URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS
A Perspective of Urban High School Teachers on
Using System Dynamics Tools
Heather Skaza, Kent Crippen, and Kristoffer Carroll
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
4505 South Maryland Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89154
702-417-9030
skazah@unlv.nevada.edu, kcrippen@coe.ufl.edu, kcarroll@interact.ccsd.net
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 2
-Abstract-
Systems thinking tools and system dynamics simulations can provide a valuable means for
helping students think their way around complex environmental problems. This study was
designed to advance our understanding of teacher adoption of systems thinking and
systems dynamic modeling by documenting the perspective of a large group in an urban
environment who were tasked with a curriculum that included systems dynamics
simulations. This paper reports on the results of a Web-based survey and focus group
regarding the use of systems tools in secondary science classrooms and teachers’
understanding of the tools already available to them. Teachers identified the barriers to
implementing systems simulation activities as both computer access and their own
understanding. A test of teachers' understanding of systems principles reveals
inconsistencies in the way they interpret models, based on their previous understanding of
the system. Strategies for addressing these issues with professional development are
provided.
Keywords: teachers, systems dynamic, modeling, implementation, barriers, K-12 education
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 3
Introduction
As science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education continues
as a priority in the United States (U.S.), systems thinking and system dynamics modeling
can provide a valuable means for helping students think about complex problems. Jonassen
(2007) defines a complex problem as "a function of external factors, such as the number of
issues, functions or variables involved in the problem; the number of interactions among
those issues, functions or variables; and the predictability or the behavior of those issues,
functions or variables" (p. 9). Though complex problems are difficult, students find them
motivating (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993) and they are consistent with the authentic
problems that are currently being addressed by professionals from across the STEM
disciplines (i.e. climate change, energy, food production and supply). For these reasons,
recent calls for curriculum reform have included the use complex problems as curriculum.
For example, a recent report by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (2012) recommends the widespread adoption of active learning approaches
such as case studies, problem-based learning, peer instruction, and computer simulations
as a strategy for improving the retention and recruitment of undergraduate students in the
STEM disciplines. Similar calls for reform in engineering education have focused on the
need for adaptive expertise, as the intended educational outcome (National Academy of
Engineering, 2004, 2005). Pellegrino (2006) defines adaptive expertise as "knowledge and
understanding that can support transfer to new problems, creativity and innovation" (pg.
2). Systems thinking and modeling exist as tools of adaptive expertise that afford an
interdisciplinary, integrated perspective that accounts for feedback among interdependent
parts through dynamic interactions (Jonassen & Strobel, 2006). Thus, requiring learners to
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 4
organize material more meaningfully, to gauge the potential of a particular solution, and to
assess the relevancy of their arguments. However, achieving this grand vision of adaptive
expertise requires the explicit inclusion of systems thinking and modeling in K-12, as well
as undergraduate education.
Recent policy decisions regarding the pending major revision of the U. S. national K-
12 science education standards has made more likely the inclusion of systems thinking and
modeling. The purpose of The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is described as:
Science—and therefore science education—is central to the lives of all Americans,
preparing them to be informed citizens in a democracy and knowledgeable
consumers. It is also the case that if the nation is to compete and lead in the global
economy and if American students are to be able to pursue expanding employment
opportunities in science-related fields, all students must all have a solid K-12
science education that prepares them for college and careers. (Achieve, 2011)
The theoretical framework for NGSS, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, published in 2011 as the guiding document for
construction of the Next Generation Science Standards includes systems and system models
as a fundamental scientific and engineering crosscutting concepts for all of the disciplinary
core ideas as well as being a component of Scientific and Engineering Practice 5: Using
Mathematics and Computational Thinking. A Framework for K-12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas defines systems and system models as:
Defining the system under study—specifying its boundaries and making explicit a
model of that system—provides tools for understanding and testing ideas that are
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 5
applicable throughout science and engineering. (National Research Council, 2011a,
p. 84)
From our perspective, we view system dynamics, the language, pedagogy and technology
as aligning with all seven of the crosscutting concepts outlined in A Framework for K-12
Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (e.g. patterns; cause and
effect: Mechanism and explanation; scale, proportion, and quantity; systems and system
models; energy and matter: flows, cycles, and conservation; structure and function;
stability and change). Though specifics will not be known until the final version of the Next
Generation Science Standards are released, this policy decision is cause for optimism that
an explicit focus on systems thinking and modeling in K-12 science education may be
imminent. As such, research in this context that involves curriculum, learning
environments, professional development and teacher adoption is of increasing importance.
The current study was designed to advance our understanding of teacher adoption
of systems thinking and systems dynamic modeling by documenting the perspective of a
large group in an urban environment who were tasked with a curriculum that included
systems dynamics simulations. Study participants represent a sample of the current
population of high school science teachers who were responsible for teaching a 9 grade
science course using a curriculum that included two chapters that explicitly used systems
models and simulations as content and learning material. The relevant literature for this
study involves the potential of system dynamics and systems thinking tools for
understanding complex systems, empirical research on the application of system dynamics
and systems-based curriculum in a K12 science context and the research on technology
adoption for teaching and learning.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 6
Review of Related Literature
System dynamics offers tremendous potential for understanding complex systems.
According to Meadows (1991), “system dynamics is a set of techniques for thinking and
computer modeling that helps its practitioners begin to understand complex systems’ (p.1).
In aworld where people will increasingly be required to work within complexity to make
sustainable decisions, understanding complex systems is a valuable skill. For students,
system dynamics and systems thinking tools have the potential for keeping track of the
many interconnections within a complex system and to afford visualizing the system as a
whole (Meadows, 2009). Basic system thinking skills like identifying interconnections,
identifying causal relationships that produce feedback and understanding accumulations
within a system will help students understand the problematic trends of sustainability,
especially in systems that behave in unexpected ways. Fulfilling this vision implies the use
of systems dynamics simulations as central learning elements in a curriculum.
Asystem dynamics simulation is a system dynamics model that has be
operationalized so that the user is able to interact with an interface, change the values of
variables in the system and simulate the behavior of the system over time. Learning with a
simulation is useful for developing student understanding because it allows the student “to
simulate the behavior of systems that are too complex to attack with conventional
mathematics, verbal descriptions, or graphical methods” (Forrester, 1993, p.185). Teaching
the basic principles of complex systems without a simulation might involve lengthy reading
assignments, lecture or lessons in the mathematics underlying the system. If the goal of a
lesson is understanding an underlying concept, a simulation may benefit the user by
demonstrating the concept without the extra work. The simulation reduces the students’
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 7
extraneous cognitive load by relieving them of the responsibility of remembering equations
or principles, while focusing them on the main idea: understanding the relationship
between variables in the system (Chandler, 2009; Kalyuga, 2009).
