How We Help Students Learn
Jay W. Forrester
MIT System Dynamics Group
E60-389, 30 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02139
Office phone: 617-253-1571
jforestr@ mit.edu
Jan Mons
Glynn County Public Schools
GIST Director and System Dynamics Mentor
PO Box 1677, Brunswick, Georgia 31520
Office phone: 912-261-3873
jmons@ glynn.k12.ga.us
Will Costello
Champlain Valley UHS and Waters Grant Project
369 CVU Road, Hinesburg, Vermont 05461
Office phone: 802-482-7100
will@ cvuhs.org
Ron Zaraza
Portland Public Schools and CC-Stadus Project Director
2544 SE 16" Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97202
Office phone: 503-916-5280
rzaraza@ pps.k12.or.us
Abstract:
Three leaders in the field of using system dynamics in Kindergarten through 12" grades explain
how young students can be taught the core principles and introduced to computer simulation.
They will use many examples of classroom curriculum and relate personal experiences with
students.
Key Words: education, pre-college, curriculum, elementary, middle, high, teachers
Introduction by Jay W. Forrester:
Pre-college education is under attack for poorly serving the needs of society. Unless a superior
concept for improving education emerges, public displeasure is apt to result in still more of what
is already not working. But now, a fundamentally new and more effective approach to
education is emerging from advances in system dynamics. System dynamics offers a framework
for giving cohesion, meaning, and motivation to education at all levels from kindergarten
upward. A second important ingredient, “leamer-centered learning,” imports to pre-college
education the challenge and excitement of a research laboratory. Together, these two
innovations hamess the creativity, curiosity, and energy of young people. System dynamics
allows reversing the traditional educational sequence in which deadening years of learning facts
have preceded use of those facts by introducing synthesis (putting it all together) at an early stage
in a student’s experience. Such synthesis can be based on facts that even elementary school
students already have gleaned from life. Leamer-centered leaming reverses the process of a
teacher lecturing facts to resistant students. Learners have the opportunity to explore, gather
information, and create unity out of their educational experiences. A "teacher" in the new setting
acts as a guide and participating learner, rather than as an authoritarian source of all wisdom. *
* excerpt from "System Dynamics and Leamer-Centered-Learning in Kindergarten through 12th
Grade Education" by Jay W. Forrester, December, 1992
The Early School Years: Ms. Jan Mons
Dr. Forrester gave us quite a task many years ago when he asked us to bring Systems
Dynamics into K-12 education. He has explained the reason and any teacher who has worked
with students using SD has seen the light in their eyes grow brighter. Recently a third grader,
while working to create a model, said ,“This is fun!”. Later we asked her to repeat the statement
and she said, “ This is fun,” then she paused and said, ” No, it isn’t fun; it’s exciting!”
I first became involved in Systems Dynamics in 1992 when a gentleman named Barry
Richmond came to Glynn County Georgia to train a group of teachers, a core team. The Glynn
County's Integration of Systems Thinking, GIST, project had begun. In 1994 I heard Dr.
Forrester speak for the first time. He asked if any of us had used a model that day. His speech “
Leaming through System Dynamics as a preparation for the 21st Century” at the 1994 ST/DM
conference in Concord, MA, convinced me that I wanted to spend the rest of my career helping
to spread the use of Systems Dynamics in K-12 Education. This was why I became a teacher.
In the fall of 1994, GIST became a Water's Foundation Project and I became a full time
mentor. The struggle began. How do you teach SD to middle school, 6th to 8th grade, students
and how do you train teachers? Over the years we reversed the question to how do students learn
SD? Actually, it became how does anyone lear this? How do we leam anything? What did we
leam in order to appreciate Shakespeare? What did we learm in order to write a dissertation?
What did we lear in order to understand Calculus? We had students and teachers using SD
activities but there was something missing.
It is said that “Everything I needed to know I leamed in Kindergarten’. The problem was
that we were not teaching the basic SD skills in Kindergarten. In Kindergarten we started our
learning process with the 3 R’s. Reading, Writing and ‘Rithmatic. We leamed letter sounds so
that we could eventually read and appreciate the quality of Shakespeare's work. We learned how
to form letters so eventually we could write a dissertation. We learned how to count blocks so
eventually we could understand Calculus. What should we have leamed in elementary school in
order to help us participate in building and understanding a dynamic model?
In the spring of 1999, I faced my first group of Kindergartners to do an SD activity. It
was then that my learning on how to help students leam SD began. It was the beginning of the
creation of what we call the “4th R”. In order for anyone to learn something new, they need to
attach it to something they have already leaned. In Education we use the word SCHEMA. Dr.
Forrester talks about Mental Models. Our task has been twofold: to create a method to teach
and promote SD tools use, and to create an atmosphere in the classroom that promotes sharing
and independent thinking. To reap the full impact of Systems Dynamics in K-12 Education one
must integrate the style of teaching with the use of the SD tools.
