Systems Thinking in High Schools for 2100
Gordon Kubanek, P.Eng., B.Ed.
1 Morris St. Alexandra 3714 VIC Australia [temporary]
01161-35772-1019 [fax -2049 @ work]
kwfletch@shepparton.net.au
621 Southmore Dr.W. Ottawa ONT. K1V 7A4 Canada [permanent]
0111-613733-5671 [fax — 8452 @ work]
chust@monisys.ca OR gordon_kubanek @ocdsb.edu.on.ca
Abstract
How do we change passive into active learning ? How can we change the fundamental
structures in and around the classroom so all learners become system thinkers? This
workshop by raising more questions than giving answers, will lead us through the six
step process of Goodman to attain that goal. The anonymous, monolithic, content driven
educational system is “turning off” too many students. The resulting high drop out rates,
lack of interest in learning and violence are robbing us of a well educated, literate
citizenry. Using systems thinking we shall begin to design the structures in and around
the classroom that change the relationship between teacher and student, student and
content, school and society. When the same values that change the classroom occur in the
surrounding structure we can not only “produce” the elite of tomorrow, but more
importantly, reduce the level of distress of our “under achievers”.
Part A - Introduction
Students sometimes tell me that I cannot make them do the work I ask, and they are right.
All I can do is create the mood in which they become passionate and interested in
learning. I believe that Systems thinking can help to change the learning process by
allowing more active, experiential learning that can give all students the opportunity to
achieve success.
Here are two suppositions to consider: I. Structure influences behavior. II. People always
do exactly what makes sense to them. This means that when we see students dropping
out, taking drugs, pulling out a gun or alternatively thinking creatively we must accept
that we play a large part. Many of the near pathological behaviors seen in High Schools
today may seem irrational but may be seen as reactions to a structure which is not
meeting their needs. Furthermore the present disjointed delivery of educational, physical
and mental health services gives unsatisfactory results. The societal stresses which we
see, which are obvious in our High Schools, will accelerate unless we change the
structure of our delivery system. We shall explore how the principles of System Thinking
can create the environment where students are passionate about learning, dare to risk
while they learn and can reflect upon what they have achieved.
But, you may ask, what does this all have to do with systems thinking? For me, the real
value in systems lies in its ability to make explicit long-term affective domain variables
and analyze the inter-relationships between observed behaviors. With this view we can
better understand the issues and propose alternative solutions to the problems High
Schools currently face. We shall see how systems thinking in the classroom and school,
and how a systematically designed structure in the Ministries of Education and Health,
working in partnership with Industry, can not only “produce” the elite of tomorrow but
more importantly reduce the level of distress of our “under achievers”. We need better
systems thinkers not only at the Universities and senior management levels but in the
factories and kitchens and garages as well.
I would propose that we are currently focussing on short term, “symptomatic” solutions.
The current lack of integration between the education, health care and industry is
“maladaptive” and potentially pathological environment for our youth. “While health
development consists of a number of tasks that require ongoing coordination and
integration in the individual’s adaptation to the environment, pathological development
has been reported to involve a lack of integration between the individual’s cognitive,
social and emotional competencies, thereby resulting in maladaptation.” (Apolucci,E.
Genius,M.1999)
I shall be working with the concept that the structural archetypes that are best for the
individual also apply to the societal systems as a whole, thus the following diagram may
characterize our current delivery systems (at least in the English speaking world). We
need to define goals in terms of long term “fundamental” solutions. Systems thinking can
play a key role in constructing a more meaningful learning experience which is reflected
in the adaptive social structures around and in the school.
Our Current “Maladaptive” Social Structure
education
Industry’s &
society’s needs
Contrasting “Adaptive” Social Structure in the Year 2100
needs of society & industry
mental & physical health x ; active and relevant classroom
learning
supportive and flexible educational
structure
The Task at Hand Today
We shall use the six step systems thinking process (Goodman & Karash,1995) to
envisage the classroom learning experience in the year 2100 with the supporting structure
necessary to have dynamic, active, meaningful learning for ALL students. The six steps
are: 1. Tell the story 2. Draw behavior over time graphs
3. Create a focusing statement 4. Identify the structure
5. Going deeper 6. Plan an intervention
Your Role
As I present my ideas I shall need your feedback. We shall write down all ideas and use
them for a brainstorming session later in the workshop. My ideas are meant to provoke
or as de Bono would say “PO” (De Bono,1998) and to be a launch pad as we construct
our future classroom of 2100.