Novice students do not have the requisite knowledge or experience to tackle all of
the variables and interconnections of a real-world system. Simulations allow students to
work with a less detailed, but also, less complex representation. A good simulation distills
the complexity of the, real world to the parts that are crucial to students’ understanding of
the subject. At the same time, a simulation can link visible or tangible parts of a system, like
organisms in an ecosystem, for example, to less tangible parts, such as energy flow through
the ecosystem (Committee on Science Learning, 2009). This facilitates a systemic
understanding of complex problems without the student being overwhelmed by the
complex whole.
Learning with simulations is exploration-based. The student's job is to experiment
with the simulation and learn about the underlying system (deJong & Joolingen, 1998).
Simulations allow the student to ask a question, generate a hypothesis, and test their
hypothesis and form conclusions in an iterative process (Mulder, Lazonder, de Jong,
Anjewierden and Bollen, 2011). This changes the student’s learning from remembering and
reproducing information to a deeper understanding of the principles of causation and
feedback (deJong, 1991), facilitating the transfer of this understanding to other domains
(Pellegrino, 2006). This type of scientific “messing about” follows closely with the scientific
method as it encourages, if only informally, question and hypothesis generation and testing,
and interpretation of results, aligning students mental models with the real world systems
(Finkelstein, Adams, Keller, Kohl, Perkins, Podolefsky, Reid, & LeMaster, 2005).
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 8
Empirical research involving system dynamics and systems-based curriculum in K-12
science education is limited. These studies test the effectiveness of systems tools after they
reach the classroom. Much of the support for using systems-based tools in the classroom is
anecdotal Lavigne (2009). Most empirical work has focused on the state of student
understanding of dynamics systems and their characteristics or on the effect of some
systems-based intervention on student understanding. Fisher (2009) conducted a
controlled experiment with a group of students that ranged from eighth to twelfth graders
that tested the effect on student understanding of Malthusian population dynamics and
resource availability when students used two tools to model the problem: Stella modeling
software and a graphing calculator. She reported a larger increase in content
understanding, from pretest to posttest, for the group using the Stella modeling software
than for the group using graphing calculators for the same task. Wheat (2008) conducted a
paired experiment in which high school economics students’ used either a text description
(control group) or a text description paired with a system dynamics causal loop diagram
(experimental group) to study macroeconomics principles. He reported that students who
used the causal loop diagrams expressed a preference for them and also demonstrated a
greater conceptual understanding than the students that read only a text description of the
material. Hogan (2000) conducted a study with 11-year-old students to test their systemic
understanding of food web interactions in an ecosystem. The intervention did not use
conventional system dynamics tools, rather the representation of interconnections of
organisms in a food web and asked students to evaluate how a change in the numbers of
one organism affect the rest of the food web. Most students used linear rather than cyclic
reasoning to relate organisms; that is, they only described relationships as A affecting B,
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 9
but do not discuss how B, in turn, affects A, as it would in an ecosystem. A larger base of
empirical evidence is important to understanding how to best use systems tools so that the
most effective interventions are developed. According to Doyle, Radzicki and Trees’ (1998),
“there is insufficient evidence to convince skeptical, scientifically minded observers, which
is crucial if systems thinking ideas and techniques are to become more widely accepted in
educational and corporate settings” (p.254).
However useful systems simulations may be for teaching students about complex
dynamic phenomena, research on other types of technology adoption shows that teachers
perceive several barriers to using technological tools. These barriers fall into two broad
categories. First order barriers, such as resource availability, unreliability of equipment
and lack of technical support are also called external barriers (Ertmer, 1999). Second order
barriers are internal barriers, such as lack of confidence using technology or a disinterest in
changing ones teaching practices. External barriers are usually easier to recognize and fix
than internal barriers, since the provision of materials and external support is more readily
available than changing a well-established teaching paradigm. Addressing internal barriers,
such as teachers’ beliefs about technology and their attachment to traditional teaching
methods requires a change in philosophy, then practice.
Recognizing the challenge in addressing internal barriers requires an understanding
that what is really being asked of teachers is for them to change the way that they teach.
First, they are asked to teach using a new medium; that is asking them to teach using
simulations or interactive materials when they may be accustomed to written notes and
lecture. Second, they are asked to change their role in the classroom or perhaps the way the
classroom is set up (Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008). New practices require time to
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 10
achieve proficiency, a concept that that also comes at a premium in the K-12 classroom.
The requirement of time to achieve proficiency is an important consideration for both
students and teachers.
Bauer and Kenton (2005) describe the result of both types of barriers as the limited
adoption of new teaching practices with technology. Teachers never progress past what
they call the utilization stage, in which they have a fickle relationship with technology. They
are satisfied with their limited adoption, but will revert too more practiced methods at the
first sign of trouble, such as lack of administrative support or malfunctioning software.
Technology only becomes truly useful in the classroom when teachers reach the
integration stage, in which technology adopts some of the responsibility of the lesson, so
much so that the lesson would not run the same without it.
Fisher (2011) suggests several strategies that might be useful to decision-makers in
integrating systems tools in the classroom for complex and meaningful learning, among
which is making systems tools usable for teachers. While classroom studies of system
modeling interventions exist, if we wish develop systems tools that are widely
implemented in K-12 classrooms there is a need to consider the perspective of teachers as
end users. The current study uses phenomenography (Orgill, 2007) as a theoretical
framework for interpreting the perspective of a sample of high school science teachers
concerning the use of systems thinking and systems dynamic modeling for teaching the
issues of sustainability. We achieve this outcome by focusing on how these teachers
perceive, interpret and conceptualize the process of using these tools. Our goal is to
document and classify their ideas and to explore the relationship among those ideas while
limiting our assumptions about them and the context in which they teach. In order to
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 11
identify and characterize the existing barriers, our research asked teachers about how they
teach with these models and probed what they knew about computer modeling and
systems thinking as hypothesized internal barriers.
