Chapter 1



Chapter 1: Thinking Differently

“The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems that we cannot solve at the same level…”

—Albert Einstein[1]

If Einstein’s dictum is true, that problems cannot be solved by the mindset that created them, then how can teachers get students to think innovatively about problems that have been created by past and current mindsets? If teachers are not themselves taught different ways of thinking and teaching, then how can they be expected to foster thinking differently among their students? The question therefore becomes, how can teacher-educators foster generative new ways of thinking” and teaching among student students that transfer to their K-12 practice? Given the need to teach for efficiency[2] because of the No Child Left Behind Act and its high-stakes assessment,[3] is it even possible to teach for efficiency and innovation (Bransford et al., 1999)?

I believe the answer is yes, and argue that systems thinking supported by computer-based dynamic modeling and simulation provides a new mindset in the spirit of Einstein’s Dictum, and a timely innovation for teaching traditional disciplinary content. When contemporary controversies and interdisciplinary topics are analyzed from a systems perspective, the stage is set for both efficient and innovative collaborative, problem-based learning and teaching. With respect to systems, the claim is supported by over a decade of teacher-driven classroom practice of systems thinking and modeling (Scheetz & Benson, 1994; Zaraza, 1995), and the urgent need for computer-assisted, systems understanding to grasp the counterintuitive and interrelated dynamics of social, economic and environmental problems (Banathy, 1996; Capra, 2002; Dorner, 1996; Forrester, 1971; McNeill, 2000; Radzicki & Taylor, 1997; Senge, 1990). The claim with respect to controversies is supported by a decade of researcher-driven classroom use of controversies (Linn, Davis, & Bell, 2004), and the need for a principled integration of educational technology and web-based inquiry into instructional design (Bopry, 1999; Bransford et al., 1999; Dede, 1998; Jonassen, 2004; Jonassen & Land, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2000; Pea et al., 1999; Salomon & Almog, 1998; Shear, Bell, & Linn, 2004).

Structuring inquiry around contemporary controversies benefits teachers because it addresses the limited effectiveness of pedagogy that relies on straight transmission of knowledge by using a meaningful context (CTGV, 1992) to “invite” students to use or develop their cognitive and self-regulatory skills” (Niemi, 2002). It forces teachers to think differently about pedagogy because their relationship with the learner changes from content-centered knowledge purveyor to student-centered catalyst, metacognitive role model, and co-learner (Minstrell, 2001; Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 1998). Scientific controversies with social and economic ramifications enable teachers to situate science learning within its social context, and demonstrate not only that science effects everyone’s lives, but also that it is “one of the most precious possessions of humankind” (Bell, 2004, p. 236).

For students, the use of contemporary scientific controversies addresses the ennui that they exhibit towards rote learning of unproblematic material by anchoring inquiry to an “unsettled” scientific problem (Latour, 1987) with personal meaning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Students are forced to think differently about learning, not only because their relationship with their teachers changes, but also because their relationship with the subject matter changes: from assimilation of “correct” content, to connecting or changing their prior knowledge with new information in order to evaluate competing claims (Bell, 2004; Mintzes et al., 1998). It also has the virtue of prompting students to think about how knowledge is created, by revealing the inferential, contingent and provisional nature of scientific knowledge (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer, & Scott, 1994). Learning content through controversies enables student to experience “how scientific understanding actually unfolds over time…and intersects with the interests of society” (Bell, 2002, p.237).

Scientific and science-based controversies direct attention to the argumentation processes by which scientists make claims supported by evidence and the warrant for it, in order to achieve consensus concerning a particular question. However, where a controversy involves a dynamic system, attention also needs to be directed to the dynamics of the processes involved, i.e., the relationships and the moment-to-moment interactions among the components. Without learning the significant interactions and how the knowledge is functionally connected, the most probable outcome is that students’ understandings will remain superficial and non-operational (diSessa, 1999).

This was demonstrated in the film, A Private Universe (Schneps & Woll, 1989). Harvard graduates were asked what causes the earth’s seasons, and their answers revealed the common misconception that seasons are caused by the changing orbital distance between the sun and the earth (Gardner, 1991; Wandersee, Minztes, & Novak, 1994). Although the students’ knowledge was correct that the distance between the earth and sun changes during the year, they also knew that winter and summer seasons occur simultaneously in the northern and southern hemispheres, and yet they still answered that seasons were caused by changes in the earth-sun distance.

Alan Kay (1995) attributed the persistence of this misconception among some of the brightest and best-educated students in America to a lack of the necessary “operational” knowledge that would have enabled them to make the connections between the significant facts that they did know. I argue that the Harvard graduates who remembered the correct “answer” were just as unlikely to have operational understanding because the conventional answer (the tilt of the earth’s axis) represents a necessary condition, but is incomplete. Conceptual change research does not support the inference that students have constructed operational understanding on the basis of their knowing one condition (Mintzes, Wandersee, & Novak, 2000; Wandersee et al., 1994; White & Gunstone, 1989). Furthermore, teaching and assessing based on such a simplistic answer may not only deflect attention away from the key dynamic processes involved, but also seriously diminish students’ incentive to learn them.