Part B - Building Our Classroom of 2100
This story illustrates how systems ideas can be found in the most unlikely of places. In
building our systems thinking classroom keep in mind that our goal is to help build
systems thinkers like this adult sheep farmer. Three concepts in this story are key ideas in
the model building process.
Step 1: Tell the Story
I met a sheep farmer during the shearing time. At the end of the hard day, with a satisfied
look on his face, we chatted. I asked the sheep farmer: “ What skills from school have
been the most useful to you in your work.” He was quiet for some time. Then he replied:
“You have to love what you do. When you really like what you do you notice all kinds
of things, you learn quickly, mostly by your mistakes, because just listening to others
does not create the understanding within you.“ A while later the farmer continued,
slowly: "This is how it is — working hard during the day you spend the money, and on my
computer at night — thinking, analyzing and reflecting upon my work — that is when I
make my money. I was flabbergasted — for me this was systems thinking at its best. Not
once did he say anything about content, even specific skills — he had only talked about
attitude, risking mistakes to learn & reflection. Let us draw the parallels with the six-step
system thinking process and these ideas from the farmer.
Sheep Farmer Systems Thinker
A. Students must care passionately about A. steps | & 2 — tell the story to the
their subject/issue motivate & draw behavior graphs
to arouse interest
B. Deep, personal learning happens by B. steps 2 & 3 — list variables, create
making mistakes relationships, outline the model
C. Without a time to think & reflect about C. steps 5 & 6 — build the model and
your work no progress is possible the key relationships that make
the system either succeed or fail
PASSION RISK REFLECT
~
For many students the “crises” in learning & emotional turmoil peaks around 15. This is
the age when most High School potential violence and lack of curiosity occurs. As a
teacher of that age I can tell you that the idealism, desire to help others and drive to
“change the world into a better place” that once was the hallmark of the healthy teenager
is often absent. How do we help the students have passion? In answering this question we
cannot exclude the social factors from our model. Education must be seen within a larger
context. I do not place any blame on the children, rather I question the society and
educational structure where adults portray a very negative & dark emotional state for
teens as “normal”. You have only to think of a movie like Cruel Intentions or the music
of Marilyn Manson to see the role models that teenagers now have. Furthermore,
according to the National Foundation for Family Research and Education of Canada
strong bonding between parent and child is needed to develop an emotionally and
mentally stable teenager. A supportive family unit is thus a necessary foundation upon
which schools build. “ Secure bonding to parents is a direct cause of emotional and
behavioral health, productivity and happiness in adolescence. On the other hand,
insecure attachment to parents is a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and
behavioral difficulties in adolescence, including youth crime.” (Genius, 1995)
Step 2: Draw 'Behavior Over Time' Graphs
Based on my experience as a teacher I would characterize our current educational
structure as early exponential intellectual growth coupled with low emotional growth.
The academic pressure quickly bankrupts many students’ emotional resources. There has
been research to support this thesis for decades (Forester,1955). Furthermore the dangers
of accelerated early learning, including increased risk of teen suicide, are thoroughly
analyzed by Uphoff and Gilmore(1985): “...those pupils who were very bright but very
young at the time of their school entrance did not realize their potential. They tended to
be physically immature or emotionally unstable, socially they seldom showed leadership.
From junior high school on 50% of them only earned "C” grades.... In many cases early
entry may results in maladjustment in school, and even may have a adverse effect on
adult life.” My thesis is that passion and desire to learn are at risk if formal learning starts
too early. I have defined this important quality as the “formal learning:desire Ratio. The
current learning process is graphed below as an oscillatory model which is unstable and
easily collapses into maladaptive behaviors such as drugs, drop-out and violence.
For many students this is the Current Educational Formal Learning to Desire Ratio
Current
"formal\" learning : desire ratio"
8
Oo} 0
0 7 {I 15 19 25
There is another significant structural flaw in our current educational structures whic
adds to the oscillations in learning described — at least in USA, Canada and Australia as I
have experienced them. The course contents and teaching methods seem to be mainly
intended to meet the learning style and goals of the small (20%) College track student.
