Table of Contents
An Action Research on System Dynamics
Course Through Cooperative Learning
Showing Y oung, Ph.D. Shyh-J ane Li
Associate Professor Doctoral Student
Department of Business Management Department of Business Management
National Sun Yat-Sen University National Sun Yat Sen University
Kaohsiung, Taiwan, RO.C. Kaohsiung, Taiwan, RO.C.
E-nnil: young@cmnsyswedutw E-nnil: shyhiane@bmnsysu.edutw
Abstract
We explore instructionaldesign of system dynamics by action research in the
recent years, improve the situation of teaching, leaming, and practice constantly, and
accumulate some knowledge and experience. This paper describes some teaching
innovations by action research with three fundamental principles: (1) structure
influences behavior, (2) set up the goal and feedback leaming, (3) from easy to
difficult. We want to design the curriculum from three dimensions: leaming
environment, process, and content. We acquired five conclusions with the impact of
action research which intervened the activities of teaching by questionnaires in this
paper: (1) the scope of system dynamics is quite broad, thus, teaching needs to be
adjusted in accordance with various conditions. (2) cooperative leaming can enhance
leaming results and leaming enforcing. (3) action research will be a good guidance for
teaching system dynamics through cooperative leaming. (4) systems thinking and
system dynamics are complementary. (5) instructional design must have systematic
characteristics and be implemented step-by-step.
Keywords
System Dynamics, Action Research, Cooperative Leaming
Introduction
Along with the technological advance, the current of thought of fragment makes
its teachings greatly, students leam some fragmental knowledge at school. How to
offs
teach students value the whole again is becoming more and more important. In Taiwan,
professional is still an essential notion at present. Most of guidelines seemed to be
replaced by profession. There will have a side effect to all society, which will lack for
the view of entirety behind the professional. It is so difficult, if we want to change the
thought of division in society. We only can do from education. If we hope students to
understand, accept completely, and become a real leamer, it maybe still difficult. It is a
big topic and challenges that students can accept the systems education step by step
and have interest.
Most of the traditional education of Chinese is the relation about teacher to
student. Generally speaking, in Taiwan, teachers usually give content but are much
less question or request students thinking actively. Consequently, students are usually
short of reflection, and inquiry. Compare with west society, students in Taiwan often
lack for spirit of active leaming from their childhood. Either students usually obey
their parents’ request, or fear be eliminated by society. Some of the students do not
know what they want, and just want to graduate. It is an ordeal for teachers that how to
face these problems and disseminate knowledge further.
This research hopes to use cooperative leaming by action research at the
instruction of system dynamics. For one reason, we want to improve the passive
leaming situation and integrate accumulative experience and establish a framework
amount teaching, leaming and practice. For another, we emphasize the important of
curiculum design, and encourage leaming motive, and experience various systemic
essence.
About improving students’ passive leaming, the influence of feudal society,
so-called traditional education of Chinese in basic representation is spoon-feeding way,
cramming, examination first. In this situation, students just represent negative and
passive about their leaming. Few of students can leam actively. Generally speaking,
while teachers found students’ leaming not very well, they usually take some
examination. Examinations can to get instant results, but if teachers only promote
students’ leaming results by that, it will bring some side effects for a long time.
Johnson & Johnson (1986) emphasized that the tnily leaming would occur the
following situations: 1. Leaming only occurs on personal mental activities. 2. Nobody
can acquire knowledge unless they believe they can leam. 3. Examinations are just
being a feeble index. 4. Students interest in questions and the aspect of their interests.
5. The most plentiful activities are discovered by teachers. 6. Its important to choose a
good instruction.
Teachers’ work is to propagate doctrines of the ancient sages, to instruct peoples’
studies, to answer their doubt. So, Instruction is teachers’ unshirkable responsibility.
We hope to involve students’ participations, change their attitude and increase their
leaming motivation Creating leaming win-win through cooperative leaming.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative leaming is a systematic and structural teaching strategy. In
cooperative leaming class members are split into small groups. Slavin (1995) refers
that variety of teaching methods in which students work in small groups to help each
one another leam academic content. Students need to learn to think, to solve problems,
and to integrate and apply knowledge and skills.