Context
This study is situated in a large, primarily urban school district in the southwestern
U. S. This district serves roughly 300,000 students in Kindergarten through 12" grade and
covers approximately 8,000 square miles of territory. For the 2005-2006 school year,
following an intensive data-gathering process the district adopted a uniform integrated
science curriculum to support a course for ninth-graders. This course was designed to help
students make connections between the concepts they had learned in middle school and to
provide a global science and sustainability perspective for their ensuing science courses.
Since 2005, Science and Sustainability, from the Science Education for Public Understanding
Program (SEPUP) has been an adopted curriculum for this course. Chapters 7 and 8 of this
material include activities that require the use of systems dynamics simulations of deer
population change, developed using Stella software. Annually, between three and five
teachers at each of the 48-high schools are assigned to teach this course. Virtually all of
these teachers are trained in a specific scientific discipline, and prior to the adoption, most
of the existing teacher population had taught specific, traditional science discipline focused
courses rather than the more general, integrated course. Since 2005, the district has been
providing a broad range of professional development activities that target teachers of this
course, but none have focused explicitly on systems thinking or systems modeling.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 12
Method
This study takes a step back from evaluating the implementation of modeling tools
and leverages a situation where systems simulations have been included as part of an
adopted curriculum to investigate potential barriers to their use by examining the
knowledge and perspective of teachers who were impacted by the curriculum decision. To
serve this goal, a mixed method study was devised in order to answer the following
research questions:
1. How are teachers currently using system dynamics and the systems thinking tools
that were already a part of their adopted curriculum?
2. For teachers who are not using the systems tools, what barriers persist to their
classroom implementation?
3. How do teachers understand system dynamics modeling language and how might
that affect the use of systems tools in the classroom?
Our research method took the form of a single group, mixed-method (quantitative-
qualitative) design consisting of two-phases. Phase one involved a survey that explicitly
addressed each of our research questions. Phase two involved a focus group interview with
a purposeful sample of survey respondents that was intended to confirm, reinforce, and
add depth to our survey findings. In the following sections, we first describe the survey,
including development, analysis of data, and results, then, in a similar fashion, the focus
group.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 13
Survey Development
Our review of the literature did not reveal an appropriate instrument; therefore a
survey was developed (Appendix). Based upon the research questions, the survey
instrument included 17-questions and focused on the following three themes: current
perspective on systems thinking and use of modeling tools, understanding and confidence
about an adopted model for a familiar system from life science, as well as an unfamiliar
system not involving traditional science content.
The first theme, current perspective on systems thinking and use of modeling tools
included 7-closed response items that asked participants (1) if they taught the lessons from
the curriculum that contained the simulations, (2) if they used the simulations to teach the
lessons, and (3) the nature of the learning activity that was used to complete the activities.
If they indicated that they did not use the recommended simulations, they were also asked
to describe the method they used to teach the requisite concepts and to describe these
activities in greater detail. Questions 4-6 targeted their perceived barriers to using systems
simulations in the classroom. Using a Likert-type scale from not at all confident (0) to
highly confident (5), participants responded to two questions indicating their confidence
for using the systems models to complete the population dynamics lessons and the general
importance of modeling software for learning the material. The remaining item was a short
list (e.g. access to computers, instruction on the Stella software) with an additional open-
response option for items that were not on the list (ie. other) and participants were asked
to indicate by checking all that applied for additional support or materials that would help
implement systems simulations.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 14
The remaining survey items were related to system dynamics content knowledge
and understanding of the modeling language and participants were presented with two
images of system dynamics models. Addressing the second survey theme of understanding
and confidence about an adopted model for a familiar system from life science, Model #1
(Figure 1) represented a deer population system and was taken from the population
dynamics activities in the curriculum. In the curriculum, this model occurs as the second of
four that are presented in order of increasing complexity. Since it is part of the adopted
curriculum and because science teachers are typically proficient in content areas dealing
with organism population change, the terminology and interconnections represented in the
model were assumed to be familiar to the participants. Even if participants were not
familiar with the modeling language, we predicted that they would be able to use their
previous understanding of how populations change in order to explain the behavior of the
system.
Figure 1.
Survey model #1, a system dynamic model of a deer population.
Deer Herd
f deat,
animal per area
area
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 15
For the final survey theme of an unfamiliar system not involving traditional science
content, participants were asked to interpret Model #2 (Figure 2) that represented
personal energy as a system. Since it was removed from their area of expertise, we
assumed that this model was unfamiliar and that interpreting it would require a deeper
focus on the representation itself, rather than simply using prior knowledge. In essence,
our intent was to require participants to reason with an unfamiliar representation in order
to assess the degree to which their model interpretation could be inferred or transferred.
Though the content was different, Model #2 was constructed to be as parallel as possible in
complexity and structure to Model #1.
Figure 2.
Survey model #2, a system dynamics model of personal energy.
internally
focused
activities
Total Internal
Activities
‘a
desired
personal
energy
perceived difference between
jesired and actual personal energy
energy recharging energy expending
Personal |
Energy
Total External
Activities
‘externally
focused
activities
Three parallel, closed-response items were posed, asking participants to: a) identify
a direct causal relationship within each model, b) identify the relationship between the
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 16
inflow (births or energy recharging) and outflow (deaths or energy expending) in the
system that would produce an increase in the system’s accumulation variable (deer herd or
personal energy level) and c) identify their level of confidence for interpreting each model's
representation. Follow-up, open-ended items asked participants to use each model to
describe what might produce an increase or decrease in the system’s stock, using as many
of the system’s variables as possible. These questions, applied to each of the two different
models, were intended to afford an analysis that separated participants’ science content
knowledge from understanding of the model representation and modeling knowledge.
Content validity of the items was established through expert review and a piloting
session using a think-aloud protocol. Two-university faculty with content expertise
reviewed and commented on the items during two rounds of revision. A science teacher
from a local high school who had extensive experience teaching the 9 grade course with
the systems tools and simulations agreed to take the survey online while sitting with the
first author and describing her thoughts and explaining her responses. Field notes were
recorded and revisions were completed to ensure that items were understood and
interpreted in a consistent manner.