As a result of our over emphasis on intellectual learning at an early age many students
feel threatened by learning and some are overwhelmed. Many may lose the early
enthusiasm that they felt in grade 1. How could we recapture that joy in learning? How
do we create an environment where making mistakes is not threatening?
A beginning could be to acknowledge that we have at least three totally different learners
with needs and learning styles which need to be separately addressed. The Self Mastery
Club of Los Angeles, California has a model which I find relevant to this thesis. They
propose that there be three learning environments in schools as shown below (Brown,
1998). They have designed a curriculum to meet the needs of the “at risk” students — the
ones who we currently deem trouble makers.
Category At risk Trade school College prep
Objective Keep in school Learn a trade Go to college
Approach required | Lead me Show me Tell me
Teaching style Counseling Apprentice Lecture/experiment
Curriculum Develop self-esteem Trade specific Three R’s
How can we design a new structure so that ALL learners have positive feedback from
their educational experience and thus lead more productive adult lives? For long term
success in learning a “sustainable” S-shaped curve is a more desirable behavior. A key
feature of this curve is the “vector” direction at age 15. I believe that the quantity of
knowledge at this age is not so important but the movement towards wanting to know and
experience for its own sake is vital.
This could be Our Future Systems Thinking Formal Education to Desire Ratio
Current
"formal\" learning : desire ratio"
10
|
15
5 7.
2.5
0 | 15
0.0302 7471 22.37 29.81
Step 3: Create a Focusing Statement
What do we want our great grandchildren’s educational experience to be like? How can
we help create an atmosphere where dynamic change is not only accepted but is the
foundation for the educational structure and in the classroom learning experience of the
generations to come? We will need to design a structure in which LEADERSHIP, which
I propose is more likely to lead to sustainable long-term change, is encouraged. What we
have now is management which I believe reinforces short-term solutions and results in
unstable changes in the learning environment. Teachers and Schools allocate resources
and manage activity which is driven by the gap between desired and current learning
outcomes. In the teacher as leader model the reinforcing structures rather than balancing
structures are the object of the teachers energy. In this structure the teacher is involved in
the design & implementation of the structure, not managing the activity in the structure.
If we use this proposition as a base from which to move from we can see that there is
much that can and should change. Not only should the leaders be more proactive but the
teachers in their own classroom should move from managing activities to implementing
structure within which the students are actively exploring, risking and finding their own
solutions to life’s issues. Thus, it is our ““Weltanschauung” which needs changing. What
is our goal as leaders in Schools, Universities, Governments and Industry? I would
propose that we support the development of emotionally & mentally balanced young
people who have the courage and desire to make the world better for themselves, and
their peers. We need to design with the long term social implications and mental health of
the individual in mind. Our teaching style and course contents should also be designed
around the same premise. The current polarity between the “hard”, real world,
intellectual needs of the workplace and the “soft” self-development requires redesigning
so that they compliment rather than oppose each other. I am sure that to those of you
familiar with Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) this will sound familiar. Certainly the
idea that education is an unstructured, political situation where “perceptions need to be
addressed as realities” (Forbes, 1999) rings true.
Some of the structures that I think need addressing are shown below. None of this is
meant to be inclusive or to be “the solution”. Rather these areas of concern must be only
viewed as “food for thought” as we enter our brainstorming groups to try to see how
difficult it is to move to our theoretical classroom of 2100 and how inter-related all these
issues are. So, how do we move from:
>Passive learning to Active Learning
>teacher centered teaching to student-centered learning
>content driven curriculum to emotional/intellectual health driven
>individual tasks to group tasks
>teacher as manager to teacher as leader
>only College prep teaching style to variety of teaching styles
>Computers in the computer lab to computers as a tool in all classes
>Politicized, “decaying” Public schools to healthy mix of alternatives
>Separate Education, Health to Common Education, Health
& Industry Agendas & Industry Agendas
Step 4: Identify the Structure
We shall now separate into four groups brainstorming session to design a meaningful
education delivery system for 2100 with explicit linkages with Health, Industry &
Society. I will provide some papers that you can refer to in your discussion groups. As
System Dynamics practitioners this is your opportunity to demonstrate how your skills
can be applied to what is probably a new question. Each group should end up with a stock
& flow diagram of their part of the system on a flip chart page. We shall split off into
groups to draw a system dynamics model of these areas of concern using the 4-step
procedure of model building from the M.LT. Guided Study Program (Albin, 1997):
1. Purpose of the Model 3. Reference Modes
2. Model Boundary [Endogenous & Exogenous components] 4. Basic Mechanisms
Group topics are:
A. in the classroom — active learning, learner centered & cross curricular in design
B. how to use computers as a dynamic, open ended tool, role of modeling
C. teacher as “leader”, not manager. The teacher is not an “island in the school” but
linked with other teachers & administration, Industry, health & social services
D. integration of health issues, industry’s needs and society’s values into the educational
paradigm to help slow learners, ADD, learning disabilities, behaviorally disturbed
students & creative students who do not realize their potential. Use the ideas of the
Self Mastery Club & having real apprenticeship programs outside of schools in
partnership with Industry.