The Premise Behind the Research

When the subject of an inquiry involves a dynamic system in which behavior changes over time, a systems paradigm[4] provides the most useful framework with which to approach it. A systems paradigm functions as an advanced organizer (Ausubel, 1968) because it includes the relevant parts and their properties, the relationships among the parts (how they are connected), how the parts interact (the processes involved), the conditions upon which the interactions are contingent, and the interdependencies among the parts (the feedback or circular causal loops), which are inherent in the system, and are all needed to ensure a comprehensive framework for inquiry about the system. A systems paradigm develops both analyzing and synthesizing metacognitive skills because reasoning about dynamic systems not only requires analysis of the parts and how they stand in relationship to each other, but also synthesis of how they function together to produce systemic behaviors (Costanza, 2003). Most importantly, a systems paradigm explicitly directs attention to the deeper structures and significant processes because it focuses on how the system actually works moment-to-moment, rather than on the more readily observable surface structures and events (diSessa, 1999).

This can be illustrated by framing the question, “what explains the earth’s seasons?” as a systems inquiry.[5] The unit of analysis is the earth-sun system in which the two parts, the sun and the earth, are related to each other, respectively, as “star” and “orbiting planet.” The sun’s star status signifies the solar processes that produce energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which continuously flows outward in all directions. At the distance of the earth’s orbit (93 million miles from the sun), the sun’s energy flows at the rate of about 1370 watts/square meter/ second.[6] The earth’s status as a planet signifies that the amount of energy the earth accumulates is contingent on its own planetary properties. For example, if the solar energy flow interacted only with solid surfaces, then most of the energy would be re-emitted back into space, and the earth’s mean temperature would be a frosty -18( C (0( F). However, one of the properties of the earth is an atmosphere that the solar energy must flow through before reaching the surface. As it does, it interacts with different parts of the atmosphere (e.g., particles of minerals and molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide), creating a cascade of reactions before reaching the earth’s surface. The net result of all of the atmospheric interactions is retention of sufficient energy (accumulation) to raise the earth’s mean global temperature to a toasty +15 (C, the well-known “greenhouse effect” from which “nearly all of the complexity of the natural world emerges.[7]

Framing the inquiry around energy flow and accumulation in relationship to key atmospheric processes, enables the contingent conditions that lead to the seasonal changes to be explored within the relevant structural relationships. It also introduces processes related to other phenomena, such as ocean warming and global climate change, which the traditional static, geometric, and phenomenologically superficial explanation ignores. A logical argument can, therefore, be made for explicitly teaching both static and dynamic concepts and principles. It can be further argued that dynamic concepts can best be taught by combining systems principles with dynamic modeling methods, because building or manipulated models and running simulations provide students hands-on opportunities to interactively design and/or test multiple hypothesis, including their own alternative conceptions. In the process, they are also building both analytical and integrative metacognitive skills.

A New Teaching Paradigm

Educational researchers have argued for decades that science teaching should be based on the structure of knowledge in each discipline, meaning the important concepts and processes by which scientific understanding is gained (Bruner, 1960; Schwab, 1978). These recommendations have yet to shift most teaching towards deeper, structural knowledge – how the important concepts are related and work together. Yet, it is this level of operational understanding that is believed to distinguish expert from novice with respect to knowledge, problem-solving capabilities, and performance (Bransford et al., 1999; Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988; Clement, 2000).

The traditional reductivist approach to education, with its emphasis on events rather than behavior over time, parts rather than relationships, and isolated processes instead of systems, carries the implicit expectation on the part of educators that students will figure out for themselves how everything actually works together (Hannon & Ruth, 2000). As the Harvard graduates illustrate, very bright and well-educated students do not accomplish such a synthesis on their own, even within a single discipline.

Ironically, one of the most important knowledge structures to emerge from Newtonian science was the concept of dynamic systems (Kline, 1995; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).[8] The traditional discipline of celestial mechanics successfully represents the solar system as a deterministic dynamic system in order to calculate and predict past and future positions of its parts. However, the deterministic paradigm has been unsuccessful in understanding and predicting complex dynamic systems’ behaviors that are either stochastic or chaotic in nature, as many are in chemistry, biology, and even celestial mechanics are (e.g., the famous three-body problem). Ludwig von Bertalanffy was confronted by its limitation during his biological research early in the 20th century, which led him to the discovery that similar patterns in natural phenomena emerge from dynamic system structures in many different disciplines, including physics, biology, and social sciences (Bertalanffy, 1968).[9]

Increasing numbers of scientists find it necessary to study complex systems as wholes, in addition to their constituent parts. Should curriculum and instructional design include dynamic systems concepts, structures, and models? Various modeling approaches have already attracted interest among educational researchers (Colella, Klopfer, & Resnick, 2001; Frederiksen & White, 1998; Perkins & Grotzer, 2000) and teachers alike (Zaraza & Fisher, 1999). One reason is the development of enabling computer technologies with the capacity to compute at lightening speeds and run programs of models that create simulations of complex dynamic systems. These technologies are now available to both researchers and educators.