We now refer to the “4th R” as “Reflexive Thinking”. It started in the fall of 1999 when
four elementary teachers, Mary Jo Davis, Rebecca Hill, Clelia Scott, and Eugenia Taylor,
became interested not in the Dynamic Modeling but in the discussions and sharing that occurred
during an activity. They knew what students should learn in elementary school and recognized
that SD would help students achieve these objectives and become more responsible for their
actions.
Our first efforts were connected to behavior. “Rules to Grow By” was created to help
students gain a shared understanding of items such as “using time wisely” and “accepting
responsibility”. We gave students “grades” in these areas but we found they did not really
understand what it would take to “fill their TUB” and get a satisfactory. The activity “Sticks and
Marbles” was used to help students track their positive and negative behaviors. While graphing
the accumulation of STICKS (negative behaviors) and MARBLES (positive behaviors) over
several weeks, the students discovered that on Wednesdays they accumulated more STICKS. In
a class discussion they shared their ideas of why and were soon able to change their Wednesday
pattern. The students and teachers were not using the formal vocabulary of SD at this time, but it
gave them something to tie the formal vocabulary to when they began a formal study of SD.
With both the teachers and students interested in learning more, the question became
“How do you teach the concepts and vocabulary of SD to second grade students?” The answer
was you don’t. One aspect of elementary learning is using manipulatives and hands on learning.
We allowed the students to experience the concepts and tools within regular classroom activities
and then attached the vocabulary. When teaching a tool, we use activities such as the In and Out
game developed by Carlisle Waters Project and Nancy Roberts, "Picture Kit” to help make
concepts as concrete as possible.
We have allowed students to explain a concept in their words, connecting it with their
mental models, and we have given them the vocabulary word that they defined. An example of
this occurred after the students drew Behavior Over Time Graphs of sharing in the story
Rainbow Fish. We discussed how one character's sharing led to the other’s sharing. I then drew
a Causal Loop and labeled it Reinforcing. The teacher blanched when I put the word up, but I
simply asked the students if they had ever heard the word before. One small hand went up and a
student said it had something to do with the army. I paused, trying to make the connection, and
asked him to explain how it was used in the army. He explained that it happened when an army
brought more men in to fight. We then discussed the Reinforcing Loop involved when armies
brought in reinforcements. The students had an understanding of the army term and we built on
that knowledge to assist in their understanding of how to identify a Reinforcing Loop.
. The study of system dynamics became for all of us a way to help build better mental
models by learning how to use the tools correctly. You must leam how to use a hammer before
you can build a birdhouse. You must learn how to use SD tools and concepts before you can
build Dynamic Models. I carry a toolbox with me for introductory SD lessons with K-5 students.
A concrete item for an abstract concept. We discuss banging our thumb and bending some nails
in the process of building. We talk about why people build model cars and I introduce SD as a
way to build mental models so we can test them and make them better, but we have to share our
thinking and work together. We can create a better model of the structure of the systems we
study and how they change over time. This serves as an example for both students and teachers
and sets the atmosphere in the classroom that we are all learners.
An aspect of elementary leaming is drill and practice. One teacher designed a daily
calender activity to practice recognizing Causal Loop Diagrams. Once a week she puts an if/then
statement on the board. Their task is to identify the pattern,
A-B-C-D or A-B-A-B of the statement and classify it as a cause/effect, A-B-C-D, or a causal
loop, A-B-A-B. If it is a causal loop relationship, then they draw it and name it as balancing or
reinforcing. The discussions generated by their sharing are rich with thinking and they often
disagree with the teacher and offer valid reasons.
We continue to adjust our list of things students can do and understand at different age
levels, but at this point we have had the following experiences:
Pre-K, Kindergarten, and First grade
Desired Results:
* Recognize that things change over time and everything is not right now.
* Recognize large and small growth
* Draw BOTG to show change
* Recognize that the slope of the line indicates the rate of change
Activities:
Moving Sand - Students pour sand into and out of a clear picture. The amount of
sand is measured and a bar graph is created. As the activity progresses, students
begin to predict what will happen with the next scoop and the bar graph becomes
a line graph.
Car Racing - Students take turns letting a model car roll down a cardboard ramp.
As the activity progresses, they begin to predict whether their car will roll down
faster or slower than the last person’s. They gain an understanding of the
relationship between speed and the slope of the ramp.
Melting Ice Cube - The students observe the accumulation of water from a
melting ice cube and graph the amount of water. They then were able to draw
changes that would have occurred if the ice cube had been put outside or in the
freezer.
Story BOTG - Even 5 year olds can participate in drawing a class BOTG. The
stock in the beginning is usually happiness but the discussion on what changes
happiness and the connections is still filled with good thinking.