One example of the current educational process which results in wild oscillations is the
following model. The oscillations can represent both the students’ experiences and the
changes the system suffers as a whole. The dangers lie at the low points of the oscillation
which may result in the demise of the system.
effect of learning gap on desire
desire to
learn i ‘ A
desired positive learning experience
change indesire to ts a
normal amount of $ spent and degree of centralized control gap in perceived learning experience by student
st
amount of extra $ and control
Q current positive
learning experience
net feeling of improvement in learning environment by the student
effect of extra $ and control on learning environment
Desire to Learn
28
24.25 |
20.5
16.75
13
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (Year)
desire to learn : oscillation hour/Year
Step 5: Going Deeper
Now that you have built some models to show the basic mechanisms we will explain our
model and relate it to the other models by building positive and negative feedback loops.
Below is an example of a model from group A’s topic. A possible way of looking at a
learning is to construct a model of the students learning experience as matching that of an
“S-shaped” curve. The model below shows some of the key features that could be
analyzed when trying to move towards a classroom learning experience designed around
System Thinking principles.
time for a success
level of self-esteem
ge teaching success
strength of teaching experience
challenges per inadequate student
challenging moment in the classroom
wrong curriculum and delivery method
student feels
inadequate & ki
loses interest reduced levels of violent act, drop out, drugs, not creative
Co change from a failure to a success fraction
time for inadequatecy to develop
loss of interest ratio
ee { normal failure fraction
normal interest in learning . . . .
effect of loss of interest on violence, failure
™—
loss of interest lookup
Graph for successful system thinkers
80
=
ae
60
40
20 |
|
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (Year)
successful system thinkers : success success
Some techniques which I have personally seen work which support this approach are as
follows:
> student has same teacher for many subjects for many years [sub-school model of the
ACT, Australia & Steiner schools worldwide] to develop personal relationships
> schedule academic subjects in the morning and others in the afternoon — being
“efficient” with space is not conducive to optimal learning
> three types of classroom experience always available: counseling, apprenticeship &
College prep— move the learning out of the class as needed into the work world
> computers in the classroom to be used as a tool as needed, not taught separately
> teach issues & problems, not subjects- cross-curricular courses
> focus in early learning is on the LOVE of learning, not the content
> evaluation based on “personal best”, failure is still possible but the yardstick is you,
so positive feedback is increased and risk taking increased [keep grade 12 exam]
more work in groups with students of mixed ability, they teach each other
allowance for mistakes, lots of exploration and experimenting with ideas
Step 6: Plan an Intervention
Given that one of our underlying aims is to use the principle of leverage to bring active
systems thinking into our future classroom we must strengthen the fundamental solution
and weaken the symptomatic solution. There are two levels at which change is
needed: at the micro [classroom] level and the macro [societal] level. The first model
below is about the former, and the second model is about the latter. The “shifting the
blame archetype” is a useful way of seeing why we need to change form short-term
solutions to a fundamental systems solution for our educational system.
symptomatic solutions; more standardized
exams and central control
unintended side effect more violence and less creative thinking
more dropouts
students are not learning or being creative
thinkers
fundamental solution: do we have passionate
viable system model for legislation . .
y 8 risk-taking students ?