Statement of the Problem

Model-building and problem-based learning already support specific disciplinary learning goals. However, they have yet to realize their potential to connect the academic silos that have “fragmented the world into bits and pieces called disciplines and subdisciplines, hermetically sealed from other such disciplines [so that] after 12 or 16 or 20 years of education, most students graduate without any broad, integrated sense of the unity of things” (Orr, 1994). Interdisciplinary teaching methods are crucial because physical, biological, and social processes do not operate independently of each other, nor do they exhibit simple linear relationships in which cause and effects are always, or even usually, close in time and space (Bertalanffy, 1968; Forrester, 1971). Therefore, the primary problem that this research seeks to address is the emphasis on traditional reductivist teaching methods at the expense of synthesis. Several other problems are related, and also addressed by the pedagogic and research methodologies.

Educational research has consistently demonstrated that pedagogies based on non-problematic, static, and unanchored knowledge presentations are ultimately inefficient because these methods do not engage students in meaningful learning, successfully foster conceptual change, or prepare students for applying what they have learned in non-ideal, real world situations (Bransford et al., 1999; Brown et al., 1989; Bruer, 1993; Miller, 1956; Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988). The problem can be characterized as knowledge stripped of emotional impact and personal saliency.

Clearly, educators need to prepare students to be knowledgeable and skillful in particular fields, but educators also need to prepare students to solve problems and develop what has been referred to as adaptive expertise (Bransford et al., 1999; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). This involves learning how to anticipate and avoid or minimize problems before they emerge (Perkins, 1986). Real world problems are typically embedded in complex systems, suggesting that the ability to think differently, i.e., counterintuitively and systemically, will be needed (Ackoff, 1999; Banathy, 1996; Kay, 1995; Senge, 1990; Dorner, 1996; Forrester, 1971; Senge, 1990). Most real world problems are also interdisciplinary, suggesting the ability to synthesize and integrate knowledge across domains will also be required.

Collaboration across disciplines has not been traditionally encouraged in schools for a number of practical and logical reasons, not the least of which is that different subject matter curriculum is implemented by teachers with substantively different knowledge domains and pedagogic approaches. Even when efforts have been limited to two subjects, structural, intellectual, and emotional barriers required concerted effort for collaborative teaching efforts to succeed (Wineburg & Grossman, 2000).

Similarly, researchers who work with preservice teachers have encountered different attitudes among different subject matter teachers (Sullenger et al., 2000). Some preservice teacher attitudes appear to mirror the cultural divide between the sciences and humanities observed by C. P. Snow (1959), as well as the hierarchical positioning that privileges the “hard” over the “soft” sciences lamented by J. Stephen Gould (1989). Stephen J. Kline points out that the divide between the humanities and sciences impedes progress on coming to judgment on issues that are value-laden, but are greatly benefited by scientific understanding (Kline, 1995). Hierarchical attitudes based on subject or discipline impedes collaboration and teamwork within education because of the resentment that such ranking engenders among teachers of different disciplines (Sullenger et al., 2000). Research suggests that there is a genuine need for preservice teachers to be introduced to different disciplinary world views, as well as problem-solving around collaboration, teamwork, and curriculum integration (Spalding, 2002; Sullenger et al., 2000; Wineburg & Grossman, 2000).

Lastly, there is an urgent need to understand natural systems and how human systems impact them. For the first time in the history of the planet, one species (ours) is quantitatively matching or surpassing planetary flows of materials such as lead and carbon dioxide beyond the earth’s ability to absorb them (Ayres, 1992).[10] Numerous examples of the rise and fall of past societies have been documented, and provide cause for concern based on the similarities between the actions of past societies and current behavior, with respect to environmental, population, and economic stresses and external as well as internal conflicts (Diamond, 2005; Kennedy, 1987; Tainter, 1988).

In a report published by the National Research Council, the consensus was that if human activities are not modified within two generations, irreparable damage may occur to some of the natural systems upon which we depend (NRC, 1999). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report, provides a more recent consensus among 1,300 experts from 95 countries that the ongoing degradation of 15 of the 24 ecosystem services examined is increasing the “likelihood of potentially abrupt changes that will seriously affect human well-being” (such as the emergence of new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of “dead zones” along the coasts, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate).[11]

The convergence of such diverse scientific studies, and the unusual efforts by scientists to communicate the significance of their research findings beyond their own communities, indicate that we are at a turning point in our own society with respect to (now) global-encompassing problems related to population, energy, pollution, and natural resources. These problems will certainly require systems design solutions (Banathy, 1996). The project of education can make important contributions by adapting systems approaches in our own disciplinary and interdisciplinary learning and teaching communities.

Background

In the following section, the terms system and controversy are defined for the purposes of this research, and system thinking, system dynamics modeling, and controversy are located within the academic and education landscapes.

