A Taxonomy of System Dynamics Pedagogic T echniques
Michael Kennedy
Professor of Educational Development
Head of Department of Accounting and Finance
London South Bank University
Borough Road, LONDON SE1 OAA, UK
E-mail: kennedms@Isbu.ac.uk
Key words: System Dynamics, Pedagogic Techniques, Education SIG of the System
Dynamics Society
Abstract
A number of papers have been published describing various pedagogic techniques for the
dissemination of the System Dynamics (SD) approach at various Education institutions and
academic levels ranging from schools (K-12 in the US) to higher education. This paper
builds on previous papers by this author that provided a partial catalogue and classification
of this work in order to highlight potential areas of research in this field of study and to
identify system archetypes at different hierarchical levels and discover new ones. This paper
builds on the earlier taxonomy by separating these SD Pedagogic Techniques from the Policy
Aspects. The findings from these investigations are briefly described. The taxonomy is “ work
in progress” comments and suggestions are welcomed.
1, Introduction
The SDS Education SIG has twin interests in publicising and enhancing both the contribution
of SD to Education Management and the evolution of the contribution of SD to the
curriculum - in both cases the interest spans the whole span of education from K-12 (schools)
to Higher Education. The Author is the Co-Chair of the SIG and has developed this
Taxonomy of publications of relevant SD work and pedagogical issues to aid future research
and to help to spread good practice within the SIG’s area of interest. The SIG also wishes to
encourage graduate students to consider examining enhanced techniques for improving the
contribution of SD to the curriculum in their dissertations and to improve interaction and
collaboration with other groups conducting K-12 based activities.
This paper builds on the author’s earlier publications in this area (Kennedy 2000a, 2002) by
separating these SD Pedagogic Techniques from the Policy Aspects (described in a sister
paper). The objective of this paper is to facilitate and structure debate on the use appropriate
Pedagogic Techniques for the dissemination of system dynamics (SD) (Forrester 1961) in
Educational establishments.
2s A Taxonomy of System Dynamics Pedagogic Techniques
The initial Taxonomy was based on a limited survey of completed SD investigations in
higher education management. In subsequent versions the number of sources has been greatly
increased and both pedagogical issues and provision for School/ K- 12 have been added
To the six original areas of concern (Corporate Governance, Planning, Resourcing &
Budgeting, Teaching Quality, Teaching Practice, Microworlds, Enrolment Demand), two
more (External forces/ legislation and Human Resource Management Dilemmas) have been
added. Only Teaching Quality, Teaching Practice, Microworlds are felt to be relevant to SD
and Pedagogic Techniques. Are more needed?
The five hierarchical levels (National, Regional/ State, University/ Institute, Faculty or
Department and School/ K- 12) have been modified to group Faculty and Department
together and add provision for School/ K- 12. Are more needed?
Some work spans more than one category. A more extensive summary of the work that was
included in earlier taxonomies may be found in Kennedy (2000a and 2002). Descriptions
and comments are reproduced from the earlier paper in order to give a better coverage of the
area.
Hierarchical Level
National] Regional | University Wide | University | School, K-12
Gov't Gov't Management Issues | Faculty or
University | University Department
Issues Issues
Specific | Teaching Kennedy
Area of | Quality (1998a)
Concer Kennedy
n (1998b)
Eftekhar &
Strong
(2005)
McKeachie
(1990)
Schneider
Fuhrmann &
Grasha
(1994a)
Schneider
Fuhrmann &
Grasha
(1994b)
Fincher
(1994)
Teaching Forrester (1974) Runge Foster (1972)
Practice Saeed (1997) (1977) Roberts (1976)
Frances (2000) Shaffer Roberts (1978)
(1976) Forrester (1989)
Senge Niles (1991)
(1988) Halbower (1993)
Saeed Forrester (1995)
(1990) Forrester (2002)
Morecroft &
Sterman.
(1992)
Sterman.
