my competency on
curriculum integration quite a bit from the experiences of using systems thinking ... ... .”
(Teacher #2)
"enews Therefore, what systems thinking taught me is the way of analyzing key elements
and interconnection between these elements. Systems thinking makes
curriculum/instruction design a lot easier. I am not frustrated (developing curriculum) any
more. It also help students a lot for that I will accurately get to the points after I am able
to see the forest and see the trees as well... ....” (Teacher #3)
4 svareae The key point is that after learning it (systems thinking), the quality of our
dialogues turns into very high. Happy about all these encouraging experiences, our
colleagues start thinking about further collaboration among schools, like sharing
curriculum frame, supplemental materials, such and such... ....What is really amazing is
that everybody becomes very active in leaming, sharing, and the eagerness toward
21
learning is really touching. Teachers begin to realize that they benefit a lot from it
(systems thinking). We learn not because the administrators say so and so... ....Since you
learn, consequently, students will like you a lot and always remember that you are a
wonderful teacher. The positive attitude of both teacher and students will make a
powerful positive loop and, finally, get back to yourself... ....” (Teacher #4)
In addition, teachers indicated that the clear goal map helped them in monitoring
students’ learning and understanding their perceptions and/or misconceptions much better. The
teachers also thought that the well-prepared and integrated knowledge on curriculum and
instruction assisted them in tailoring the instruction toward students’ needs. Teachers’ comfort
level measured by five closed-ended items in attitude survey showed that teachers felt
comfortable about using systems thinking model planning curriculum and instruction and
indicated that they enjoyed having an opportunity to use this methodology and would like to
introduce to other colleagues(Table 3). At the same time, most teachers indicated that the
principal’s support and someone’s leadership (not necessary the academic administrator) played
as the engine to make organization learning worked which never well did before. In this study,
the major engines were teacher #1 in school A; a group of six 2" grade teachers in school C; the
academic administrators in school B, D, & E; and the principal in school F.
Table 3 Results of teachers’ responses on comfort level using the model
Questions Mean | Standard
Deviation
1. I felt comfortable using systems thinking model before training. 2.05 0.09
2. I felt comfortable using systems thinking model after training. 4.45 0.38
3. I found the tumouts of using systems thinking model to design 4.50 0.40
curriculum/instruction were encouraging.
3. I would like to introduce the methodology to colleagues. 4.07 0.53
N =363
5 - Point scale with
5: Strongly agree, 4: Agree, 3: Undecided, 2 : Disagree, and 1: Strongly disagree
22
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several conclusions can be made based on the results of this study.
The evaluation results of this study suggest that a great promise of systems thinking in
their ability to transform schools to a leaming organization in which teacher collaboratively
involvement and participation to develop integrated curriculum are possible. Oftentimes the
newness and novelty of an innovation makes administrators or teachers think that they must
spend much more time and put lot efforts. This assumptive thought prevents them from trying to
change. This issue has implications for both administrator/teacher professional development and
school improvement plans to function as a whole.
The results of the study also indicates that systems thinking not only can increase the
quality of administrator-teacher and teacher-teacher interaction, teacher curriculum and
instruction planning, continuous assessment of curriculum and instruction, immediate and
formative feedback, but can also decrease overall time/load required on task of
curiculum/instruction in the long run. At the same time, design curriculum/instruction with more
accountability and higher quality.
However, innovation is not always easy for either administrators or teachers, especially
not easy in the beginning. Before innovation, a mechanism needed to be well prepared and
gradually formed beforehand because administrators and teachers must have the opportunity to
lear how the innovation or new methods can make their professional development better and
easier under the stress of regular work load. Given the characteristics of organization learning in
systems thinking, this is hard to learn solely by self-learning. In addition, the results of this study
suggest that lecture-style training may not be effective in helping administrators or teachers to
enhance competency to successfully integrate them into their curriculum/instruction planning.
An approach with a feasible schedule that focuses on hands-on experiences and ongoing
dialogues/supports among peers, administrators, mentors, experts and even the community might
be more successful.
Future implementation of systems thinking model need more systems thinkers as facilitators
involved. They could be principals, academic administrators, or teachers to improve current
part-operation systems thinking in schools. In terms of research methodology, the ultimate
concem for future research is to test the model by applying alternative tools to develop more
effective curriculum/instruction strategies and construct better model.
23
References
Altamirano, M.A. & van Daalen, C.E. (2004). A System Dynamics model of primary and
secondary education in Nicaragua. Delft University of Technology. The Netherlands.