Systems

A system is a collection of related parts which interact with each other to function as a whole (Kauffman, 1980). This definition implies that a system is dynamic because the elements interact over time. Dynamic systems exhibit behaviors that change over time related to accumulations and rates of change.[12] Rates of change may also change over time because of internal connections (relationships among the parts) referred to as “feedback loops.” Positive feedback loops that reinforce (exacerbate) behavior and negative feedback that maintain (stabilize) behavior are key systems concepts. A fundamental principle is that systems typically cause their own behavior because of the effects of internal positive and negative feedback loop structures. This does not preclude systems that are open to their environment, from being affected by exogenous events and processes.

Systems thinking has been proposed as a discipline in its own right (Senge, 1990), because it provides an alternative to traditional scientific thinking by assuming that it is not possible to analyze the parts of a system in isolation from each other in order to understand the system’s behavior as a whole. A system’s approach to problem-solving assumes that it is the system’s structure, (i.e., the relationships among its parts) that causes the system’s behavior (Richmond, 1994). When the relationships among the parts are not linear and include multiple feedback loops, the system will behave in ways that are difficult, if not impossible to anticipate (Forrester, 1971; Meadows, 1982; Senge, 1990).

The complexity inherent in nonlinear dynamic systems precludes both predictive certainty and one-to-one correspondence between causes and their effects. This means that reductivist methods of analyzing parts in isolation from the whole may be necessary, but will also be insufficient for predicting the behaviors of such systems (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Sole & Goodwin, 2000). Although reductionism is undeniably powerful in many scientific endeavors, it is arguably insufficient with respect to projects dealing with complex dynamic systems, whether physical, biological or social (Capra, 1982; Churchman, 1971; Dorner, 1996; Goodwin, 1994; Kline, 1995; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). Complexity introduces a higher level of uncertainty because complex systems are not intelligible in terms of Cartesian rationality, where the “gold standard” for knowledge is based on measurement and demonstrable one-to-one correspondence between cause and effect (Frodeman, 1996).

This has led to the use of synthesizing methodologies in addition to traditional analytical methods to the extent that there now exist (at least) two fundamentally different paradigms by which scientific research is approached: the Newtonian world view, and the Darwinian world view (Harte, 2002). The former comprises classical reductionist methodologies and is based on a machine model in which it is logical to analyze parts independent of each other and the whole (Capra, 1982). Within this mechanistic and atomistic tradition, scientists have studied either two-variable problems (linear causal trains) with the goal of determining “perfect solutions” and “exact predictions,” or “unorganized complexity” using statistical methods (Bertalanffy, 1968; Weaver, 1948).

The second major paradigm comprises emerging integrative and holistic methodologies, based on an ecological model in which parts are analyzed in relationship to each other and their environment in order to explain observed phenomena. Within this growing body of research, scientists seek to understand organized complexity in which there are interactions among a large number of variables, and the observable behavior is an emergent property of the system rather than a simple sum of the system’s parts.

My position is that both paradigms and methodologies are useful, and both are incomplete. The question is not which paradigm is correct, but which paradigm best matches the nature of the problem and the purpose of the investigation. I argue that teacher education programs and K-12 curriculum need to explicitly teach both paradigms, not just in scientific subjects, but in any subject where dynamic linear and circular causal processes are involved. The dual approach is particularly relevant when trying to educate students about complex, interdisciplinary topics that contain elements of each paradigm. These two epistemologies are not optional or enriching aspects of learning, they represent the two major paradigms currently providing the basis for designing research and evaluating evidence related to issues of great importance to citizens and society as a whole. Critically evaluating competing knowledge claims and evidence necessarily must include thinking critically about the appropriateness of the assumptions and paradigm with respect to the problem being debated (Toulmin, 1958).

Systems Research in Academia

Broadly speaking, there are five areas of systems science[13] that have emerged on the academic landscape to deal with complex scientific and social problems: (1) general systems theory (GST), (2) system dynamics (SD), (3) systems design, (4) earth systems science (ESS), and (5) nonlinear dynamical systems (DS), which is also known as the science of emergence, or complexity. GST was developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy in response to thermodynamic problems in biology (Bertalanffy, 1950). SD was created when Jay Forrester applied cybernetic principles and feedback control theory developed by Norbert Wiener to industrial, business, and social systems (Forrester, 1961; Wiener, 1961). Systems design emerged out of many design professions, including architecture, industrial design, operations research, and organizational research (Ackoff & Emer, 1972; Argyris & Schon, 1978; Banathy, 1996; Checkland & Scholes, 1990; Churchman, 1971).