(1992)
Saeed
(1993)
Anderson &
Sosniak
(1994)
Saeed
(1997)
Frances
(2000)
Nodenof et
al (2004)
Microworlds Barlas and Diker | Sterman Sterman (1992)
(1996a, 1996b) (1992)
Barlas and Diker (2000) | Virtual
Sterman (1992) University
Virtual University | (2005a)
(2005a) Virtual
Virtual University | University
(2005b) (2005b)
Blumenstyk (2000)
Conte (2003)
Dekkers & Donatti
(1981)
Sawyer (2002)
Table 1: Classification of System Dynamics Pedagogic Techniques. Plain items refer to
models and items in italics refer to underpinning theory.
3. System Dynamists’ Work in Higher Education Management
A number of system dynamicists and others have examined some of the issues associated
with the Pedagogic Techniques suitable for the dissemination of SD. I shall briefly describe
aselection of completed investigations and key findings.
3.1 Teaching Quality
Quality, Pedagogical and socio- economic aspects of SD in Schools
The earliest teaching of SD was almost exclusively to graduate students but relatively early
the potential of teaching SD to schoolchildren was appreciated. Foster (1972) [in one of the
many MIT “D” notes] considers the impact of “Education in the City” as an extension of the
Urban Dynamics programme. As such this included the socio- economic impact of education
(or the lack of it) on a community.
Roberts (1976) describes an early “System Dynamics Curriculum Development Project for
Elementary and Secondary Education”. As well as examining some practical pedagogical
aspects of SD in Schools she critically examines Bloom's Taxonomy of thinking skills (see
Anderson & Sosniak, 1994). In particular she considers whether the assertion in Bloom's
Taxonomy that “higher level” skills should not be taught until the previous (lower level)
skills have been mastered in full holds good.
Forrester (1989) considers shortcomings in US school education and suggest that System
Dynamics could form a more satisfactory basis for High School Education and proposes a
programme of action in order to realise this potential.
Quality, Pedagogical and socio- economic aspects of SD in Universities
The information management and modelling research group (IMMaGe) have developed an
initial SD model to examine quality management issues at London South Bank University
(Kennedy 1998a, 1998b). Interviews were conducted with academic members of staff to
guide the construction of the model. This investigation is considered to be the first part of a
long-term project.
Key Findings
* The identification of sectors, e.g. Administration, Staff Performance, Department
Effectiveness, Funding, Research and Funding, needed to be considered for a future quality
management model.
« The identification of metrics (or performance indicators) needed to be collected for further
SD investigations.
In an ambitious project somewhat reminiscent of Roberts (1976) earlier work in schools
Eftekhar & Strong (2005) examine the process of learning in colleges & universities and
outline some aspects of the debate among experts in education as to the most effective
approaches to influence or reinforce the learning process. This work is an ambitious
undertaking that implements a programme that includes the combination of education metrics
and computer simulation. Like Roberts, they include a discussion of Bloom's taxonomy of
thinking skills (below)
LEVELS OF LEARNING SKILLS AND INTELECTUAL ABILTES
|e LOWER-ORDER HIGHER-ORDER »|
Evaluation
Synthesis i
| Analysis t
Application 4
Comprehension
a 4
Knowl edge A
Fig 1: Bloom's Taxonomy of Thinking Skills
They state that their work is based on using a package of a simple control engineering
concept, a model of an educational process, a computer simulation in conjunction with a
combination of education metrics and that the main purpose is “to develop a model by which
one can gain a better insight into the possible dynamic behavior of a learning process”.
Eftekhar & Strong (2005) cite some very useful literature on aspects of learning theory and
research including:
e Schneider Fuhrmann & Grasha (1994a)
e Schneider Fuhrmann & Grasha (1994b)
e Fincher (1994)
e McKeachie (1990)
3.2 Teaching Practice
Teaching Practice aspects of SD in Schools
As well as examining the wider Pedagogical issues described above, Roberts (1976)
describes some practical teaching practice aspects of SD in Schools.