Participants
This study focused on secondary science teachers who were responsible for
teaching the integrated science course that included the systems models as part of the
adopted curriculum. Criterion sampling was used to select the names and email addresses
of teachers from across the district that met these conditions. Using Dillman’s (2007)
Tailored Design methodology, the Web-based survey was deployed to 160-teachers and
resulted in 81-responses from 48-different high schools for a response rate of 51%. Though
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS
inclusive of a large number of schools, it is important to note that this sample is limited and
may not be representative of all science teachers in the district. Following analysis of the
survey data, a non-random purposeful sampling technique (Creswell, 2008) was used to
select four respondents as information-rich cases for a focus group. Based upon the student
population they served as well as their prior involvement with professional development,
these participants were distinguished as unique and mutually exclusive.
Table 1
Attributes of teacher participants as members of the focus group.
Teacher School & Prior Personal Reason
Participant Student Population Professional for
Development Inclusion
#1 Alow socioeconomic No Bilingual, has To explore the issue of
(TP1) status high school with taught classes teaching ELL’s and our
historically high student specifically for ELL | belief in the potential of
transiency and a large students, and was system dynamics
population of English able to speak to modeling asa
Language Learners (ELL). specific issues for communication tool for
these students. complex concepts.
#2 The only virtual high No None To explore any
(TP2) school in the district and unanticipated barriers
has no face-to-face unique to the delivery
interaction with students. medium.
#3 Alow socioeconomic Yes None To explore professional
(TP3) status high school with development needs
historically high student related to the student
transiency and a large population.
population of English
Language Learners (ELL).
#4 Ahigh socioeconomic Yes None To explore professional
(TP4) status high school, with development needs
relatively low student
transiency and asmall
population of English
Language Learners (ELL).
related to the student
population.
Analysis of Survey Data
The first two research questions were addressed with descriptive statistics for
survey responses to the 7-items that composed the theme, current perspective on systems
thinking and use of modeling tools. The third research question was addressed with
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 18
descriptive statistics for survey responses for the collection of parallel items that asked
participants to interpret figures 1&2 and composed the themes, understanding and
confidence about an adopted model for a familiar system from life science and an
unfamiliar system not involving traditional science content. A response pattern was
created for each closed response item by normalizing by percentage the count of individual
responses. Responses to open-ended items were analyzed using a content analysis with a
constant comparative method (Creswell, 2008). Responses were open-coded, and then
these themes were discussed and clarified among the researchers and finally re-coded to
consensus.
Survey Results
Forty-three participants (55%) reported completing the activities from the textbook
that include system dynamics simulations, however, only two (3%) reported that they do
so with the systems simulations. One selected response item asked participants to identify
as many completion alternatives as applied to them, if they did not complete the activity
using the Stella interactive software. The list of options included pencil and paper activity,
other types of modeling software, group discussion, lab activity and “other.” Participants
were asked to elaborate if they chose the “other” option. The most common method of
completion was a combination of a pencil and paper activity and class discussion (30%).
Another 17% reported that they used pencil and paper, combined with class discussion ina
lab. 10% used discussion only and 8% used only a pencil and paper activity. Another 5%
used discussion paired with a lab activity. Although no participants identified other
modeling software as their method of completion, of the 5% that chose “other,” some
elaborated stating that they did in fact use modeling software or other simulations. In some
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 19
cases this was Microsoft Excel, to graph predator prey dynamics and in some cases other
simulations demonstrating the same principles were used. Several described physical
demonstration as their method of completion, in which some students assumed the role of
predator and some the role of prey and they acted out predator prey dynamics.
One selected response item asked participants to identify as many barriers to using
the Stella interactive software as applied to them. The list of options included the school’s
lack of access to software, their own ability to use the software, their implementation of a
more effective alternative, their own belief that the activities referenced were not
important to cover and “other.” Participants were asked to elaborate if they chose the
“other” option. A majority of participants identified only a lack of access to software as a
barrier to implementation of the Stella-enabled activity (64%). An additional 21% stated
that their own understanding of the software and lack of software access were both
barriers. 6% said that lack of access to software and that they complete their own activity
were both barriers to their implementation. 16% chose “other.” Some teachers that chose
this option stated that the lesson does not fit with what students are required to know for
the science proficiency exam and so they do not wish to spent time on it. Some cite
difficulty in reserving time in the schools computer lab. Some say that it is not their own
understanding that is a barrier, but that they do not wan to spent additional time teaching
students to use the software.
One selected response item asked participants to identify as many items that would
help them implement the Stella interactive software as applied to them. The list of options
included additional computer access, instruction on how to use the simulation associated
with the activity, instruction on how to operate the Stella interactive software, instruction
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 20
on the system dynamics and systems thinking theory behind the simulation, and “other.”
Participants were asked to elaborate if they chose the “other” option. 19% of the
participants identified all four options (excluding “other”) as support they would find
useful. 16% identified only computer access, while another 16% identified computer access,
instruction on the simulation operation and instruction on the Stella software. 10% chose
other. These participants elaborated saying that using computers creates several issues,
but most of them are related to the amount of time it takes to book computers labs, get
students to computer labs, and teach students to use the computers. Other participants
stated that the software was simply not available at there school, which means that the
teachers are not aware that, in fact, the software is available online and for free.
The majority of participants (77%) felt modeling software was important to
teaching population dynamics and most of those (73%) reported some degree of
confidence in teaching the course using the systems simulations. When asked about their
confidence in their own content knowledge, most participants (68%) reported that they
felt they understood, to some degree Model #1 (Deer Population Dynamics). Testing this,
when asked about the direct causal connection that accounted for death rate changing,
twenty-four (35%) chose only the correct answer. Another eighteen (26%) chose some
combination of variables represented in the system that included the correct answer. When
asked about the relationships that cause deer population to increase, twenty-two (34%)
chose only the correct answer, while twenty-seven participants (37%) chose a combination
that included the correct answer. Finally, in describing how the size of a deer population
might increase or decrease, using as many of the model's variables as possible, seventeen
(43%) responses included correct concepts. Only three participants (7%) answered the
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 21
question fully by describing how each of the variables represented in the model were
related to each other.
When asked about their content knowledge in relation to Model #2 (Personal
Energy Level), more than half of the participants (55%) responded that they understood
the model to some degree. Testing this, when asked what direct causal connection caused
an introvert’s recharging rate to change, thirty-three participants (56%) responded
correctly. This figure is much higher than those responding correctly to the parallel
question in the deer population example. When asked about the relationship that causes
personal energy level to increase, nineteen (36%) chose only the correct answer, while
fifteen (29%) chose a combination of answers that included the correct answer. Finally, in
describing how personal energy level might increase or decrease using as many of the
model's variables as possible, only nine (26%) answered with a response which included
correct concepts. None of the respondents described the system completely in their answer.