ESS evolved as scientists applied interdisciplinary methods and models to investigate complex natural phenomena such as global climate (Earth Systems Education: Origins and Opportunities. Science Education for Global Understanding. Second Edition, 1992).[14] Complexity science emerged when mathematical modeling methods (Mandelbrot, 1982) were applied to non-linear systems in the physical, biological, and social sciences, such as meteorology (Lorenz, 1963), ecology (May, 1973), chemistry (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977), evolutionary biology (Goodwin, 1994), economics (Krugman, 1996), archeology (Kohler & Gumerman, 2000) and systems biology.[15]

The shared paradigm across these diverse domains is that the whole is more than the sum of its parts and the behavior of the system under investigation cannot be deduced or inferred by knowing the nature and behavior of the system’s individual parts (Bertalanffy, 1950; Forrester, 1968; Goodwin, 1994). Two simple chemistry examples illustrate this concept: the properties of oxygen and hydrogen cannot be “added together” to predict the properties of water, any more than the properties of salt can be predicted from knowing that chlorine is a poisonous gas and sodium is an explosive metal. It is the interactions of their atoms in relationship to each other that creates the dramatically different behaviors and properties of water and salt molecules.

The significance of this perspective is that scientists are able to deterministically predict behavior for only the simplest of systems (Kline, 1995). Attempts to do so for nonlinear dynamic systems (i.e., complex systems) typically produces “unintended” consequences or “side affects.” The unexpected results are systemic outcomes just like the desired results. Their occurrence surprises only because the model of the system, on which the predictions were based, is incomplete (Lovins & Lovins, 1996).

Modeling Systems

One way to gain predictive power in complex systems, albeit with an inescapable level of uncertainty, is to combine analyses of individual components and their relationships with dynamic methods of aggregation to create a numeric model of the phenomenon. This concept was first envisioned by a meteorologist in the 1920’s, but it was not until after the Second World War that the computational capacity of computers was harnassed by programming to do the calculations required by complex weather models (Levenson, 1989). Since then, computer models and simulations have become cultural tools in the Vygotskian sense (Vygotsky, 1986). As useful as these methods have been, even the most complex models remain incomplete. Therefore, computer simulations may provide useful heuristics, but they do not deterministically predict a system’s behavior or outcomes in the positivist tradition (Oreskes, Shrader-Frechette, & Belitz, 1994).

Given the disciplinary breadth and importance of systems and model-based research today, it is not surprising that systems perspectives and modeling methods are being incorporated in both, K-12 classrooms (Gould-Kreutzer, 1993; Zaraza, 1995), and research on learning and cognition (Mandinach & Cline, 1994; Resnick, 1999; Roberts, 1978).

Two general modeling strategies have emerged in education: one is based on individual interactions, the other on aggregate interactions. Agent-based models, a category of which includes cellular automata models, simulate the emergent behavior of individual entities interacting with each other and their environment over time (Resnick, 1990, 1994, 1996). System dynamics (SD) models represent a category of aggregated modeling methods, and simulate the emergent behavior of aggregated quantities, for example, water flow and accumulation over time (Zaraza & Fisher, 1999). Both types of models are designed to flexibly incorporate multiple interactions and feedback loop structures that are characteristic of complex systems and responsible for many of the counterintuitive and unpredictable emergent behaviors associated with them.

Controversies

A controversy may simply be defined as “the clash of opposing opinion” about an issue for which there is dissent (Brante, 1993). A useful synonym is argument, and although the two words may be used interchangeably, argument draws attention to the process of the debate for the purposes of this study. Another distinction of importance with respect to educaitonal research, as well as society at large, is the difference between a scientific controversy, which primarily involves contending knowledge claims among scientists; and a science-based controversy, which not only involves contending scientific arguments, but also has social, political, or economic elements or consequences (Brante, 1993).

Controversy in Academia

The sociologist, Bruno Latour, who has observed scientists in their natural settings of laboratory and fieldwork, distinguishes between science that is “settled” and science “in-the-making” (Latour, 1987). In order for a knowledge claim to become settled, consensus must first be achieved within a particular community of scholars by a social process that marshals support through evidence-based logical argumentation. The form of the evidence and argument varies depending upon the discipline and the nature of the evidence.

Although this sounds relatively straightforward, three trends are making this much more complex and interesting. One is towards interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research (Klein, J. T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Haberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R. W., & Welti, M., 2001; Kline, 1995; Orr, 1994).[16] Another is the increasing importance of computer models and simulations in the sciences and social sciences (Krugman, 1996; Meadows, Meadows, Rander, & Behrens III, 1972; Stott et al., 2000) (Stott, P. A., Tett, S. F. B., Jones, G. S., Allen, M. R., Mitchell, J. F. B., & Jenkins, G. J. 2000). The third is a profound shift in scientific research from positivistic certainty based on a Newtonian world view to indeterminate complexity based on a Darwinian world view (Harte, 2002).[17]

Today, many of the most interesting and important scientific controversies are problems that require crossing disciplinary boundaries to reconcile evidence generated by different disciplinary researchers (Klein, 1990; Kline, 1995; Weingart & Stehr, 2000). Reaching scientific consensus concerning global climate change, for example, required geologists, biologists, chemists and physicists, to name only a few of the disciplinary perspectives, to adopt a synoptic disciplinary viewpoint (Stott et al., 2000). Regional and local problems reflect similar needs for a synoptic disciplinary view point in order to settle controversies, such as the causes of “dead zones”[18] in the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and Hood Canal (Warner, Kawase, & Newton, 2002). Although the proximate cause (depleted oxygen content) can be measured, the cause or causes of the oxygen depletion, and therefore, its mitigation or prevention, is often controversial and requires a multidisciplinary perspective.