Niles (1991), evaluates the UROP programme of Pre-College Education and Halbower
(1993) describes the practical pedagogical aspects of teaching SD in Schools- especially the
importance of “The First Three Hours” of tuition.
In common with several of the above Forrester (1995) is concerned with the provision of
high quality teaching materials- in his case the “Road Maps” to teaching SD.
Forrester (2002) summarises the progress made over 25 years in K12 SD education provision
and looks forward to future enhancements and again proposes a programme of action in order
to realise the potential.
Teaching Practice aspects of SD in Universities
One of the motives for suggesting changes or enhancement to SD teaching practice is the
perceived need to improve better methods of teaching SD in order to counter critical
responses to System Dynamics Models. An example is Forrester (1974).
As mentioned above, the earliest teaching of SD was almost exclusively to graduate students
Runge (1977) makes an early attempt at suggesting methods for Teaching System Dynamics,
while Shaffer (1976) suggests an early concept of organizing the system dynamics
curriculum.
Later there have been many papers describing (asserted) advances in the methods of teaching
SD in particular domains. Senge (1988) describes “New System Dynamics Learning Tools
for Management Education and Training”, while Sterman (1992) describes the evolution of
“management flight simulators” in general and the beer game in particular. Morecroft and
Sterman (1992) describe a collection of “modelling for learning” examples.
Saeed (1990, 1993, 1997)
Saeed in a series of papers has investigated the role of System Dynamics in developing
teaching practice in a number of academic disciplines, including social sciences generally
(Saeed, 1990), economic development (Saeed, 1993) and for a “New Liberal Education”
(Saeed, 1997).
In these papers Saeed points out that (unlike the teaching of engineering and physical
sciences and many of the fine arts), experimental learning is rarely incorporated into the
teaching of social sciences. He asserts that this is unfortunate “since experimentation with
relationships, whether in a laboratory or a studio, helps not only to corroborate theories and
create robust designs, but also to develop the reflective process critical to the creation of
innovation in various professions” and shows how SD is suited to experimentation with
relationships (Saeed, 1990). In relation to teaching practice for “New Liberal Education”
(Saeed, 1997), he examines how Kolb’s model of experiential leaming can be implemented
through the use of System Dynamics as a Technology and so this paper is also included in the
above category.
Frances (2000)
In this paper Carol Frances introduces the important topic of assessing the impact of new
educational technology.
Nodenof et al (2004)
The technology deployed is rapidly advancing. Nodenof et al (2004) state that their approach
for the engineering of web based educational applications is grounded in software
engineering research and that the applications “require advanced functionality for regulating
and tutoring learners' activities (dynamics of learning)”.
They further state that
“our approach aims at proposing models, not only to describe details of such learning
situations, but also to characterize the constraints that the Learning Management
System exploiting such situations must satisfy in this sense, this approach also
contributes to the specification of the Adaptive Web Based Educational System
(AWBES) fitted to a particular learning situation.”
3.3 Microworlds
Barlas and Diker (1996a, 1996b, 2000)
The main objective of Barlas and Diker’s (1996, 2000) research was to construct an
interactive dynamic simulation model, on which a range of problems concerning the
academic aspects of a university management system can be analysed and certain policies for
overcoming these problems can be tested in a “Microworld” format. More specifically, the
model focuses on long-term, strategic university problems that are dynamic and persistent in
nature, such as growing student-faculty ratios, poor teaching quality, and low research
productivity. The model generates numerous performance measures about the three
fundamental activities of a university, namely, teaching, research and professional projects.
The interactive decision variables of UNIGAME are: New Graduate Students, New Under-
graduate Students, Graduate Faculty Hiring Decision, Under-graduate Faculty Hiring
Decision, Share on Official Projects income per Faculty Member and Weekly Release Time
per Graduate Faculty Member.