Second and Third grade:
Desired Results:
At this level we begin a formal study of the tools and concepts. SD is used in a
variety of regular classroom activities just as reading and writing are.
Students should be able to use the tools in a variety of activities and recognize
concepts such as delays and leverage points in their regular studies.
We have used the following basis activities in our teaching of SD:
In and Out game, developed by the Carlisle MA. Water’s Foundation Grant
Project
“The Picture Kit”, developed by Nancy Roberts
Graphing Daily Temperature, Bulletin Board Pieces, Walmart Stockroom, and
Making Stone Soup which we developed.
The group of students with which we started working in the fall of 1999 as
second graders are now in third grade. Their teachers have integrated SD use
throughout their teaching. In second grade they did a unit on the study of habitat
and interdependence. They graphed animal populations using S-curves, J-curves,
and Oscillation and discussed what created each type. They have used pre-built
two stock STELLA models and gained an understanding of CLD involved. This
year they are working in groups studying the three ecosystems in our area. Their
final presentations will include a CLD or Stock/Flow diagram of their ecosystem.
In a health unit they were studying infectious diseases. We adapted the
epidemic game and all three classes played it and graphed the results, discussing
different patterns. The gifted students from those classes then created a STELLA
model of the game. Our plan was to create a simple two stock model because it
was their first hands on modeling experience. Their knowledge base allowed them
not only to tell the story, but to identify the pieces necessary to create a model. As
they discussed different diseases they put the variables in that will enable all
classes next year to use the model to examine the pattem for a variety of
infectious diseases.
Fourth and Fifth grade:
By this time elementary students are applying the fundamental skills they leamed
in earlier grades to a more in depth study of all subjects. We use SD tools to assist
in this study.
In science they use the Mammoth Game, Carlisle Water's Foundation Project, to
study extinction. They then apply it to what is currently happening to the
Manatees and discuss possible solutions to save this endangered species. The
gifted students created a STELLA model to examine possibilities.
In their study of American History, we have used a series of activities using CLD
and STELLA models originally developed for eighth grade to assist in this study.
The activities have students to role play different views from the past and
experience events rather than memorize them. They become involved in history
and gain an understanding of why things happened and discuss what changes
would have avoided wars and other tragedies from the past.
Sixth to Twelfth grade:
We continue to use activities in these grade levels but as students get older it is
harder to break the traditional style of education. They have become “right”
answer thinkers and because of the pressure of standardized test scores, the
teachers are less willing to break from traditional styles of teaching. The walls of
the box are stronger and it is harder to move to “out of the box” thinking.
As we enter our third year of elementary work, our desired result is to let the
infection model on SD use work it’s course. More teachers are asking questions about
SD activities and willing to leam as they see the exciting things going on in other classes.
The third graders we have been working with are moving on to fourth grade and new
teachers. We hope to be able to answer questions such as:
Can students “force” teachers to adopt the use of SD and adapt their teaching
methods to the student's style of learning?
Can this group of third graders, who have been immersed in SD use for two years,
continue their growth as they change teachers and move up through the grades?
Only time will tell us the answers to those questions. We feel we are only beginning to
discover what K-3 students can do with SD. We will continue to explore the possibilities
in the future. We are only at the beginning of our story of growth and change and look
forward to the next chapter.
Middle School Studies: Will C ostello
I am a teacher. I am really not sure when or where it finally hit home for me. I had
sensed it for years as a nagging "background noise." Sometimes a whisper and at other times a
growing crescendo, notably when sitting and talking with students, or when correcting a set of
final exams, or addressing parent concems in conferences. It was a shadow of discomfort,
subtle, creeping, and usually held at bay by the insane day-to-day demands of the teaching
profession. It can be easy to dodge reality when your dealing with 150 students a day, parent
phone calls, the incessant clamor of e-mails and announcements form the office, flu epidemics,
head lice, transportation issues, weather, and maintenance of vascular caffeine levels. But
invariably the notion would fretfully explode into the forefront of my mind: I was not doing my
job! I was not teaching!
Certainly my students could get A's, hit the honor roll with unfailing precision, write
well, solve equations, and get into the colleges of their choice. But they could not think! They
could not approach a real-world system that had more than two components, uncover the
dynamic interactions in that system, or propose policies to impact the situation. They were
unable to either significantly increase their understanding or solve a real world problem. Why
should they? They were not being taught... and I was their teacher.
I am here today because I was lucky enough to encounter this "discipline of thought" that
the first speaker baptized as "System Dynamics." It has sent me searching to Boston, Quebec
City, Bergen and Atlanta to see and meet many powerful thinkers. It connected me with the
profound foresight and magnanimous grace of Jim and Faith Waters. It provided me the chance
to leam from great thinkers in a positive, collegial atmosphere I had only hoped for once. It
brought me, most recently, to Worcester, Massachusetts to stand in awe as my 11-17 year old
students discussed their work with Jay Forrester, George Richardson, Rich Karash, Ginny Wiley,
and many others. Above all, it has taken me to new levels of excitement and enthusiasm for
teaching children. It has molded me a teacher of thinking.