The following themes were identified from the survey results and were used to
frame the follow-up focus group interview:
¢ Simulation use and barriers to use
* Understanding of system dynamics modeling language
¢ Need for professional development
To validate the identified barriers from the survey and to facilitate a deeper discussion of
those themes, a focus group was conducted within 6-months of the initial survey.
Focus Group
The focus group interview protocol was guided by the themes that emerged from
the survey results: simulation use and barriers to use, system dynamics content
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 22
understanding, and the utility of professional development in the implementation of
system dynamics simulations in the classroom. Following the guidelines of Krueger &
Casey (2009), discussion prompts were developed to address each of the themes that
emerged from the survey and served the following three purposes: (a) to support or refute
information discovered in the survey data, (b) to ask more specific questions that would
not have yielded information if asked to the general teacher population, and (c) to discover
any new and unanticipated themes.
The focus group met for one and a half hours with two of the three authors
moderating. The group met away from teachers’ school sites at the district office. The focus
group was recorded on video and field notes were recorded. An abridged transcript was
prepared from the video recording and the moderators’ field notes. The transcripts were
abridged in that they recorded only participant responses that addressed the research
questions and emergent topics deemed relevant to answering those questions. Off topic
conversation was not recorded. Abridged transcripts were then coded by theme and each
theme was organized by purpose (i.e. support of previous findings, more specific questions,
discovery of new and unanticipated themes). The following sections describe the themes
identified prior to focus group meeting: use of simulations and barriers to use, system
dynamics content knowledge and recommendations for professional development.
Subsequent themes were not directly related to survey themes, but emerged through
discussion: recommendations for model use and simulation use with English Language
Learners.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 23
Focus Group Results
Analysis of the focus group data supported the survey finding that the system
dynamics simulations are not being used. Teacher Participant 3 (TP3) reported having
used the simulations as prescribed by the text during the first year that the curriculum was
implemented, but changed her strategy in subsequent years. She deemed the cost of time
required to use the Stella software to not be commensurate with any benefit that students
might have from completing the activity. The simulation of predator-prey dynamics was
noted as a valuable element. When asked about how they completed the activity, all of the
teachers responsible for face-to-face instruction (TP1, TP3, and TP4) used either the
computer simulation, a live simulation, like a board game, or both.
The focus group also supported computer access as a primary barrier to completing
the curriculum with the system dynamics simulations. Specifically, access to the Stella
simulation software was noted as the primary, technology-related barrier. Participants
commented that a free version of the software package had to be downloaded in order to
complete the activity, and while this eliminates the cost associated with completing the
activity, it represents an added step that teachers perceived as a barrier.
The participant from the virtual high school (TP2) was able to provide information
about barriers specific to students who complete their work in an online environment. She
indicated that the added step of downloading the Stella simulation software becomes an
even larger barrier for online students. While students in a blended learning environment
have real-time teacher support for technical problems, as well as content-related issues,
online students do not have this benefit and are less likely to persist should they encounter
difficulty. TP2 also stated that any additional software or technical requirements for an
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 24
online simulated environment should be compatible with Smartphone and iPad technology,
as this is how many students are completing their work. From her experience, if the
software is not compatible with these technologies, students are not likely to request
assistance from the instructor and instead, will not complete the assignment. TP3 added
that learning a new modeling language would be a more difficult task for online students,
as it typically requires immediate instructor feedback, followed by immediate student
revision, in an iterative process. Using their model of online learning, this type of support is
difficult to accomplish.
The focus group interview resulted in two unexpected findings. While the survey
results found that a lack of access to computers was the most significant barrier to
implementation, the focus group did not entirely support this conclusion. When asked how
much ofa barrier computer access created in activity completion, TP3 and TP4 both stated
that computer access was not a prohibitive barrier and that if any assignment was “worth it”
in terms of how useful it was to student understanding, they would take the time to go to
the computer lab. Their interpretation of a teachers’ unwillingness to complete these
activities as designed was not necessarily an issue of access, but an issue related to
classroom management in a computer-mediated learning environment.
Asecond unexpected finding from the focus group involved their citation of student
mathematics ability as an additional barrier to understanding the models on which the
simulations are based. The simulations are intended for ninth grade students and
participants indicated that these students have not formally been introduced to algebra.
They indicated that while the mathematics used to describe the relationships among the
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 25
variables in the simulation are not complex, the ability to relate phenomena in the natural
world to numerical representations, is still above many students’ understanding.
Focus group participants were generally reluctant to answer questions related to
the content of the systems models (Figures 1&2). We deemed this as confirmation of the
finding that teachers’ lack an understanding of the system dynamics modeling language
used to create the simulations. TP3 was the only focus group participant who attempted to
answer a content-related question. When asked to indicate the variables from Model #1
that directly caused birth rate to change, she noted that there were two arrows pointing to
birth rate and that the variables connected to those arrows were probably the ones that
affected birth rate. Her response was correct, but no other participants attempted an
answer. Participants indicated that there was some confusion over whether this question
was addressed to them or if they were being asked to respond as they thought the students’
would respond. When the participants perceived that they could answer for their students
and not for themselves, they deflected the question from a test of their personal
understanding, to that of their students. This line of discussion evolved into the next theme,
which was unplanned in the protocol: recommendations for model use.
TP3 recommended that use of system dynamics simulations would be most effective
if paired with a physical simulation. In her opinion, if students were able to play out the
scenario physically, and then use the systems simulation, they might be able to make
connections between the numbers of organisms and the graphical representations used in
the simulations. She indicated that this would also assist students in their mathematical
understanding of the predator-prey dynamic, so that they could understand that the
simulation involves, not just numbers, but amounts. TP1 suggested further that first the
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 26
words used to label the variables and then what they mean to the system as a whole were
details that could be used to direct a class discussion about the system’s variables and how
they are interconnected. In his opinion, this discussion should preclude any discussion or
simulation of how variables in the system increases or decrease over time. TP1 also agreed
that the models might help students’ mathematical understanding of dynamic systems. For
example, he described, “there are ratios there (represented in the model) and we can
describe the meaning of those words (in the ratios) to improve their numeracy.” After
students understand the meaning of variable labels, teachers can guide them through
looking at the model as a whole, and then discuss the interconnections. The discussion of
using the model to convey meaning to students led to a more specific discussion of the
utility of system dynamics simulations for English Language Learner (ELL) students.