Johnson & Johnson (1994) give a definition about cooperative leaming:
Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. In cooperative leaming
situations there is a positive interdependence among students’ goal attainments:
Students perceive that they can reach their leaming goals if and only if the other
students in the leaming group also reach their goals.
In the late 1700s Joseph Lancaster and Andrew bell made extensive use of
cooperative leaming groups in England, and the idea was brought to America when a
Lancastrian school was open in New Y ork City in 1806. Within the Common School
Movement in the United States in the early 1800s there was a strong emphasis on
cooperative leaming.
Social psychological research on cooperation dates back to the 1920's (Slavin,
1977), but research on specific applications of cooperative to the classroom did not
begin until the early 1970's, At that time, for independent groups of researcher began
to develop and research cooperative leaming method in classroom settings.
Johnson & Johnson generalize several characteristics that cooperative leaming
differs from traditional instruction of group: 1. Teachers abandon the model of lecture
in the class. 2. Leamer would become an actively participator at the leaming process.
3. Leamer and teachers are leaming together and sharing the information of leaming.
4, Not that we deliver the Knowledge, but that we create it. Ellis and Fouts (1997)
believe cooperative leaming is one of the more important educational innovations of
our time. Table 1 is a comparison sheet of appropriate cooperation, appropriate
competition, and appropriate individualization.
Table 1 Goal Structures
APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE APPROPRIATE
COOPERATION COMPETITION INDIVIDUALIZATION
Interdependence {Positive Negative None
Type of ‘Any instructional task. The —_ Skill practice, knowledge Simple skill or knowledge
Instructional {more conceptual andcomplex recall and review, assignment |acquisitions; assignment is
the task, the greater the is clear with rules for clear and behavior specified to
cooperation. competing specified. avoid confusion and need for
extra help.
Perception of Goal |Goal is perceived to be Goal is not perceived to beof |Goal is perceived as important
Importance important. large importance to the for each student; students see
students, and they can accept |tasks as worthwhile and
either winning or losing. relevant, and each student
expects eventually to achieve
his or her goal.
TeacherStudent |Teacher monitors and |Teacher is perceived to be the |Teacher is perceived to be the
Interaction intervenes in learning groups jmajor source of assistance, major source of assistance,
to teach collaborative skills. |feedback, reinforcement, and feedback, reinforcement, and
support. Teacher is available |support.
for questions and clarification
lof the rules; teacher referees
disputes and judges
correctness of answers,
rewards the winners.
Student: Materials | Materials are arranged Set of materials for each triad |Complete set of materials and
Interaction according to purpose of lor for each student. instructions for each student.
lesson. Rules, procedures, answers are]
clear. Adequate space for each|
student.
Student-Student /Prolonged and intense Observing other students in |None; students work on their
Interaction interaction among students, _ one’s triad. Some talking own with little or no
heoping and sharing, oral lamong students. Students interaction with classmates.
rehearsal of material being grouped in homogeneous
studied, peer tutoring, and triads to ensure equal chance
general support and lof winning.
encouragement.
Room Small groups. Students placed in triads or _| Separate desks or carrels with
Arrangement small clusters. as can be provided.
Evaluation Criterion referenced. Norm-referenced. Criterion-referenced.
Procedures
Source Johnson & Johnson, 1994, Leaming Together and Alone, p.p. 6-7
Methodology
Action Research
The action research contribution began in the 1940s’ with studies conducted by
social scientists John Collier, Kut Lewin, and William Whyte. They discovered that
research needed to be closely linked to action if organization member were to use it to
manage change. A collaborative effort was initiated between organization member and
social scientists to collect research data about an organizations’functioning, to analyze
it for causes of problems, and to devise and implement solutions (Cummings &
Worley, 2001).
Action Research combines action with research. A ction research has applied to
cumicular innovation, school education innovation, and the growth of teachers’
specialty. Acton research not only can solve the practical problem of education, but
also can reap no little benefit through research. In general speaking, action research
can suitable for educational administration, school administration, and curricular
research and development, and pedagogy, and leaming strategy, and students’ attitude
and value, and education expert, and classroom management, etc. The Figure 1 is an
action research cycle.
Assumption
Cen a
Reflection Planning
Observation Action
Figure 1 Action research Cycle
Action Research methodology provides the interplay between ‘theory’ and
“practice’.