This discipline of thought has forced me to become an ardent student of brain and
learning research to understand what I was missing, what I was not doing. There is currently a
wealth of "new knowledge" about how the brain works and how kids leam. The marriage of this
research and the field of System Dynamics has brought me into an entirely new family. It has
changed the nature of my work. Yes, schools have yet to change significantly, and the process of
renewal will be lengthy and, at times, discouraging, but if we proceed with conviction and
precision, our kids will be able to think. As for me, I really will be able to teach.
Despite the traditional educational predominance of reductionism, current brain research
indicates that a more holistic approach to learning is preferable. Many students are unable to
sequentially build concepts and skills from parts to whole, the basic “pathway” of reductionism.
These students often stop trying to see the wholes before all the parts are presented to them. We
need to see the “whole before we are able to make sense of the parts.” (Brooks and Brooks,
1993).
Cain and Cain (1991) state “..most real systems are non-linear, complex, and highly
interactive. Their functioning is normally counter-intuitive.” They site the characteristics of
“experts”:
1. experts see larger chunks, bigger patterns, the system at hand
2. experts grasp context; where the important patterns exist in the world
3. experts remember via a specific framework (internal)
Systems thinkers operate to see the larger “chunks”, the context, and have a systematic
framework to “store” their understanding (deeper knowledge). Crucial research also
demonstrates that the brain exhibits the capacity to process parts and wholes together (Cain and
Cain, 1991). Systems thinkers do this: they simultaneously see the “forest” and the “trees”,
looking through complexity to see and understand the underlying system structure generating
change (Senge, 1994). Even physiological research on rat brains supports the notion that a
natural, complex environment results in the greatest brain functioning. Fascinating new
research, conducted with nuns in convents, shows how lives led in enriching environments,
complex in content, actually increases the mass of the brain, retards the process of aging and
resists the development of Alzheimer’s Disease.
Clearly if educational reform is to make substantive changes in the lives of children then
this research must be incorporated into practice. The methodology and tools of System
Dynamics are fundamental components of this change.
Like most K-12 teachers and administrators who have embraced System Dynamics and
are attempting to instill it within their particular educational environments, I have a long story of
self-discovery, false starts, frustrations with getting discipline-specific teachers engaged,
successes with kids, continued discovery, and lots of hard work. The trajectories of all of these
stories is similar and material for another time. I wish to focus here on current efforts underway
at a middle school in my district where System Dynamics is becoming "part of the culture."
Williston Central School (WCS) has always been a "little bit on the edge" in our 5-school
district. They formed mutli-aged teams 15 years ago, they structured team activities around a
"kiva" concept over 10 years ago. WCS evolved the use of personalized learning plans,
individual contracts for leaming that are designed, monitored and evaluated with the children and
their parents in 1990. They set a policy of student access to technology, including student
internet access and student e-mail in 1991.
Not surprisingly, when the opportunity arose to leam about System Dynamics, systems
thinking, and dynamic modeling, with the potential for improving student's lives, they "came
around" first. That was in 1996. They have evolved though a typical progression beginning with
individual teacher training, two teachers getting engaged and excited initially, trained by a
mentor supported by the Waters Foundation. This led to episodic use of systems tools and lesson
plans centered on a systems applications within a single team. That spread, by word of mouth
(teachers and kids!), to a second team, and then a third.... Whole-team, multi-disciplinary
applications later emerged as experience increased and benefits to students became evident. The
principal became engaged and traveled to a Waters Foundation meeting. Use began to expand as
the "infected" principal encouraged others to leam about systems. This remained the norm for
several years, until 1999, when teachers pushed it to the next level. System Dynamics, and its
tools, they believed, needed to be a fundamental component of all learning at WCS.
In 1999, we shifted the focus to the "WCS System Dynamics Project." Our experience
with systems and kids, as systems thinking often does, led us to a number of better questions.:
What if we viewed SD/ST as essential as language and math?
Doesn't SD have its own, unique language?
Doesn't "system thinking" involve changing your perspective, your world-view?
Aren't traditional roles and rules of engagement now different?
Don't we expect to see new "habits of thinking" emerge?
Shouldn't it be a part of every area of content study where dynamics were
observed to occur?
Aren't the tools, BOTG's, CLD's, stock-flow maps, and simulations useful and
instructive in most curricular areas?
It was becoming clear that we needed to move away from episodic, lesson-by-lesson approach
and begin looking at System Dynamics as a core curriculum structure that became the scaffold
for the teaching of thinking in the school.
We established a training experience that re-focussed our work. We went about learning
and re-learning the tools of systems study (BOTG's, CLD’s, etc.) with the objective of
establishing the use of these tools in every content area. We began a comprehensive study of
the SD Methodology as described in Randers (1980) and Richardson and Pugh (1981).