active, student-centred systems thinking learning
Below is one possible model of the system macro-structure that could reduce the risk of
costly, wasteful and damaging oscillations when changes are brought into the educational
system. (Espejo & Harnden,1989)
policy - set by
the government
intelligence -
<i operated by
teachers
DELIVERY SYSTEM
, control -
OUR STUDENTS exercised b
schools wit
parents
co-ordination - ministry of eduction, health, industry
y
monitering by
college prep student
trade school student “|
at risk student
SCHOOLS
tell me - experimenting style
show me - apprenticeship
counsel me - build my belief in myself
In our case the fundamental solution (s) may include:
1. Teaching methods to be active, student- centered, cross curricular
Slow, confidence building learning in the early years to teach the JOY of learning
and keep the DESIRE to learn alive during the teen age years
3. Explicit linkages in goals and policies between Education, Health & Industry
Ministries
4. Have a variety of schools approaches, curriculums and teaching styles to keep the
“at risk” kids in school and give the “apprentice” learners the practical skills that
they need to meet Industry’s demands
5. Teachers move from managing the classroom to leading in designing structures
every day that allow the students to [almost] teach themselves.
Part C - Conclusion
System Dynamics has much to offer the field of education. We can offer our children and
our students a more enriching learning experience and give them better tools to solve the
problems that life will bring by building an educational system around the principles of
systems thinking. As Jay Forrester (1994) states: “A systems dynamics education should
sharpen clarity of thought and provide a basis for improved communication. It should
build courage for holding unconventional opinions. It should instill a personal philosophy
that is consistent with the complex world in which we live.”
When we think of the people we work and play with, our employees, peers and bosses —
what qualities do they have that we admire and respect? How can schools work with
families, social & health services and industry to make possible an enriching adult life for
ALL children? If we continue to rely on symptomatic solutions the divide between the
have & have not learners will accelerate. I propose that a basic shift in our
“Weltanschauung” that uses Systems Thinking methods can change our complex
educational system so that the classroom experience are more engaging for the students.
I believe that there is now a “critical mass” of people who want change and also I believe
enough is known about how students learn to begin making the needed changes.
However I do not see a STRUCTURE within which the necessary changes can develop.
Education as an institution needs to shake off its shackles of the past and “re-invent”
itself. It may be that some of the ideas presented today may be part of that process. But of
one thing I am certain, we have two choices. We will be subjected to uncontrolled,
unstable, chaotic oscillations of the educational system as it responds to change if we use
short-term, symptomatic solutions. Or we can consciously plan, design, and model for
change using Systems Thinking with long-term goals in mind which provide fundamental
solutions. The same traumas that successful, innovative private companies have gone
through in the past decades are at the footsteps of our High Schools. We have created our
own problems and I do believe that with the help of Systems Thinking we can solve our
own problems.
References
Albin, S. (1997), Building a System Dynamics Model Part 1: Conceptualization,
Roadmaps 8 , D-4597, MIT Guided Study Program. http://sysdyn.mit.edu
Apolucci,E. Genius,M.(1999). The Development of Dangerous Offenders. National
Foundation for Family Research and Education. www.nffre.com/html/documents
Brown, Deanna (1998), Self Mastery “CLUB”, www.stnews.org/sme2.html
De Bono.E. Serious Creativity, (1998). CD-ROM, Six hats Systems Pty Ltd, Caloundra,
Australia
Der Spiegel. (1977). The Kindergarten Year, #20, 89-90
Espejo,E. Harnden,R. (1989). The Viable System Model —Interpretations and
Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM, Wiley, Chichester
Forbes,Dr.P. (1999). Soft Systems Methodology.
www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/depts/mnss/courses/emba/ssm
Forester,J.(1955)At What Age Should Children Start School? School Executive 74, 80-81.
Forrester,J. (1994). Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21“
Century. Roadmaps D-4434-1, M.I.T. http://sysadyn.mit.edu
Genius, Mark, (1995), Long-term Consequences of Childhood Attachment: Implications
for Counselling Adolescents, National Foundation for Family Research and Education,
www.nffre.com/html
Gill,T. (1999). Systems Thinking Background. www.phrontis.com
Goodman,M. and Karash,R. (1995). Six Steps to Thinking Systemically, The Systems
Thinker, Vol 6, No 2.
Uphoff,J. Gilmore,J. (1985). Pupils Age at School Entrance — How many are ready for
Success? Educational Leadership, Sept. 86-90.