1. Data Collection:
This research collected data by various: research diaries, observation materials,
and students’ self-estimation, and students’ study records in Cyber University, and
homework, and teaching estimation etc.
a. Research diaries: We wrote the research diaries after teaching in each week. It
was recorded about the teaching circumstance, interaction circumstance, and
the problem what we find. It can help us reflect the teaching.
b. Observations: We arrange an assistant to observe in this class. Assistant must
observe about attitude, leaming circumstance, and leaming response. And
keep records of observation.
c. Students’ self-estimation: A fter the ending of very bigger unit, we will have
students make a self-estimation to weigh his leaming condition and share
every students’ experience in the course.
d. Students’ study records in Cyber University: Using our Cyber University
system, we can known well students’ leaming status that includes studying
period, studying items, and the ranking of studying.
e. Homework: We assigned the weekly homework after every course. The
homeworkwas post on the web of Cyber University. Cyber University
system would record the data about students’ name, homework, and
submitting time.
f. Teaching estimation: Students had to fill up the questionnaire in the
end-of-term.
2. Data Analysis
a. Data reading
b. Data selecting
c. Data explaining and make a conclusion
Process
The research process of this paper includes clarifying research questions,
establishing framework of action research, and proceeding action, and collecting data,
and analyzing data, and writing paper. The process is shown in Figure 2:
Clarify the Research
Questions
v
Establish framework of
action research
Raietoe
Analyzing data
v
Writing Paper
Figure 2 Research Process
1. Clarify the Research Questions:
We believe that instructional design is more important than proceeding. Our
concem is to consider arising the leaming motivation through cooperative leaming
and establishing the principles of teaching.
2. Establish framework of action research:
This framework of paper estimated a research basis on action research. Action
research includes assumptions, action plan, and action executions, and observations,
and reflections, and collection, and assumptions of modification. There were several
small action research once week.
(1) Assumption:
Assumptions are guidelines that can direct us to do the research. This paper
includes three elements: teaching, leaming, and practice. Teaching what is called
means the teachers what to teach and how to teach. Leaming what is called means
students what to leam and how to lea. Practice what is called means that teachers
and students how to get in this process. We had three assumptions as follow:
a. Classroom setting could influence interactions.
b. Leaming step-by-step would raise the leaming motivation.
c. Relation of interaction could influence their wish of participation.
(2) Plan:
Plan includes process and content. Process plans like leaming process, leaming
design. Content plans like curriculum plan curriculum content and so on.
(3) Action
Action means the actions’ implementation. It includes the really teaching,
homework design and so on.
(4) Data Collection:
We had to collect relative data after actions and would use the triangulation to help
us to verify them. Triangulation what is called means to use one and upward data
at the same thing. We would do the cross-test through various data, methods, and
persons.
Actions and instructional designs:
When we estimated the research process, we began to conceive the action research
and instructional design. The major content is star with the research’s assumptions.
Instructional design and implementations are next. Observations and Reflections are
last. Description as follows:
Tnstructional designs and implementations:
Cooperative leaming is different from general leaming in the arrangement of
classroom. As Figure 3 A indicates, this is a general arrangement of classroom. Figure
3B shows our design, which adopt cooperative leaming. Tables are arranged around
the classroom and office chairs are placed in a circle. We could change the
arrangement with our needs. We also take three kinds of models: lecture, group
discussion, and group sharing. The descriptions are as follows:
a. Lecture: As Figure 3 C indicates, when we needed a lecture for teaching, we
invited students would move onward instantly. Thus, they could leam with
acquaintance according to their wish.
Now, we have to explain this part. Everybody move onward please and your hands must touch
this table or the front student’s chair.
b. Group discussion: As Figure 3 D indicates, when we needed everybody discuss
with groups, we would group students into 4-8 teams. There were 3 to 8 students
with each team. And each team used talking stone to help discussions. Finally,
each team had to elect one person for representing their results.
Please gather in 4-numbers teamand discuss this subject. Before sharing, we have to elect a
person who will represent your conclusions.
c. Group sharing: As Figure 3 B indicates, Students gathered in a big circle while we
wanted that they could share their opinions. We shared what they had leamed,
what they had met, and provided experience about leaming.
When you hold the talking stone you must say something about your opinions, and the others
please concentrate on listening.