The purpose of the simulation model is to investigate the difficulties of keeping the delicate
balance that must exist between education, research and service and what measures can be
taken to alleviate the potential problem. The validity of the model is tested using 1983-1997
Bogazici University data. In the "participatory" (gaming) version of the model (which starts
in 1993), certain decisions are made by a “player interactively during the simulation. The
different decision making units of the universities can potentially use the model, especially in
strategic planning.
Key Findings
e Simulation experiments with graduate (versus under-graduate study) orientation shows
that graduate study can have considerable positive effect on research output, provided
that it is coordinated with other related decisions such as instruction-hour requirements,
research recognition and rewards etc.
e If, in order to obtain improved teaching quality, we keep class sizes too low, under the
condition of high student enrolments this may mean multiple sections (or too many
electives). This, in tum would mean increased teaching loads, which may cause serious
problems in maintaining the faculty body, because of decreasing faculty supply and
increasing number of faculty quit rates.
e The simulation model demonstrated the systemic nature of university management in the
sense that a single decision in isolation may yield counter-intuitive results, if not
coordinated with a number of other related decisions.
Virtual University
The “Virtual University” (VU) initiative (Virtual University, 2005a) is also included under
3.3 Planning, Resourcing and Budgeting. The VU is one of a new generation of “Serious
Games” (below) that combine video game presentation norms with serious content and
substantial simulation capacity.
The VU claims very large numbers of users with over 90,000 downloads by over 800
institutions in over 90 Countries no doubt partly because it has received sponsorship that
enables it to be free to most users. The composition of these users is:
5% administrative staff (chair to president)
15% professors
24% grad students
29% undergrads
VU states that it:
“is designed to foster better understanding of management practices in American
colleges and universities. It provides students, teachers, and parents the unique
opportunity to step into the decision-making shoes of a university president.
Players are responsible for establishing and monitoring all the major components
of an institution, including everything from faculty salaries to campus parking.....
VU models the attitudes and behaviors of the academic community in five major
areas of higher education management:
e Spending and income decisions such as operating budget, new hires,
incoming donations, and management of the endowment;
Faculty, course, and student scheduling issues;
Admissions standards, university prestige, and student enrolment;
Student housing, classrooms, and all other facilities; and
Performance indicators.
VU players select an institution type and strive for continuous improvement by
setting, monitoring, and modifying a variety of institutional parameters and
policies.”
The growing popularity of “Serious Games” may be indicated by the holding on April 15-16
2005 of a two-day workshop at M.L.T entitled “Game Simulations for Educational Leadership
& Visualization: Virtual U and Beyond” (Virtual University, 2005b). This event is designed
to examine
“the past, present, and future of games about education and educational life”. The
organisers state that “to date, there have been over a half-dozen entertainment
and non-entertainment efforts dealing with school management and leadership
that have been produced or planned” .
They continue
“These games explore such topics as the future of community colleges, how
universities are managed, how rumours circulate in schools, and how social
cliques form within school environments. We want to examine these games and
their application to school management as we reflect back on the evolution of the
Virtual University Project over the past four years” .
Sawyer (2002) describes “Serious Games” as follows:
“The mission is simple - to create a better understanding of how commercial game
and simulation developers, practices, and technology can be utilized by a wider
field of organizations that build and apply models and simulations in the area of
public policy.
This includes identifying and detailing specific steps organizations and game
developers can take to blend game technology and approaches with proven model
and simulation approaches to improve existing and future offerings.
Any casual observer who has seen someone interact with a computer or video
game can easily understand how games can quickly captivate their audience. With
their exciting visual and audio power, computer and video games take the
competitive and fun nature of games to an entirely new level. Combining
simulation, strategy, and the ability to play alone (if partners are not available)
electronic gaming builds on basic instincts for competition, interaction, and
imagination that are instinctive in so many people. By combining these elements
with instructive materials, or wrapping important content in a gaming package,
the hope is to utilize the strength of gaming to elevate learning and especially
strategic learning among players.”