Modeling Controversies

Although multidisciplinary studies have been necessary, they have not been sufficient to achieve consensus involving complex systems without numeric models and computer technologies. Computer-generated simulations of numeric models have become the basis for settling controversies ranging from global climate change (Stott et al., 2000) to the role of phosphorus in Lake Erie’s eutrophication (Chapra & Reckhow, 1979; Harte, 2002). For the science-based controversy related to Lake Erie, simulations provided the heuristic that was used as the basis for policy changes related to pollution, which ultimately resulted in improved water quality in most U.S. lakes (Harte, 2002).

The use of model-based simulations to reach consensus with respect to scientific controversies is a relataively recent application of the tools. With respect to nonlinear systems, such unexpected behaviors[19] have emerged that entirely new fields of research have been generated, and with them, a profoundly different world view of science from the traditional mechanistic and predictable one (Harte, 2002). Although scientists are traditionally trained to “think in terms of linear causality…we need new ‘tools of thought’: one of the greatest benefits of models is precisely to help us discover these tools and learn how to use them” (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). This includes gaining new insights about the “complex interplay between individual and collective aspects of behavior...[seeing] a distinction between states of the systems in which all individual initiative is doomed to insignificance, and …bifurcation regions in which an individual, idea or new behavior can upset the global state” (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).

Complexity reveals that even in physics, the validity of knowledge claims in scientific arguments is not actually determined by the same deductive reasoning processes that are possible in mathematics and geometry. To prove a scientific claim would require knowing everything that would need to be known with respect to the natural phenomenon, which is not possible. Therefore, what is stated as “known” in science, is an approximation and subject to change, even in physics, unlike geometric theorems (Feynman, 1995).

This is not a new idea, and scientific argumentation has traditionally used the process of inductive reasoning based on making logical inferences about evidence.[20] For example, when a scientific prediction is verified by empirical or experimental evidence, it typically settles the argument, i.e., the “real” world confirms scientists’ ideas about it (Driver et al., 1994). But “settled” knowledge remains incomplete and vulnerable to revision as new measurements and understandings are learned through the continuous interplay between theory and experiment, even in classical physics. Newton’s laws related to matter and the speed at which it moves are useful approximations over a wide range of scales; however, “the higher the speed, the more wrong they are, and philosophically we are completely wrong with the approximate law (Feynman, 1995).[21]

Scholars have developed different approaches to argumentation because most scientific controversies cannot be settled using the same methods as math and classical physics (Kahane, 1971; Toulmin, 1958).[22] Stephen Toulmin developed an argument model containing three parts: 1) the new knowledge claim, 2) the data that supports it, and 3) the warrant, or assumptions the claim is founded on, either implicit or explicitly stated (Toulmin, 1958). The power of Toulmin’s model is in the explicit inclusion of the warrant, or assumptions that support the claim that is being made about the evidence.

The Systems-Controversy Connection

Warrants for a knowledge claim are based on the scientific paradigm, or organizing principles that guided the research. The paradigm is effectively the theoretical basis for the inquiry. Scientific inquiry (be it empirical, experimental, or theoretical) involves the collection of data by specific methods, analysis of the data by specific methods, and interpretation based on theory or paradigm that guided the research. This entire process is what transforms data into evidence that can be used to make knowledge claims (Latour, 2000).

One way to evaluate the warrant for a knowledge claim is to determine if the research methods were appropriate for the research question, and the paradigm (theory) it was based on. Another way is to evaluate the appropriateness of the paradigm itself. For example, if the research methods assume that there is a linear causal chain, and the system is known to be linear, then the warrant for the evidence is strengthened. A systems paradigm (parts, properties, relationships, processes, feedback loops, and contingencies) can provide a principled basis for evaluating a knowledge claim, regardless of the type of system for which the data was originally collected (e.g., linear, nonlinear, simple, complex), provided, naturally, that the inquiry involve a dynamic system.

Although good pedagogic practices have always included controversies that engage students in learning, it has only been in the last two decades that researchers have begun to investigate controversy as a component of principled instructional design (Bell, 2002; Johnson, 1985; Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Zeidler, 1997). Problematizing subject matter has supported inquiry and critical thinking as well as more meaningful learning (Evensen & Hmelo, 2000; McNeil, 1999). Teaching methods based on controversies have resulted in higher levels of engagement and improvements in students’ retention of content, critical thinking, problem solving, decision making and creative insights (Johnson, 1985; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson & Johnson, 1995).[23]

I argue that explicitly using a systems paradigm to structure inquiry about controversies that contain a systems component, represents a way to increase the congruence between theory, evidence, and the warrant for the evidence, and improve student learning even more. This argument has a parallel in geology,[24] where standards in used for mineral analyses—the closer in composition the standard is to the mineral being analyzed, the more accurate the analysis of the mineral will be. I believe that the closer our analytical paradigms are to the nature of the subject of the inquiry, the more critically and accurately we will be able to think and learn about them.