Applications and student guides were developed that assisted students in making this significant
shift in ways they "attacked" problems. I, as the Waters Foundation mentor, worked with
teachers in delivering information within this new framework.
Social studies groups began studying the impact of population change on a national and
local level, monetary systems, the impact of rural development, the interplay between population
and resources in a limited environment, and the national election process. Math classes studied
the power of compounding, the nature of savings, linear and non-linear systems, probability, and
complex problem solving. Science students examined the dynamics of liquid cooling, the
growth of bacterial populations, the impact of alcohol on the body, nuclear decay, and cycles in
nature. Literature groups did detailed analyses of the Dust Bowl and the dynamics of nuclear
power accidents after reading award winning children’s books on these topics.
But we had yet to move fully beyond the "lesson" notion and into the use of systems as
an underlying framework to thinking and learning. This year, WCS teachers, as a group, have
taken the next step. Systems, they came to realize, really is a way of seeing the world, a
perspective, a language, and a way of thinking about things, simple or complex. This implies
going beyond mere pedagogic tinkering and delving into significant "cultural" change. After all,
they reasoned, a culture is defined by it language, interactions, beliefs, and habits (customs).
Systems thinking and dynamic modeling was obliging them to fundamentally rethink their
school culture.
Now that the tools of systems had become familiar to kids and teacher fluency had
improved, the teaching teams felt the need to also develop a formalized process to employ the
tools in efforts to research, study, and propose solutions to problems and questions. A better
question arose from our work to date:
Isn't the System Dynamics Method a comprehensive way to examine
both simple and complex systems, and simultaneously teach kids how
to think about them, examine leverage points, and craft policies to alter or reinforce the
behavior of the system?
Timing is everything! The System Dynamics methodology, once previously studied,
was now presented to them as a way of thinking, of planning, of researching, and of solving
problems and answering questions. Teachers related quickly to it as a “scientific method” with
broad application in many aspects of leaming. Several noted it to be a preferable scientific
method as iteration was a fundamental component of the method. The traditional “scientific
method” as taught in schools is a linear process where some teachers might mention the notion of
the process leading to “better questions” thus dictating further inquiry or research, but usually as
an aside or afterthought. The SD method obliges the student to practice learning as an iterative
process, where each step in the method intuitively feeds back upon the other steps in the process.
Once I begin the Formulation stage, I will probably find information that causes me to rethink
my initial Dynamic Hypothesis. Policy tests might reveal a weakness in my Formulation. Each
step in the process and each time I cycle through it, I find a greater depth of understanding and a
wealth of “better questions.”
Work began in developing ways to use the methodology in global studies classes.
Students were given a structured outline in class that took them through the steps in the process.
The initial emphasis was on the process of focusing the question and problem articulation
(Conceptualization). Students, indeed learners of any age, have a habit of addressing too large a
problem, or they lack clarity regarding the purpose of the model. To get students to develop a
habit of “standing back” and patiently exploring many of the facets of a dynamic problem before
“jumping in” and rushing to the Formulation stage, requires a clear, structured approach, guiding
students through several questioning cycles before beginning to focus on any aspect that might
lead to further analysis and eventual model development. The student guide is purposeful in
questioning students about their concepts, selected variables and articulated problem. Emphasis
is placed upon the understanding of the behavior of a single, critical variable over time.
Students are then instructed in ways to clearly describe their question or problem, including the
time frame in which the situation will be explored. Supportive behavior over time graphs and
causal relationships must be included. Students are provided a visual scaffold to link the key
variable of interest to other, influential variables. Causal diagrams could emerge from this
process. At first, these causal diagrams are often single-loop structures. Students, however,
soon see the inclusion of the key variable in more than one loop and this naturally leads to
multiple-loop diagrams. These diagrams form the basis for describing feedback and delay
relationships that exist within the system. A written description of the BOTG and the causal
diagrams must be included with the proposed question/problem. The feedback dynamics and the
presence of significant delays must be indicated in the description.
Student teams then meet with the teacher to discuss if, when, and how to proceed to the
Formulation stage. This results in very simple 2-3 stock models that address a very narrow
aspect of the student’s question, but leads the student to additional, better questions, as well as an
increased understanding of the system under study. In some cases students do proceed with
more complex model structures but in each case these are built upon simpler structures. A final
written summary must detail the student's original mental model, the explorations that led to the
problem articulation, and an analysis of what has been leamed about the system, and what
“better questions” are generated by the work. Student products are generally viewed by the
entire class or, in cases of notable work, by the entire team in a Kiva session.