Blumenstyk (2000) examines the issues re such simulations; Conte (2003) examines the
impact of such simulations on public awareness and hence public policy while Dekkers &
Donatti (1981) consider the research agenda re the use of simulation as an instructional
strategy.
4. Future Evolution of this Taxonomy
As indicated above this taxonomy is an initial attempt to produce a more focussed taxonomy
by separating these SD Pedagogic Techniques from the Policy Aspects. Currently it has
retained the same structure but the author suspects that this will not prove ideal for the
Taxonomy of Pedagogic Techniques. In addition the author is keen to add more publications
- particularly in the K-12 area. Y our ideas and contributions to any of the above are therefore
most welcome!
Acknowledgements
The assistance of Sangeeta Sardiwal, Martin Rafferty, Golda Komanapalli, Naresh Mall,
Garry Bell, Chris Clare and Ddembe Williams in preparing this paper or earlier papers in this
sequence is gratefully acknowledged. The encouragement and helpful comments of Y aman
Barlas, Carol Frances, Peter Galbraith and Geoff Coyle among many others is also gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Anderson L. W. and Sosniak L. A. (eds) (1994) "Bloom's Taxonomy: A Forty-year
Retrospective,” Ninety-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education
(NSSE), Distributed by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Barlas, Y. and Diker, G. (1996a) Decision Support for Strategic University Management: A
Dynamic Interactive Game, Proceedings of the 14th International System Dynamics
Conference, Boston, USA.
Barlas Y. & Diker, G. (1996b). An interactive dynamic Simulation Model of a University
Management System. Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing.
Available from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=331119.331162 [Accessed 9" March,
2005]
Barlas, Y. and V. Diker G. (2000) A Dynamic Simulation Game for Strategic University
Management. Simulation and Gaming. Vol. 31, no.3, Sept.
Blumenstyk, B. (2000). A computer game lets you manage the university. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46(28), A51. Retrieved September 8, 2002 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.chronicle.com.
Conte C. (2003) Honey, I Shrunk the Deficit! Governing Magazine/December 2003
Dekkers, J. & Donatti, S. (1981). The integration of research studies on the use of simulation
as an instructional strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 424-427.
Eftekhar, N & Strong, D.R. (2005) Dynamic Modelling of a Learning Process. The
International Journal of Engineering Education Available from
http://www. ijee.dit.ie/articles/999995/article.htm [A ccessed 9th March, 2005]
Fincher C. (1994) "Learning Theory and Research,” In Feldman K. A. and Paulsen M. B.
(eds) Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom, ASHE Reader Series, Ginn Press,
MA
Forrester, J.W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Forrester, J.W. (1974) Educational Implications of responses to System Dynamics Models D-
2021. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection
DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Forrester, J.W. (1989) System Basis for High School Education D-4018-1. In Forrester, J.W.
(ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics
Society, Albany, NY, USA
Forrester, J.W. (ed) (1995) Road Maps D-4450-2. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System
Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Forrester, J.W. (2002) A new Frontier in K12 Education D-4882. In Forrester, J.W. (ed)
(2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society,
Albany, NY, USA
Foster, R.O. (1972) Education in the City D-2144. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System
Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Frances, C. (2000). Using System Dynamics as a Tool for Decision Making in Higher
Education Management- U.S. Experience, in Kennedy, M. (ed). (2000). Selected papers
presented at an international seminar on ‘Using System Dynamics as a Tool for Decision
Making in Higher Education Management’ held in June 1999 at the Royal Society, London
and London South Bank University, under the auspices of the Society for Research into
Higher Education, London South Bank University Technical Report SBU-CISM-12-00,
London UK.
Halbower M. C. [Revised Whelan J]. (1993) The First Three Hours D-4230-3. In Forrester,
J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics
Society, Albany, NY, USA
Kennedy, M. (1998a). A Pilot System Dynamics Model to Capture and Monitor Quality
Issues in Higher Education Institutions Experiences Gained, Proceedings of the 16th System
Dynamics Conference, Quebec City, Canada.
