New Approaches to Learning & Teaching:
Student-Centred Modelling with Visually-
Oriented Simulation Packages
Adrian Boucher
NatWest Financial Literacy Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Telephone: (+44) 01203 524 234
Fax: (+44) 01203 523 617
e-mail: adrian.boucher@ warwick.ac.uk
URL: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/W WW/faculties/cross_fac/nflc/index.html
Abstract: The techniques of systems thinking and system dynamics are rooted in the work of
Forrester et al, developed over 30 years ago at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Although well-established as a technique for analysing the behaviour of complex systems in a range of
academic disciplines, making system dynamics models operational until recently required the
practitioner either to program a computer to solve a specific systems modelling problem, or to learn a
procedural simulation language. More recently, the development of object-oriented modelling and
simulation environments which run under graphics-based operating systems potentially offer more
transparent approaches to modelling complexity by removing the high-level language requirement.
Alongside these developments, recent policy changes in UK education in a context of tightened resource
constraints, is requiring fundamental changes in the ways in which teaching and, especially, learning are
undertaken. A possible solution to providing high-quality leaning about complexity in dynamic systems
is through adoption of the systems thinking and system dynamics paradigms, using object-oriented
modelling and simulation software models which enable students to explore the behaviours of systems in a
self-directed manner.
One school of thought argues that developing systems thinking skills is as important a life skill as
acquiring functional literacy, numeracy and computeracy, but until very recently, relatively few educators
had adopted this approach to learning and developing students’ understanding. Work on this approach in pre-
University education in the United States has indicated some success in inculcating cognitive skills
development and metacognitive development in problem-solving.
This paper outlines preliminary work using these approaches at the NatWest Financial Literacy Centre at
the University of Warwick, as part of the development of a national resource of learning materials in
elementary economics and finance, with the objective of developing literacy and fluency in comprehension
of financial matters and applying this understanding to a broad range of real life experience.
The paper will report current and future directions for research, development of a national resource bank for
teaching and learning about finance in secondary schools, together with materials relevant for non-specialist
undergraduate study, and for lifelong, continuing education.
Keywords: systems thinking; system dynamics; computer modelling; simulation;
pedagogy; finance; financial literacy.
Introduction: Systems thinking, as a conceptual problem-formulation and problem-
solving technique is a subset of the broader discipline of systems analysis. An elegant
account of the contribution to development of understanding dynamic processes in the
32
social sciences and systems theory, through analysis of the feedback principle, is given in
Richardson, 1991.
This paper argues that in response to recent changes in aspects of UK education, a significant
opportunity arises to adopt the systems thinking and system dynamics frameworks for
encouraging sound thinking and development of students’ problem-solving skills by
applying these to analysis of dynamic processes common to a range of academic subjects.
Systems thinking offers a potential solution to the conundrum of encouraging students to use
coherent sets of transferable skills, through an investigative approach to problem-solving.
Such an approach requires a fundamental shift in the perspective of teachers, and revised
ways of analysing complex dynamic phenomena, (Forrester, 1992). This is precisely the
issue occupying the minds of teachers, parents and other interested parties in respect of the
National Curriculum implementation in parts of the UK (Dearing, 1994).
Learner-Directed Learning in systems thinking and system dynamics:
Mandinach et al, 1988; Mandinach and Cline, 1994, report trials of this approach with pre-
College students in the US between 1986 and 1994 in the Systems Thinking and
Curriculum Innovation (STACI and STACIN) Projects. Findings indicated benefits in terms
of increased student understanding and motivation with evidence of more effective learning,
and modification of teaching styles from teacher-directed to learner-directed learning.
Evidence to date suggests that the project has been successful in achieving its overall
objectives. The results are sufficiently encouraging to suggest that the approach might
usefully be adopted within the framework of the revised secondary school curriculum in
parts of the UK, and in developing systems thinking skills with undergraduate students.