Concurrently, teachers realized the need to infuse the language and tools of SD
throughout the curriculum in a more comprehensive and formalized way. The vehicle for
accomplishing this is the “Current Events” curriculum. Teams generally spend 1-2 periods per
week in Kiva exploring current topics of interest. Students use newspaper, magazine and online
sources to select news stories and present them to the team. Listeners are responsible for writing
synopses and adding their perspective and comments. A student guide is used to prompt students
for specific information. Any news story must be examined in a systematic way. Students use
BOTGs to describe the current behavior of the system under study. Also, efforts must be made
to do research resulting ina BOTG of past behavior. Students are prompted to include their best
approximation of the future behavior of the system. Time scale is arbitrary but must be
defendable in terms of length and justified based upon their current thinking.
Other influences upon the variable in the BOTG are then explored (via group
conversation) and listed. Possible causal diagrams are developed based upon these
conversations. Feedback structures and dynamics are noted. Significant delays in the system are
indicated and the impact of the delays is noted. In some cases stock-flow (level-rate) maps are
developed. A final news summary is crafted using the BOTGs and CLDs as supportive material.
A reflective piece, often from the perspective of “How does this system influence my life?”
completes the activity.
This is our structure for addressing issues in the classroom, whether it be basic
economics, environmental studies, the nature of revolutions, leaming how epidemics spread,
what population dynamics are impacting our local community, or the impact of missed
assignments upon overall student performance. A logical, clear, iterative process for
determining the components of a system, how they relate to each other, what the system
produces in terms of behavior, and how the system could be impacted, modified, or altered by
changes in structure or policy, gives students a framework for addressing a system and
increasing their depth of understanding about that system.
The outcome of these initiatives is that a group of multi-age, middle school students are
developing fluency with the language, tools, and methodology of System Dynamics. Students at
WCS are "residents" of 1 of five multi-age "houses." Houses define the student's teachers and
curriculum. We began this effort by engaging 2 teachers in one house in 1996. Currently 2
houses have begun the "culture" shift and it continues to be a challenge. The three other houses
have begun the process or training and exploration. At DynamiQUEST 2001 last May, WCS
was represented by students from each of the five houses. BOTGs and CLDs now become part
of almost every learning experience. Students initiate the inclusion of graphs and diagrams into
many aspects of their day-to-day schooling. Students “see” and “point out” the behavior over
time, causal loops and feedback/delay dynamics in their curricula. Dynamics that have always
existed, but have been unobserved in the past!
This represents a beginning in a process of reform that will take many years to see
fruition. To bring WCS to the point where systems education of all of its children is ingrained in
the culture is still 5+ years away. Difficulties arise as teachers are inundated with new state and
federal mandates around the notions of testing, standards, and accountability. As discussion
rages in Washington and state legislatures, and proposals a floated or leaked to get public
response, teachers struggle to "keep their eye on the ball." One teacher modeled the impact of
mandates and now sees his classroom straining under the unintended consequence of spending
32% of the school year mired in assessments, testing, and evaluation, often redundant, whose
results are little-read after the headlines are forgotten, and which results in less time for kids. In
light of these demands, I cherish educators who can extend themselves, when confronted with
the power of systems thinking, and undertake new learning which comes with a significant
learning curve, but which, also, significantly enhances the thinking of their students.
Grades 9-12th: Ron Zaraza
Like the proceeding authors, the transition to my current work in System Dynamics was
born out of a dissatisfaction with how I was teaching and what my students were leaning.
However, I had no clear vision of where I was going and was most surprised when I got there. It
was a place that I didn’t even know existed when I started. In many respects, that is a good
description of the evolution of the use of System Dynamics at the high school level (grades 9-
12). Whether looking at the work of Al Powers at Carlisle High School, Frank Draper's efforts
to develop models for use in high school, or the work done in the Pacific Northwest by the
people who ultimately emerged as the National Science Foundation funded CC-STADUS/CC-
SUSTAIN Projects, we initially see a very narrow vision of system dynamics. The work focused
on the use of dynamic models built using STELLA to teach specific topics within content areas.
The files of the Creative Learning Exchange are full of those early efforts. Their use was
characterized by episodic application of system dynamics, but no vision of system dynamics as a
unifying tool, a unifying discipline. In the last ten years, this other, more powerful vision of
System Dynamic’s place in education, has gradually replaced the earlier one. This is probably
most obvious in the Pacific Northwest, which boasts the largest concentration of secondary
teachers who have received training in System Dynamics and the largest group of users of
system dynamics at the secondary level.
The earliest users of system dynamics tools in Northwest developed simple models for use
in physical science, physics, and mathematics classes. These models were designed to either
teach topics that were beyond the reach of the mathematical techniques normally accessible to
their students, or to teach topics already covered, but in a more visual way. Student response
was mixed. The greatest success was achieved with students of average or lower ability,
particularly those identified as “at risk”. The models provided them with an alternate approach
to the development of concepts. They could experiment. “Wrong” answers could be corrected
once they identified why they were wrong. There was more emphasis on understanding than on
correct or incorrect answers. The process of learning was lived out during class. The most able
students, who were very comfortable with traditional mathematical approaches, were more
resistant. They didn’t “need” the other approach. The focus was using models, not system
dynamics.