Aspy, C. B. (2001). It is time to make a general systems paradigm reality in family and
community medicine. Families, Systems & Health.
Beels, C. C. (2002). Notes fora cultural history of family therapy. Family Process.
Biber P. & Kasperidus, H. D. (2004). Integrated Modeling Approaches and System Dynamics in
Education related to Sustainable Resource Management, Forestry, and Land use
Management Experiences and Perspectives at the School of Forestry and Resource
Management. Technische Universitat Miinchen, Germany.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience, and School, Expanded Edition: Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Bureau of Education, 2004. Report of the evaluation on elementary school management of the
2003 school year.
Checkland, P. (1993). Systems thinking, systems practice.Chichester: Wiley.
Davidson, S. (2000). An operations model of psychosocial structure and function and of
psychotherapy. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs.
Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey, J. O. (2004). Systematic Design of Instruction, The (6th Edition).
Allyn & Bacon.
DiFrancesca, J. & Dale, R. (2004). A Heuristic Model on the Role of Education in Complex
Humanitarian Emergencies a Reuse Perspective . Center for LifeLong Learning and
Design. Dept. of Computer Science and the Institute of Cognitive Science. University of
Colorado at Boulder.
Forrester, J. W. (1994). Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21st Century.
Keynote A ddress for Systems Thinking and Dynamic Modeling conference for K-12
Education at Concord Academy Concord, MA, USA (June 27-29, 1994 )
Forrester, Jay W. (1997). System Dynamics and K-12 Teachers. A lecture at the University of
Virginia School of Education, May 30, 1996.
Hayes, D. P. and Ahrens, M. (1988). “Vocabulary Simplification for Children: A Special Case of
‘Motherese’?” Journal of Child Language, 15, 395-410.
24
Huang, J. H. (2004). How to compete in a global education market effectively: a conceptual
framework for designing a next generation eEducation system. Journal of Global
Information Management, 4/1/2004.
Hsu, C. L. (1989). The application of instructional system design on audio-visual education
course for pre-service teachers training. O00) O00 0) 00 0000000 O00 00 0
O G<MN0000 00 0 OOOO 0 COOoMomNOoO Connon Omoooood
Kemp, J. E. (1985). Instructional Design Process. Translated by Associations for Education
Communications and Technology, 1988. Taipei: NTNU Books.
Lumb, I. (2004). High productivity computing system valuations: A more holistic approach to
measuring high performance computing system productivity.(high performance technical
computing). Scientific Computing & Instrumentation.
McDavid, D. W. (1996). Business language analysis for object-oriented information systems.
IBM Systems J ournal.
Memill, M. D. (2002a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Ministry of Education (2003). Grade 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines. (92 .01.15, 0920006026
Documents. Ministry of Education.
Myers-Bowman, K. S. (1998). Systems theory and its application to research on human
sexuality.(the use of theory in research and scholarship on sexuality). The Journal of Sex
Research.
Oldridge, M. (2003). The rise of the stupid network effect. International J ournal of Market
Research.
Overholt, M. H. (2004). Building a strategic hr function: Continuing the evolution. Human
Resource Planning.
QOM0000 OC00 OOOCMIOCOOCO00000 000 00000 OOMIDO 00 OOCOOCO000 OCU O00 OOOO Oooo
O00 00°00 C0000 OO Oo oo ooo 0 oo eee Ooo
QOOCIOOO0 1000 O00 OOO0Ok 0000) M00 2000 OOo 00000 0000 Oooo Oooo oo
COTO CO CA ACO
OMMOM00€ OOO) Systems Thinking Education in K-12 in Taiwan --His-Fu Cultural Foundation.
Educational Research & Information, 60, 6-19.
25
Senge, P. M. (1993). The fifth discipline: Art and practice of the learning organization (century
business):Random House Business Books.
Sorrells-Jones, J. (1999). The role of the chief nurse executive in the knowledge-intense
organization of the future. Nursing Administration Quarterly.
00000 0 00 00000 00 SM@000000 OOOO O90 COO00 O00 00000 00 COoW00 COOoooO ooo oo
00 COCIN00 COO 000 000 O00 0 00 OC 7
Tasgal, A. (2003). The science of the brands: Alchemy, advertising and accountancy.
International Journal of Market Research.
Wickens, C. D. ( 1992 ) . Engineering psychology and human performance. New York: Harper
Collins Publishers.
Wolf, F. (1994). Groundwater site characterization: A system perspective. J ournal of
Environmental Health.
26