Under the revised National Curriculum orders, (Dearing, 1995), requirements for
modelling and simulation arise formally within mathematics, science and within
information technology. The role of information technology as an encompassing
methodology is significantly enhanced, but the requirement to examine modelling and
simulation specifically requires teachers to become familiar with areas which have hitherto
remained relatively neglected. Modelling expertise is not widely available within the
teaching profession. The simplicity of approach and wide curricular applicability of the
systems approach provides a possible solution this problem. In particular, many dynamic
processes have common features which lend themselves amenable to analysis through a
limited number of archetypes (Senge, 1992; Eberlein, 1995; Corben et al, 1994), whose
characteristics appear in a number of disguises, while sharing some general attributes.
Adoption of systems thinking in education: Although the systems approach is
straightforward, and widely applicable across disciplines, its impact on education has been
relatively modest. As a partial explanation, until relatively recently, it was necessary for the
analyst either to write process-specific computer programs, or to adopt one of a limited
number of simulation languages, such as DYNAMO (Pugh-Roberts Associates 1986), or
other high-level language modelling environments such as DYSMAP2 (Dangerfield and
Vapenikova 1987).
Additionally, the need to represent the processes in mathematical notation and adopt
numerical analysis techniques for solution have conspired against the wider adoption of
systems methods.
Richmond, 1991, has provided explanations for the relative neglect of the systems approach
to analysing complex processes, including the requirement of an inter-disciplinary approach
and the need for a fundamental change of intellectual perspective in systems thinking.
A further disincentive to embracing systems thinking is that, for most participants, making
the change is difficult. Corben, 1994, reports on the use of systems approaches with
practising managers. Powerful, user-friendly computer modelling environments provide
less daunting access to systems representation, enable presentation of both qualitative and
quantitative results, and provide deep insights into process behaviour through the use of
such packages! as cognitive tools. Whereas the new generation of software tools has made
the processes of model construction and use much easier, model conceptualization remains
problematical for most people.
By adopting such approaches the user is largely relieved of the requirement to specify the
high-level mathematical relationships and greater attention given to understanding the
underlying processes and modelling context. Consequently, it has proved possible to expose
students with modest mathematical expertise to complex dynamic subjects in a range of
disciplines including pharmacokinetics (Washington, et al. 1990), applications in economics,
ecology and social systems (Radzicki, 1994; Hannon and Ruth 1994), operational research
(Wolstenholme, 1990), and other subjects.
The application of systems approaches in effecting sound learning through modelling may
be classified in four categories (Mandinach, 1994). Each may be used in the manner
deemed most appropriate according to the professional judgment of the teacher.
System dynamics provides a common communication tool connecting many academic
disciplines, by causing students to think critically about the true nature and structure of
problems through the process of developing arid analysing system structure. Importantly,
within the system dynamics paradigm, students make the mental link between the structure
of a system and the behaviour which the system exhibits. This approach to learning about
processes emphasises the need for the learner rather than teacher to take prime responsibility
for the actual learning, and is a favoured model for encouraging effective learning at tertiary
level. Mayes, 1992 indicates the metacognitive skills development associated with self-
directed and cooperative learning, thereby giving rise to effective learning (Vygotsky 1978).
These views are strongly supported by Brown, 1990.
The US Educational Testing Service has promoted classroom implementation of learner-
centred learning (Mandinach and Cline, 1990, 1994), and reported that by making the
student an active part of the learning process, a greater interest in learning was encouraged
with hands-on activities reinforcing and giving context to factual learning.
Work in Progress: The above approaches to modelling form part of a wider
research programme dealing with questions of financial awareness, to understanding
economic and financial processes, and how these impact on the general population.
Significant effort has been expended in supporting functional literacy and numeracy,
but little appears to have been available in the past to address questions of the
importance of financial literacy. Typically, knowledge of financial processes such as
financial planning, personal budgeting and related issues has been acquired by trial-
and-error. At a number of critical periods in peoples’ lives it is necessary to undertake
financial decision-making, and to evaluate the implications of these decisions. A
number of problems arise. Firstly, the mathematics required to understand many
financial processes and to evaluate specialist financial services is beyond the capacity of
a significant proportion of the population. Secondly, sources of disinterested advice on
finance have not been widely available in the past. Thirdly, little formal attention has
typically been paid to these matters in mainstream education, although research
suggests that they are deemed important (Noctor, Stoney et al. 1992).The NatWest
Financial Literacy Centre at the University of Warwick has been constituted to
undertake a programme to develop materials for addressing these issues among a
number of potential groups within society and contribute toward achieving greater
coherence in financial decision-making.