Observations:
According to the assumptions, action plans, and action results, we observed the
process of leaming, their interactions, and group discussions.
Reflections:
We reflected according to the data of observation and found out the gap between
prospect and reality. The purpose of reflection is to inspect our designs of instruction.
We would adjust the assumptions or designs as well as finding the gaps. For instance,
when we found a group, which was not discussing very well, we exchanged with
others immediately.
Participative learning:
Participation is very important for our design. We believe a proverb: Teach me I
will forget; show me I will remember involve me I will understand. We assume that
students would not feel boring when they participate in discussions. And they would
concentrate and make more effort.
Inmediate feedback:
The purpose of instruction is to provide the guidance of leaming progressively.
Immediate feedback could overcome the leaming banier. For example, students
usually encountered two situations when they build up the system dynamics model:
the first situation, it is different between watching other people manipulating the
«9
computer and manipulating computer by yourself. The second situation, if you don’t
manipulate the computer completely. If we remind some skill of modeling
immediately, it will yield twice the result with half the effort If we do not give some
feedback, it will get half the result with twice the effort.
Finding the gaps:
Cooperative leaming can help us to find out the gap each other. Generally
speaking, people begin aware and leam while they find other people are more superior.
Finding the gap is a balance feedback loop. To the class, cooperative leaming would
be a virtuous circle . Students can modify their leaming action through understanding
the gap between other students and themselves.
Please gather in a big circle. Take your homework and pass to the left. Nowyou will get the other
homework. Please read it particularity. If you complete your reading, please pass to the left
unilaterally.
Homework:
We would assign the homework to person or group after the course. We hoped
that the weekly homework not only could help students practice, but also leaming.
The content of homework related with weekly progress. The degree of difficulty of
homework depended on students’ leaming capacity. We did our best to create the
leaming tensions. Leaming tension come from leaming gap. We assumed if they
found the leaming gaps, they would modify their leaming.
-10-
Blackboard , Blackboard
Table 2 lable -
G86 8SGh SSG B oe Se #
© Q
G86 86GB SSG (0) Q
® @
SGSO G66 GEG Sage?
e860 8es aaa
€ D
Blackboard Blackboard
O| Tale lee|a Table 4
LSPS |E| a cON, 2Oy |F
SeesSs g of 0
iIee Sac? a SeaF Sa@
OPS, JY
b Go 9
Figure 3 The Design of Classroom
Discussion
When cooperative leaming began to practice, most of students in Taiwan were
used to listening to teachers’ lecture over a long period of time. Students usually
conform to teachers’ request at the assessment. Owing to the new way, some student
were not used to it. However, students could accept gradually when we intervened
some technique of organizational leaming, whichliked talking stone.
In the past experience, we found that students usually had two polarizes of result
in system dynamics if they could accept it, they would be fond of it, on the contrary
if they couldn't, they would leam it perfunctorily. For this reason, we interchanged
T.
system dynamics with systems thinking and we could arise students’ interest The
Figure 4 indicates that as the degree of acceptance grow, effort grows, and result
grows, and interest grows.
Degree of
/ A ~\
Interest Effort
a,
Figure 4 Reinforce of Interest and Effort
Time
This paper hoped to build the cooperative leaming model through action research
on the instruction of system dynamics. The class and the number of people on
cooperative leaming usually is not so much. To discuss more conveniently, we have to
create an environment, which is suitably. The Classroom that we select is that tables
are on the side of the walls and the chair is circled in the center. Students can move
and discuss more freely. When we wanted to lecture on the course, we could request
them to move onward. The purpose was that we wanted students could be more
concentration and interacted better.
We gathered in circle and took the “talking stone” in tum in order to create a
good interaction on the discussion and students could discuss sufficiently. Since our
early ancestors gathered in circles around the warmth of a fire, conversation has been
a primary process for making sense of our world, discovering what we value, sharing
knowledge, and imagining our future. (Brown, 2001) Students had interest in express
their self as soon as they participated in it
Because of the scope of system dynamics is quite broad, thus, we need to set up
the goal of instruction and can’ t just lose the focus. The goal what we set up to be our
main axis of teaching this semester is reflection. The meaning of reflection is that
student can acquire the knowledge and put theories to the proof in the life Besides, on
the design of the content of instruction, we want to lower threshold with systems
thinking, to arise interesting with management flight simulator, to assist understanding
about systems thinking with modeling.
i.