Kennedy, M. (1998b). Some Issues in System Dynamics Model Building to Support Quality
Monitoring in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 16th System Dynamics Conference,
Quebec City, Canada.
Kennedy, M. (2000a). Towards a Taxonomy of System Dynamics Models of Higher
Education, Proceedings of the 18" International Conference of the System Dynamics Society
(2000) 6-10 August 2000 Bergen, Norway
Kennedy, M. (2002) An extended Taxonomy of System Dynamics Models of Higher
Education, Proceedings of the 20th System Dynamics Conference, Palermo, Italy.
McKeachie W. J. (1990) "Research on College Teaching: The Historical Background,”
Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.82, No.2, 1990
Morecroft, J.D. and Sterman, J.D. (eds) (1992) Modelling for Leaming, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol 59 (May, 1992)
Morecroft, J.D. and Sterman, J.D. (eds) (1992) Modelling for Leaming, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol 59 (May, 1992)
Niles, R. (1991) Pre-College Education Project UROP Evaluation D-4229.In Forrester, J.W.
(ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics
Society, Albany, NY, USA
Nodenof T., Latorcade P, Marquesuzaa C & Sallaberry C. (2004) Model based Engineering
of Learning for Adaptive Web Based Educational Systems. Proceedings of the 13th
international World Wide Web conference Available from
http://Oportal.acm.org.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=1013385&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&
CFID =39697420& CFT OKEN=40723049 [Accessed 9" March, 2005]
Roberts, N.H. (1976) System Dynamics Curriculum Development Project for Elementary and
Secondary Education D-2435-1. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group
Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Roberts, N.H. (ed). (1978) System Simulation of Student Performance in the Elementary
Classroom. In Roberts, E.B. (ed) (1978) Management Applications of System Dynamics,
Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Runge D. (1977) A Note on Teaching System Dynamics D-2653. In Forrester, J.W. (ed)
(2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society,
Albany, NY, USA
Saeed, K. (1990). Bringing Practicum to Leaming: A System Dynamics Modelling
Approach, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 3, No. 2
Saeed, K. (1993). Bringing experimental learning to the social sciences: a simulation
laboratory on economic development, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 pp 153-164.
Saeed, K. (1997). System Dynamics as a Technology for New Liberal Education, Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Report No. 3, Worcester, Mass. USA.
Sawyer B. (2002) Serious Games: Improving Public Policy through Game-Based Learning
and Simulation. Foresight and Govemance Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, Publication 2002-1 http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/game/index.htm [Accessed 21st
March, 2005]
Schneider Fuhrmann B. & Grasha A. F. (1994a) "The Past, Present, and Future in College
Teaching: Where Does Your Teaching Fit?” In Feldman K. A. and Paulsen M. B. (eds)
Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom, ASHE Reader Series, Ginn Press, MA
Schneider Fuhrmann B. & Grasha A. F. (1994b) "Toward a Definition of Effective
Teaching,” In Feldman K. A. and Paulsen M. B. (eds) Teaching and Learning in the College
Classroom, ASHE Reader Series, Ginn Press, MA
Senge, P.M. (1988) New System Dynamics Learning Tools for Management Education and
Training D-3999. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature
Collection DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Shaffer, W.A. (1976) An Initial Concept for Organizing System Dynamics Curriculum D-
2438. In Forrester, J.W. (ed) (2004) MIT System Dynamics Group Literature Collection
DVD, System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY, USA
Sterman, J.D. (1992) Teaching Takes Off OR/MS Today, (October, 1992)
Virtual University (2005a). Virtual University. http://virtual-u.org. [Accessed 21st March,
2005]
Virtual University (2005b). Game Simulations for Educational Leadership & Visualization:
Virtual U and Beyond http://virtual-u.org/conference-invite.asp [Accessed 21st March, 2005]