Purpose of Study

Given the sea changes occurring in academic research, the purpose of this study was to learn what potential benefits, interactions and responses would emerge from introducing a new way of thinking, in terms of systems, to preservice teachers who were tasked to collaboratively develop curriculum for teaching a contemporary controversy. The intervention was a complex design study created by the researcher to introduce preservice teachers to the systems paradigm and tools as a way to collaboratively connect and teach subject matter related to a contemporary controversy. Important systems tools were introduced as part of the intervention. The controversy was related to genetically modified food, and involved complex systems at multiple levels (e.g., genetic, ecological, social).

Educational researchers and other cognitive scientists have made impressive gains in understanding how students learn (Bransford et al., 1999), yet American students are still being outperformed by students in Chinese Taipei, Singapore, Hungary, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Australia, the Czech Republic and England according to the most recent Trends in Mathematics and Science Survey results (Martin et al., 2000; Mattheis et al., 1992). At the same time, teachers report feeling ill-prepared in the critical areas of science, technology and meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse student population (Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education: Teachers' Readiness to Use Computers and the Internet, 2001; Indicator of the month: Teachers' feelings of preparedness, 1999).

Considered together, these two trends suggest that rather than continuing to “leapfrog” over preservice teachers to study student learning in authentic environments, it may also be essential to study preservice teacher learning in their authentic environments, e.g., in education courses. Of particular importance is their responses and receptivity to new methods that are known to support student learning and that address the critical areas of science, technology and an increasingly diverse student population.

The Research Question

The question behind this research was, “How will preservice teachers benefit from using a systems perspective and science-based controversy to collaboratively develop interdisciplinary curriculum?” The focus of this study was appropriately, the whole system of interacting parts including the ecologically valid classroom setting, the complexity of the design-based intervention, the different subject matter preservice teachers, and the instructor-researcher. Although there were external influences (the experiment was not accomplished in a closed system), most of the important interactions were among the preservice teachers and the instructor-researcher in the study.

The outcome of the study demonstrates the challenge in getting preservice teachers to learn to see controversies using a systems thinking paradigm. There are very few teacher preparation programs where preservice teachers are introduced to systems concepts,[25] and little research has been conducted to provide more than anecdotal evidence about system dynamics’ pedagogical power, potential to foster transfer, or affordances for integrating curriculum and promoting team teaching and teacher collaboration. Introducing preservice teachers to new pedagogic methods that are being used in more K-12 schools by increasing numbers of experienced teachers answers calls for teacher education reform that aligns with K-12 reform have been made (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Goodlad, 1994; Lampert & Ball, 1999). Current state and national standards also call for teaching K-12 students about systems and systems concepts. Teacher education programs are logical sites for introducing innovative methods such as systems thinking and science-based controversies.

In the next chapter, key literature related to the study is reviewed. Specifically, Chapter 2 examines the background related to systems thinking and computer modeling in K-12 education, processes that promote conceptual change, and how controversies support learning.

Chapter 3 describes the research methods, including an overview of the study design and how the research questions were addressed by it, the instructional intervention, including the rationale for the major components, the setting and participants, and strategies for data collection and analysis.

Chapter 4 presents the results of the interviews and the implementation of the design study, including the final demonstration project.

Chapter 5 presents the inventory results from the questionnaires the preservice teachers completed before and during the design study. This is followed by an analysis of how their answers to these questions help to make sense of their responses to systems thinking and contemporary controversies as approaches to teaching, learning, integrating curriculum, and working collaboratively with teachers in other subject matter areas. A comparative analysis is presented between the language arts and social studies preservice teachers who participated in the interviews.

Chapter 6 presents a synthesis of the study’s results, and the study’s significance within teacher education research. The limitations of the study, along with the implications for future research conclude this work.

This study shows that preservice teachers display a range in receptivity to, and perceptions of benefits from innovative pedagogies, based in part, on their own K-12 and teacher education experiences. Prior experiences, either in coursework or field observations, increase both, receptivity, because they reinforce a particular method’s importance, and fluency, because they provide more experience with the method.

This study was not designed simply for the purpose of introducing new teaching methods to preservice teachers. It was also designed to stimulate preservice teachers’ reflection about, and openness to different approaches to their own learning and teaching. Success in getting preservice teachers to think and teach differently in teacher education programs may foreshadow their own innovative teaching and their students’ successful learning outcomes in the K-12 educational system.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Ayres, R. U. (1992, February 1992). Toxic Heavy Metals: Materials Cycle Optimization. Paper presented at the National Academy of Sciences Proceedings.

Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. New York: Plenum Press.

Bell, P. (2002). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann & R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bell, P. (2004). The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science. In M. C. Linn & E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 233-260). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 23-29.

Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General System Theory: foundations, development, applications (Revised Edition ed.). New York: G. Braziller.