Due to the large number of first-generation English Language Learners in the
schools of the participating teachers, the issue of using systems dynamics simulations with
these students was addressed explicitly with the focus group. By including two participants
from schools with a relatively high proportion of ELL students, we purposefully intended to
capture their experience and expertise. These teachers (TP1 and TP3) each provided input
on how systems simulations might benefit instruction for the ELL students. In their
combined opinion, the biggest benefit they recognized was that these representations
allowed complex ideas to be conveyed without using text-heavy explanations that might be
difficult for ELL students to understand. Both teachers cautioned that, because the number
of words included in the models is limited, they have to be the right words. Any words that
are used within the model and simulation should be basic and commonly used; jargon
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 27
should be avoided. For example, the teachers noted that the words “delay” and “herd”
would be difficult words for ELL students.
Discussion
Both survey and focus group data show that teachers are not currently using the
system dynamics and systems thinking tools that were part of the adopted curriculum.
Teachers are instructing students on the curriculum’s content, that is, students are learning
about population dynamics and predator-prey relationships, but are doing so through
other activities. Many of these activities are also simulation-based. In cases where
computer simulations are used, the simulations are freely available online. In some cases,
teachers physically simulated population dynamics with either board game pieces or with
students representing the organisms.
In general, participants indicated that systems simulations are valuable classroom
tools and they have confidence that they are able to teach using them. Almost without
exception, participants reported not using the systems tools because of restricted access to
computers and the software used to run the simulations. Focus group participants stated
that computer access was not as much of a barrier as software access. If given proper
access, participants responded that the simulations would be useful. However, most did not
think instruction in systems thinking or system dynamics was necessary. The most
common reason teachers cited for not using systems tools was a lack of access to
technology, including computers to run the simulations as well as the modeling software.
This is an external barrier, as described by Ertmer (1999).
Focus group participants also noted that many teachers who perceive computer
access as a barrier do so because they are challenged when helping students access and
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 28
complete a technology-enabled activity. This highlights in to integrating technology in the
classroom. Martinez and Burton (2011) name the affordances of cyberlearning
environments in math and science. They can provide immediate data, access to experts,
analytical and visualization tools, retrieval of source documents, a forum for public
discourse, and opportunities for meta-cognitive structuring of ill-defined problems. One of
the presumed benefits to using cyberlearning materials, such as the simulations provided
for this activity, is that technology can provide affordances like the ones named above, if
attempted another way, might create more difficult management issues (Bauer and Kenton,
2005). The use of technology should shift the role of the teacher to guide, rather than
manager, but higher levels of management may be required until students become
proficient using the tools for their intended purposes. This can be a prohibitive factor to
moving teachers past the utilization phase of technology adoption, where they will use
technology until a there is a problem and then will revert back to more traditional teaching
practices (Bauer and Kenton, 2005). Also, if the barrier is not computer access, but student
management, it is internal, not external. Internal barriers involving a teacher’s self-efficacy
and belief systems are more difficult to address, as they require a change in deeply-
engrained thinking, rather than the provision of materials (Ertmer, 1999).
The added step of downloading the free software was perceived as a prohibitive
barrier for live classroom teachers, and was perceived as an even greater barrier for the
virtual high school teacher focus group participant. Virtual high school students do not
have instantaneous teacher feedback to guide them, so the more technological challenges
there are, the more likely it is that they will not complete an assignment. In this case, the
curriculum is most meaningful if students are familiar with the system dynamics modeling
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 29
language, are able to interact with the systems simulation and are able to answer formative
assessment questions that are intended to scaffold their use of the simulation. Each part of
this puzzle might require its own software, website, document, etc. In a blended
environment, teacher feedback would ensure that students are on task and interacting
correctly with the materials. In the virtual-only environment, it is less likely they will
receive the same guidance. Again, where cyberlearning tools were thought to streamline
instruction, focus group discussion made clear the need to assess each chosen technologies
to ensure that their affordances are maximized and barriers minimized for a specific
learning environment.
For example, systems simulations were regarded by both ELL classroom teacher
focus group participants as beneficial for teaching ELL students about complex
environmental phenomenon without having to use lengthy verbal descriptions. They noted
that the modeling language would accurately convey the interconnections and the
interactivity of the simulation would allow them to guide their own understanding. Lee
(2005) supports this, citing a study in which Mexican American students were better able
to construct biology understanding by using diagrams and other semiotic tools. However,
word choice is very important when only a few are used, so when designing the simulation
activity, special attention should be paid so that the simulations are as useful as they have
the potential to be for those students. In this instance, the barrier of having to learna
modeling language is less of a barrier than learning a verbal language, so the affordances
outweigh the barriers.
Although only 21% of the survey participants cited their own understanding as a
barrier to implementation, most had trouble correctly identifying and describing variable
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 30
dynamics and interconnections. Many survey participants were not only unable to identify
the correct variable relationships in closed item format, but also expressed frustration at
the line of questioning. This sentiment was mirrored in the focus group discussion, where
participants quickly translated questions about their own understanding to questions
about student understanding. It may be secondary to technology access in implementing
systems tools in the classroom, but if the right access were provided, teacher
understanding may still be prohibitive. This follows with Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy’s (2004)
description of behavior related to ones perceptions of their own efficacy. A teacher’s sense
of self-efficacy in a particular content area or practice is a significant predictor of whether
or not they will employ that content area or practice in their classroom.
Goddard, Hoy and Hoy go further to describe the four categories of efficacy-shaping
information first postulated by Bandura (1986, 1997). They are mastery experience,
vicarious experience, social persuasion and affective states. A mastery experience is one in
which performance has been effective and promotes the belief that performance will be
effective in the future. A vicarious experience increases self-efficacy through having a
practice modeled by an expert. Social persuasion occurs when peers, leaders, students, etc.
promote self-efficacy through feedback that informs the teacher of their effectiveness.