Use of systems thinking and system dynamics modelling paradigms, with learning
approaches focused on student-directed activities, can assist in providing learning gains in
pre-College education. US evidence indicates deeper cognitive development and student
learning through these approaches. Adoption of the systems methods may address
development of core competencies and life-skills for students in UK secondary and higher
84
education. Some benefits may accrue to using common systems archetypes to facilitate
development of models having common structures and in analysing their dynamic
behaviour. Current research examines whether adopting these methods leads to increased
financial literacy, and general economic understanding. Simple finance models for use in
pre-University education are included as an Appendix.
References:
Anderson, J. R. (1990). itive psychol its implications. New York, W H Freeman.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. S. (1990). The Genesis of the systems thinking program at the Orange Grove Middle
School, Tucson, Arizona, Personal Report.
Cohen, R. L. (1981). “On the Several of some. memory laws.” Scandinavian Jounal of Favchology 22: 267-281.
Corben, D. A. (1994). Integ ga a fra €
caneeptualizaton! oy Intemational System Dynamics Conference, Stirling, Scotland.
Craik, F. and R. S, Lockhart (1972). “Levels of process: A framework for memory research.”
iL of Verbal in, 1 Behaviour 11: 671-684.
Craik, F. and E. Tulving (1975). “Depth of, reer and the retention of words in episodic memory.”
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 268-294.
Crawford, L. and S. Molder (1992). Innovation in an integrated middle school curriculum. American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Dangerfield, B. and O. Vapenikova (1987). DYSMAP Manual, University of Salford, Manchester.
Dearing, R. (1994). The National Curriculum in England & Wales: Final Report, Schools Curriculum
and Assessment Authority.
Education, Department of (1995). National Curriculum Information Technology Statements. London, HMSO.
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of Systems. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1969). Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1992). System Dynamics and Leamer-Centred Learning in Kindergarten through 12th
Grade Education, Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Forrester, J. W. (1994). Learning through m Dynami ion for the 21st Century. Systems
Thinking & Dynamic Modelling Conference, Concord, Mass, Creative Leaning Exchange,
Acton, Mass.
Glaser, R. (1990). “The re-emergence of learning theory within instructional research.” American Psychologist
45(1): 29-39,
Hannon, B. and M. Ruth (1994). Dynamic Modelling. New York, Springer-Verlag.
Jonassen, D. H., Ed. (1992). Semantic networking as cognitive tools. NATO Advanced Studies Institute
Special Programme on Advanced Educational Technology. Berlin Heidelberg, Springer Verlag.
Laurillard, D. (1993) 5 Rethinking University teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational
technology. London, Routledge.
Mandinach, E. B. (1988). Self-regulated sub-study: Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation x
(STACI Project, Harvard Graduate School of Educational Technology Center.
Mandinach, E. B. and H. F. Cline (1994). Classroom Dynamics: Implementing a technology-based.
learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mattesich, R. (1982). “The Systems Approach: its variety of aspects.” Journal of the American Society
for Information Senay 33: 383. 394,
Mayes, J. T., Ed. (1992). nitivi for I ‘ing. NATO Advanced Studies Institute:
Special Programme = Advanced Educational Technology. Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag.
Noctor, M., S. Stoney, et al. (1992). Financial Literacy. Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research.
Pugh-Roberts Associates (1986). Professional DYNAMO: Introductory guide and professional
DYNAMO Reference Manual. Cambridge, Mass, Pugh-Roberts Associates. Cambridge.
Richmond, B. (1991). Systems Thinking; Four Key Questions, High Performance Systems.
Richmond, B. (1993). “Systems Thinking: Critical Thinking Skills for the 1990s and beyond.”
System Dynamics Review 9: 113-133.
Richmond, B., S. Peterson, et al. (1990-1995). ithink™: The Visual Thinking Tool for the 1990s.
Hanover, NH, High Performance Systems, Inc.