As was the case with other practitioners, these teachers gradually became aware that they
were only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Through reading and model building, they began to see
the broader implications of system dynamics. In the case of the teachers doing this work in the
Portland, Oregon area, this awareness ultimately culminated in the CC-STADUS and CC-
SUSTAIN projects. These projects were officially intended to provide basic training in
modeling for teachers while assisting them in the development of models for use in cross-
curricular work and in their content areas. The real goal, as Diana Fisher often put it, was “to
have someone else to play with”, to have other people thinking “out of the box”. The training
they received gradually evolved to emphasize the unifying nature of System Dynamics, the
power of system dynamics to enable teachers and students to see common patterns and behaviors
across disciplinary lines.
The evolution of the training provided to teachers coincided with a shift in the use of
System Dynamics by students. About the same students began to see computer models used in a
few classes, the first modeling classes began to be offered. Over the next three years, the focus
of the modeling classes shifted. Initially, they began by looking at causal loops, then converting
these loop diagrams to stock-flow models. Success with this approach was very limited. Next,
the approach abandoned causal loops and took on the nature of a traditional programming class.
Finally, the classes developed into a form they still adhere to: leaming the basics of computer
model construction as a vehicle for developing the broader concepts and perspective of System
Dynamics. Five years ago (five years after the first modeling classes) the first class was offered
in which the use of system dynamics concepts and tools was at the core of content coverage. In
this course, students used models, behavior over time graphs, feedback and causality discussions
to learn concepts in a multidisciplinary course.
Today, episodic use of simple models for content teaching, use of models to explore more
complex relationships, and instruction in model building, are taking place in secondary classes
in the Portland area. By far the most common use of System Dynamics remains episodic use in
individual courses. The type of use, however, has shifted from the practices of ten years ago.
Mathematics use is an excellent place to see the difference. Initially, the STELLA models used
reflected the mathematics nomenclature and labeling. The primary emphasis was exposing
students to alternative approaches to understanding and exploring the patterns of growth that
various mathematical functions generate. Connections with real world problems were often not
explicitly made. Now, however, the STELLA models are use to explore linear, exponential,
quadratic, periodic, and logistic functions in real-world applications. Algebra students use
pharmacokinetic models to explore drug uptake and elimination as they leam about exponential
functions. Calculus students use logistic models to deal with population problems. Predator-
prey models are used to explore periodic functions and phase relationships. The output of simple
models is used to help students develop the concept of slope, and to help them leam how to
describe pattems of change represented by graphs. In short, students use systems tools and
concepts to make a connection between behavior or pattems and problems outside of traditional
mathematics.
This emphasis on behavior pattems and connections between disciplines, rather than the
bare-bones content, is now fairly common where system dynamics is used in regular classes. In
social science, chemistry, physics, biology, health, literature, and even theology classes, students
explore content problems while at the same time identifying basic patterns of growth and the
structures that produce them. Students develop a clearer understanding of the commonality of
these patterns in multiple disciplines, especially where System Dynamics has more than one or
two adherents in a school. The same pharmacokinetic models used in algebra are also explored
in health classes and in biology classes, while exponential growth and decay are seen in
biological populations as well as discussions of the problems facing third-world nations.
What may be most important about this use of system dynamics are the questions that arise.
The very simple models used, whether built by students or simply run by students, often give
obviously flawed results. For example, population models often predict huge populations in
third-world countries. There is no way these populations could be realized - the system would
collapse. Characteristically some students recognize the problem and bring it up. The student
driven discussion develops a much clearer picture of the system and the various feedback loops,
delays, and linkages, than would normally be presented. Depending on the teacher's mastery of
modeling (or, in many cases, student interest in leaming how to use the model) the model may be
modified to reflect and experiment with the students’ suggestions of a more realistic scenario.
This extension of the “simple but wrong” answer through student action develops a pattern of
probing answers in and out of class. The awareness that problems, systems, and answers are
never as simple as they seem is a powerful gain that has much broader implications then the
systems skills students acquire. Students learn to ask better questions and to look for linkages
that complicate problems and solutions. They tend to bring these ideas to classes where SD is
not used. In fact, they are sometimes “recruiters” for systems training programs.
In some respects, this approach to using system dynamics may be a “snap shot” of the far
future. The system dynamics tools and concepts will be more a “tool kit” or language that
students use to problem solve, rather than specific discipline taught in isolation. However, this
will only be true when the use is far more widespread in a school. Until then, courses explicitly
dedicated to teaching system dynamics modeling remain a key element in the growth of system
dynamics at the secondary level. Next year, at least seven high schools in Oregon and Southwest
Washington will offer dynamic modeling courses, all using STELLA. At least two of these
schools offer a second-year course, and two offer an independent study third-year course. Most
schools offer these classes to students in grades 9-12, although a few restrict the course to juniors
and seniors. These courses have changed dramatically, particularly in the last three years.