Finally, affective state is related to an individual or group’s reaction to feedback, whether it
be encouraging or discouraging. Stress related to performance and perception of efficacy. It
can promote behaviors that lead to increased efficacy or it can lead to more dysfunctional
behaviors if a support systems (such as school administration or teacher peers) do not
provide avenues for behavior corrections. These information sources are important to
describe, because one of the proposed action items to increase the use of systems tools in
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 31
the classroom is teacher professional development on system dynamics modeling and
systems thinking tools, Professional development opportunities have the potential to
impact in all of the described information sources that promote self-efficacy in teachers,
making it more likely that they would use systems tools in their classroom. Further, Guzey
and Roehrig (2009) speak directly to the utility of professional communities in promoting
the use of new technologies, saying that teachers need ongoing support in the form of
teacher-to-teacher communication about problems and solutions associated with
integrating technology in the classroom. Focus group participants supported the idea of
professional development that addressed teachers’ systems thinking skills and
understanding of the modeling language as long as it provided them with concrete tools
they were able to bring back to the classroom. Fisher (2011) makes a similar
recommendation, saying that “it will be important to have a set of simulations that are out-
of-the-box ready for...teachers to use, in a variety of disciplines. A simulation with (ideally)
formal curriculum, or with possible leading questions that could be used with students,
could provide satisfactory experiences” (p. 400).
Unexpectedly, more survey respondents were able to answer multiple-choice items
correctly that were related to an assumed unfamiliar model (Figure 2). Yet, our coding of
responses to open-ended items about these models revealed the opposite, that participants
could better explain the relationships of the familiar model. Glazer (2011), discussing the
literature related to the challenges associated with graph interpretation, describes a model
of the factors affecting it. These factors include difficulties with graphing, prior
theories/beliefs about the conventions associated with graphical representations, prior
content knowledge associated with the displayed information, and mastery of graphing and
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 32
explanatory skills. We see all of these factors in the teacher participants’ ability to interpret
the system dynamics representations. We speculate that, because the participants were
fluent in the language of population change, they relied on prior knowledge to describe the
system, without referring to the model. When examining an unfamiliar system, like Figure
2, we infer that they would be more likely to refer to the representation, where they could,
to some degree, rely on their prior knowledge of graphing conventions, like arrows
indicating an interconnection and possibly indicate causality. None the less, can be
considered a complex graph (Glazer, 2011), as it contains several variables, connections
between those variables and requires a certain amount of domain knowledge (system
dynamics) to comprehend that graph. As such, it requires instruction to be optimally
understood and applied.
This study identified several barriers, all of which can be categorized as either first
order (external) barriers or second order (internal) barriers, as described by Ertmer
(1999). Even more helpful is that they all are related to teachers’ time constraint issues: not
enough time to increase their own understanding, not enough time to manage students
through technology instruction, etc. Bauer and Kenton (2005) discuss time as a major
barrier to the adoption of new teaching practices. This may provide insight on how to best
support teacher's needs or at least inform their perception of the usefulness of new tools.
For example, focus group participants expressed confusion that there was so much focus
on one activity, demonstrating a viewpoint that the system dynamics language used in the
activity is specific to this one lesson only. If professional development communicated the
utility of the system dynamics modeling practices and systems thinking tools in most of the
course work in the year’s curriculum, they may perceive it as worth their time to
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 33
participate and change their teaching practices. It the tools were understood to be useful
across curricula, it is more likely that teachers would see them as “worth their time.”
Conclusion
This study focuses one of the first steps to adopting systems simulations and system
dynamics as a technology and framework that has the potential to be effective across
disciplines in helping students and teachers communicate with each other about complex
global problems. System dynamicists seek to understand the behavior of a system by
recognizing the complex causal relationships between the variables within it and to
become better decision-makers through their understanding. Providing students and
teachers with systems tools will facilitate a similar understanding.
The results of this study have important implications for the field of science
education because understanding the barriers to using systems tools is the first step
toward their wide implementation. As a crosscutting theme, systems thinking skills are
critical to fully enacting the pending Next Generation Science Standards and educating
students literate in STEM content, who are able to understand the complex problems of
sustainability and make responsible decisions. It is an important first step to understand
the needs of teachers who could use systems tools, in order to put them in practice.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 34
References
Achieve. (2011). Frequently asked questions: Purpose for the standards. Retrieved 4/24,
2012, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/faq# Purpose
Albanese, M., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of the literature on its
outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2012). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It
Isn't Happening. Journal of technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
Cavaleri, S. A, Filetti, R.M., & Filetti, V. (2002). Evaluating the Performance Efficacy of
Systems Thinking Tools. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of the
System Dynamics Society.
Chandler, P. (2009). Dynamic visualizations and hypermedia: Beyond the "Wow" factor.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 389-392.
Committee on Science Learning: Computer Games, S., Education, & Council, N. R. (2011).
Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations: The National
Academies Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.): Sage.
deJong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and
Computing, 6(3-4), 217-229.
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd. ed.). New
York, NY: Wiley.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 35
Ertmer, P. A., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs
about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 32, 54-71.
Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An Investigation of the
Potential of Interactive Simulations for Developing System Thinking Skills in
Elementary School: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International
Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655-674.
Finkelstein, N.D., Adams, W.K., Keller, C.J., Kohl, P.B., Perkins, K.K., Podolefsky, N.S., Reid, S.
& LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually:
A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics
Education Research, 1, 1-8.
Fisher, D. (2009). How Well Can Students Determine Simple Growth and Decay Patterns From
a Diagram? Paper presented at the 27th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society.
Fisher, D. M. (2011). “Everybody thinking differently’: K-12 is a leverage point. System
Dynamics Review, Everybody Thinking Differently: K-12 is a Leverage Point,
27(4), 394-411.
Forrester, J. (1993). System dynamics as an organizing framework for pre-college
education. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 183-194.
Glazer, N. (2011). Challenges with graph interpretation: a review of the literature.
Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 183-210.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective Efficacy Beliefs: Theoretical
Developments, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Educational
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 36
Researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(1), 22-28.
Jenson, E. & Brehmer, B. (2003). Understanding and Control of a simple dynamic system.
System Dynamics Review, 19(2), 119-137.
Jonassen, D. H., & Strobel, J. (2006). Modeling for meaningful learning. In D. Hung (Ed.),
Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-27). Netherlands: Springer.
Jonassen, D. H. (2007). What makes complex scientific problems difficult? In D. H. Jonassen
(Ed.), Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems (pp. 3-23): Erlbaum.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge
and skills: A cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 332-
338.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th.
ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Lee, O. (2005). Science Education With English Language Learners: Synthesis and
Research Agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.
Maani, K. E. & Marahaj, V. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision
making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21-48.
Maltese, A. V. & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of
educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science
Education, 95(5), 877-907.
Martinez, M. E., & Peters Burton, E. E. (2011). Cognitive affordances of the
cyberinfrastructure for science and math learning. Educational Media
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 37
International, 48(1), 17-26.
Meadows, D. (1991). System Dynamics Meets the Press. Excerpt from The Global Citizen. MIT
System Dynamics Working Paper Series D-4143-1.
National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in
the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting
engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2011a). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,
Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011b). Learning Science Through Computer Games and
Simulations: The National Academies Press.
Orgill, M. (2007). Phenomenography. In G. M. Bodner & M. Orgill (Eds.), Theoretical
Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education (pp. 132-151). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pala, O. & Vennix, J. A. M. (2005). Effect of system dynamics education on systems thinking
inventory task performance. System Dynamics Review, 21(2), 147-172.
Pellegrino, J. W. (2006). Rethinking and redesigning curriculum, instruction and
assessment: What contemporary research and theory suggests.
http://www.skillscommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rethinking-and-
Redesigning.pdf: The New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 38
PCAST. (2012). Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with
Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC:
Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Stave, K. A. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in
environmental decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 139-167.
Wheat Jr. , I. D. (2008). The feedback method of teaching macroeconomics: is it effective?
System Dynamics Review, 23(4), 391-413.
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 39
Appendix
Chapters 7 and 8 of the Science and Sustainability textbook for the Principles of
Science course include activities designed to help students think about interconnections
between organisms and their environment. Activity 7.2, ‘Deer Me!’ and Activity 8.3, ‘Deer
Me! Deer Me!’ use Stella modeling software that allows students to manipulate habitat
conditions for a deer and wolf population in a simulated environment and observe the
effects.
We are interested in how these simulations are used and if they are beneficial in
helping students understand systems. Please answer the following questions so that we
may better understand how these simulations are being used. First, take a look at the
activities by clicking on the link below. Please answer a few questions about how you
complete the assignment
1. In Principles of Science, do you teach the content of Activities 7.2 ‘Deer Me!’ and 8.3
“Deer Me! Deer Me!’?
a. Yes (go to #2)
b. No (go to #5)
2. Do you complete Activities 7.2 ‘Deer Me!’ and 8.3 ‘Deer Me! Deer Me!’ as described
in the textbook, with the Stella interactive simulations?
a. Yes (go to #5)
b. No (go to #3)
3. What do you use to complete the activities? Check all that apply:
Pencil and paper activity
Other modeling software
Class discussion
Lab activity
Other
Please explain your answer:
4. Ifyou don't use the Stella interactive software to complete Activities 7.2 and 8.3,
what is the reason? Check all that apply:
My school doesn’t have access to the software.
I don’t know how to use the software.
I have my own way of completing the activity that is more effective.
I didn’t think those activities were very important.
Other (Please explain):
Please explain you answer:
pepo op
rPeeaosp
Please answer a few questions about the Stella modeling software:
5. How confident are you in your ability to teach Activities 7.2 ‘Deer Me!’ and 8.3 ‘Deer
Me! Deer Me!’ exactly as described in the Science and Sustainability text?
a. Very confident
b. Pretty confident
c. Somewhat confident
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 40
d. Not very confident
e. Not confident at all
6. Is the modeling software an important tool when teaching population growth and
organism interactions?
I think it is extremely useful.
I think it is pretty useful.
I think it is useful.
I don’t think it is very useful.
I don’t think it is useful at all.
f. Howis it useful to you?
7. Is there additional support or additional materials that would make the Stella
simulations more useful in your classroom? Check all that apply:
a. Access to computers
b. Instruction on the operation of the simulation
c. Instruction on the Stella software
d. Instruction on system dynamics and systems thinking (the theory behind the
model used in the activities).
e. Other (please explain):
eno rp
Please answer these questions about the system dynamics modeling language that the
Stella modeling software uses: The model below is used to describe the effect of the
carrying capacity of an environment on the size of a deer population (Figure 1). Please use
it to answer the following questions:
8. How well do you feel you understand this representation of the way deer
populations change?
a. Extremely well.
b. Pretty well.
c. Tunderstand it
d. Not very well.
e. I don’t understand it at all.
9. Using this representation, what variable(s) directly cause the deer death rate to
increase and decrease? Choose all that apply:
a. Deaths
b. Deer Herd
c. Animals per area
d. Births
e. None of them
10. Using this representation, what relationship between variables might cause the
deer population to increase? Choose all that apply:
a. A difference between birth rate and death rate.
b. Ifthe number of animals per area are greater than the area available can
support
If the number of births is greater than the number of deaths.
If the number of births and the number of deaths are equal.
e. If birth rate and death rate are equal.
ao
URBAN TEACHER PERSPECTIVE ON SYSTEMS DYNAMICS 41
11. To the best of your ability, please describe how the size of a deer population might
increase or decrease? Use as many of the model's variables in your description as
you can, describing how they relate to each other to produce a change.
12. Do you have questions about this model or method of representing change in deer
population?
The model below shows how personal energy level can change for an introverted
person (Figure 2). Please use it to answer the following questions:
13. How well do you feel you understand this representation of the way an introvert’s
energy level changes?
a. Extremely well.
b. Pretty well.
c. Tunderstand it
d. Not very well.
e. I don’t understand it at all.
14. Using this representation, what variable(s) directly causes the introvert’s
recharging rate to increase and decrease? Choose all that apply:
a. Personal Energy
b. Expending
c. Desired personal energy
d. Internally focused activities
e. None of them
15. Using this representation, what relationship between variables might cause the
personal to increase? Choose all that apply:
a. A difference between total internal activities and total external activities.
b. Ifthe desired personal energy is greater than the actual personal energy
c. Ifthe total internal activities are less than the total external activities.
d. If expended energy and recharged energy are equal.
e. Ifthe recharged energy is greater than the expended energy.
16. To the best of your ability, please describe how an introvert’s personal energy level
might increase or decrease? Use as many of the model's variables in your
description as you can, describing how they relate to each other to produce a change.
17. Do you have questions about this model or method of representing an introvert’s
energy level?