Asthe diagram Table 2 indicates, this table is a factor, we extract3 factors and
give aname to instructional Design, auxiliary teaching materials, and cooperative
leaming.
Table 2 The Result of Element Analysis of Instructional Estimation
Ouesiauy compon Cronbach's Eigenval %of Cumulativ
ent ues Variance e%
I feel discussing at cyber university
E3 could help usaccomplish our 0.710
homework.
FA I feel that I would have gains while we 0.698
finish the class.
Cl Generally, I feel that the course of 0.689
systems thinking is very practical.
When I finish this course, I will
introduce it to other students.
§ I feel that I could further understanding
& from beer game.
C1 | felt very novelty that we didn’t use 0.610
0.658 84.49 6.246 24.982 24.982
0.622
tables in this classroom.
I feel that I could further understanding
D3 about modeling through systems 0.596
archetypes.
I feel that I could reduce the time of
E4 self-gropes, while | interact with teacher 0.558
immediately.
I feel that I could sense comfortable ,
while I could move the chair at will.
I feel that I could improve the leaming
D1 result, while! wrote the archetypes by 0.504
memoty.
0.523
I feel that I could reflect the managerial
F3 educations, while 1 had understood PE —0.731
more.
FO I feel that I could understand systems 0.695
thinking further, while I had played PE. : 74.45 3.066 12.265 37.248
i I feel that weekly homework could help
D5 us to learn systems archetype or 0.581
modeling well.
El I feel that group discussions could
contribute to our learning in the class.
i I feel that I could sense interesting, while
E2
0.624
we had group discussions with 0.620 69.99 2.059 8236 54.538
classmates in the class.
D7 I can feel that this course was to proceed
step-by-step. 0.606
~13-
Conclusions
To be a teacher, it is our unshirkable responsibility to do education well. Action
research can let us know that design is more important than teaching. We tied to
design proceeding the instruction through cooperative leaming in this term. In our
belief, reducing teachers’ intervention could acquire students’ effort. Cooperative
leaming changed our viewpoint of teaching, moreover, it also changed students
viewpoint of leaming.
We acquired five conclusions with the impact of action research which
intervened the activities of teaching by questionnaires in this paper: (1) the scope of
system dynamics is quite broad, thus, teaching needs to be adjusted in accordance with
various conditions. (2) cooperative leaming can enhance leaming results and leaming
enforcing. (3) action research will be a good guidance for teaching system dynamics
through cooperative leaming. (4) systems thinking and system dynamics are
complementary. (5) instructional design must have systematic characteristics and be
implemented step-by-step.
References
Altrchter H. Posch and Somekh B. 1993. Teachers investigate their work: an.
introduction to the methods of action research London: Routledge.
Argytis, C., & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective, Reading. Mass: Addison Wesley.
Brown Juanita, D avid Isaacs. 2001. The World Café: Living knowledge through
conversations that matter. System Thinking Vol. 12, No. 5.
Burgess-Macey C. and Rose J. 1997. Breaking through the barriers: Professional
development, action research and the early years. Educational A ction Research, 5
()
Devid W. Johnson, Roger T. Johnson. 1994. Learning together and alone: cooperative,
competivitive, and individualistic learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Forrester Jay W. 1990. Principles of Systems. Pegasus Communications: Waltham,
MA.
Jon E. Pedersen, Annette D. Digby. 1995. Secondary schools and cooperative learning:
theories, models, and strategies. New Y ork: Garland Pub.
Kathryn A. S. Lancaster, Carolyn A. Strand. 2001. Using the Team Learning Model in
a Managerial Accounting Class: An Experiment in Cooperative Learning. Issues in
-14-
Accounting Education Vol. 16, No. 4.
Jean McNiff, Pamela Lomax. Jack Whitehead. 2000. You and Your Action research
Project. Robert E. Slavin. 1995. Cooperative Learming: Theory Research, and
Practive. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Michale R. Goodman. 1988. Study Notes In System Dynamics. MIT Press. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London, England.
Senge Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline Doubleday: New Y ork.
Steman John D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. McGraw- Hill/iwin.
-15-
Back to the Top
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0