Assistance and recommendations from some of the professional System Dynamists, particularly
Jay Forrester, George Richardson, Barry Richmond, and Andy Ford, have resulted in shifts in
content. These courses, while still very much modeling courses, spend more time on broad
general system dynamics concepts than before. All work keeps at the forefront the idea that the
course is not a programming course, but a course in understanding and explaining systems with
dynamic modeling as the primary tool used. This means a conceptual focus dominates rather
than a mechanical proficiency in modeling. The courses have been influenced by both Road
Maps series and the MIT Guided Study Program. The second year courses, in particular, address
several topics presented in those programs. At all levels, students spend more time than a few
years ago looking at existing models, such as the basic models George Richardson presented at
the 2000 Skamania Conference. By both building models and exercising pre-built models,
students learn more about good modeling and good analysis of problems.
The students in these modeling classes are expected, each year, to develop a significant
project in which they model a problem that interests them. These range from analyzing
population policy or zoning problems to literature models. What they have in common is
creative, original work that seems well beyond what would usually be asked of 16-18 year olds.
The students in these classes are often not the “honors” students in their school. Some of the
best students and most interesting work has been done by students who do not do well in
traditional classes.
The newest work in system dynamics at the secondary level has been the development of
cross-curricular content courses in which SD tools form the framework of all problem analysis.
The first of these courses was offered five years ago at Wilson High School in Portland.
Developed by a social studies teacher, Megs Patton, and a science teacher, Scott Guthrie, with
assistance from John Heinbokel and Jeff Potash of Trinity College in Vermont, the Science,
Technology, Society/W orld Issues course looks at important changes in culture and civilization
and their connections to other developments and changes. The course has continued to evolve,
changing focus a bit each year. Current topics include population characteristics, urbanization,
disease dynamics, agriculture, natural resource utilization, World Dynamics, energy
development/standard of living, revolution, and the national drug policy. In each of these areas,
the students examine what is understood about the problem and work toward identifying
effective policies that were, could have, or could be applied to the problem. While students leam
basic modeling skills, the focus is more on modifying and exercising existing models or using
existing models to explore problems. Modeling is the tool, not the focus. This opens high level
application of system dynamics concepts to students who do not want to become modelers. This
is consistent with the long term view accepted by most involved in 9-12 system dynamics work
that the large scale understanding and use of models is more important that the building of
models. Being able to understand and interpret the results of models, while recognizing the
assumptions and limitations of models, is probably the major educational goal we are working
toward.
This approach is also reflected in the newest course developed at Wilson, giving it a four-
year systems based program. The Environmental Science/Ecology Using Systems course also
emphasizes use and modification of models. It combined a fairly traditional Advanced
Placement style Environmental Science course with the recently published “Modeling the
Environment” (Andy Ford). Students use models to develop deeper understanding of systems
that ecologists have described and studied for years using other methodologies. They have the
option of doing original field work and modeling.
These last two courses may represent the first “mature” use of SD at the secondary level.
A sufficient collection of models exist or can be easily built to take traditional topics and explore
them from a systems perspective. This systems perspective, inherently interdisciplinary, fits well
into social science and environmental science, both also naturally interdisciplinary. The courses
focus on understanding systems and how policies affect them. They reflect how we hope the
students will us system as they become the decision makers of the future.
This use of system dynamics was pushed still further this past March. Activities like
Model United Nations and Harvard Model Congress have been in the high schools for years.
Students in these role-playing activities function as ambassadors, legislators, cabinet officials,
and others involved in making important decisions in the real world. By simulating their roles,
students learn about both the roles and the problems inherent in high level decision making.
Twenty-three students from three Portland area high schools, under the direction of five
teachers, served as the local Crisis Management Team for a simulated natural disaster in the
greater Portland Metropolitan area. For thirty consecutive hours, they combined internet
research, building, and running dynamic models as they tried to cope with an outbreak of
smallpox. Systems tools, including, but not limited to models, were used to define and explore
the problems, model potential outcomes, plan and test policies. They used models to a degree
that an actual management team would not have been able to, because they lacked the
background and capacity. The students applied their systems skills to a situation new to them,
and succeeded to a degree that was quite unexpected. Projected deaths were between 40 and
250, compared to a potential 600,000 if no actions had been taken. The students used what they
had leamed about systems to deal with a complex problem where any action had to be carefully
weighed, where each decision triggered multiple results. In some cases, for example, the use of
quarantines, they discovered that the sources they used gve wrong recommendations in the light
of their particular problem. In short, they worked through a difficult problem using system
dynamics as their guide. May they and others continue to do so.