Bopry, J. (1999). The Warrant for Constructivist Practice within Educational Technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 5-27.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for Studying Scientific and Science-Based Controversies. In T. Brante & S. Fuller & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial Science: From Content to Contention (pp. 177-191). New York: State University of New York Press.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Bruer, J. T. (1993). The Mind's Journey from Novice to Expert. American Educator, 17(2), 6-46.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. New York: Vintage books.

Capra, F. (1982). The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: integrating the biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of sustainability (1 ed.). New York: Doubleday.

Chapra, S., & Reckhow, K. H. (1979). J. Fish. Res. Board Can., 36, 225.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: basic concepts of systems and organization. New York: Basic Books.

Clement, J. (2000, April, 2000). Causal Knowledge in Experts and Students Solving Explanation Problems: The Role of Schema-Driven Imagistic Simulation. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Colella, V. S., Klopfer, E., & Resnick, M. (2001). Adventures in Modeling: Exploring Complex, Dynamic Systems with StarLogo. Williston, VT: Teachers College Press.

Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education: Teachers' Readiness to Use Computers and the Internet. (2001). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Costanza, R. (2003). A vision of the future of science: reintegrating the study of humans and the rest of nature. Futures, 35, 651-671.

CTGV. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. Educational Psychologist, 27, 291-315.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: handbook of policy and practice (1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dede, C. (Ed.). (1998). Learning with Technology. 1998 ASCD Yearbook: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1250 N Pitt St , Alexandria, VA 22314-1453.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (first ed.). New York: Viking.

diSessa, A. A. (1999). What do "Just Plain Folk" Know About Physics? In D. R. Olson (Ed.), Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching, and Schooling. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Dorner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: strategic thinking for complex situations (R. Kimber & R. Kimber, Trans. First American Edition ed.). New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 5, 5-12.

Earth Systems Education: Origins and Opportunities. Science Education for Global Understanding. Second Edition. (1992). University of Northern Colorado, Greeley ; Ohio State Univ , Columbus Research Foundation.

Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo, C. E. (Eds.). (2000). Problem-based learning: a research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Feynman, R. P. (1995). Six easy pieces: essentials of physics, explained by its most brilliant teacher. Reading, Mass: Helix Books.

Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of Systems (Second Preliminary Edition ed.). Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press, Inc.

Forrester, J. W. (1971). Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. Technology Review.

Forrester, J. W. (1976). Moving into the 21st Century: Dilemmas and Strategies for American Higher Education.

Forrester, J. W. (1994, June 27-29, 1994). Learning through System Dynamics as Preparation for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the Systems Thinking and Dynamic Modeling Conference for K-12 Education, Concord, MA USA.

Frederiksen, J., R., & White, B. Y. (1998). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 55, 33-51.

Frodeman, R. (1996). The Rhetoric of Science. GSA Today, 24(8), 12-13.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: how children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: better teachers, better schools (1 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Goodwin, B. C. (1994). How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity (1 ed.). New York: C. Scribner's Sons.

Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

Gould-Kreutzer, J. M. (1993). Foreword: System dynamics in education. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 101-112.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and Learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.

Hannon, B., & Ruth, M. (2000). Dynamic Modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Harte, J. (2002). Toward a Synthesis of the Newtonian and Darwinian Worldviews. Physics Today, 55(10), 29.

Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. Stevenson & H. Azuma & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 315). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Indicator of the month: Teachers' feelings of preparedness. (1999). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Johnson, D. W. (1985). Controversy versus concurrence seeking in multi-grade and single-grade learning groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(9), 835-848.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative controversy: Intellectual challenge in the classroom (3rd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology : a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Kahane, H. (1971). Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Kauffman, D. L. (1980). Systems 1: An Introduction to Systems Thinking (1st ed.). Minneapolis: Future Systems, Inc.

Kennedy, P. M. (1987). The rise and fall of great powers: economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House.

Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, practice. Detroit: Wayne State University.

Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities (Vol. 1). Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Kline, S. J. (1995). Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Kohler, T. A., & Gumerman, G. J. (2000). Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes. New York: Oxford University Press.

Krugman, P. (1996). The Self-Organizing Economy (1 ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Lampert, M., & Ball, L. D. (1999). Aligning teacher education with contemporary K-12 reform visions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Linn, M., C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet Environments for Science Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Linn, M., C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers (1 ed.). Mahweh, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiod flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130-141.

Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, H. L. (1996). How Not to Parachute More Cats (G96-01). Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

Mandelbrot, B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.

Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1994). Classroom Dynamics: Implementing a Technology-Based Learning Environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Smith, T. A., Chrostowski, S. J., Garden, R. A., & O'Connor, K. M. (2000). TIMMS 1999 International Science Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

Mattheis, F. E., Spooner, W. E., Cable, C. R., Takemura, S., Matsumoto, S., Matsumoto, K., & Yoshida, A. (1992). A study of the logical thinking skills and integrated process skills of junior high school students in North Carolina and Japan. Science Education, 76, 211-222.

May, R. M. (1973). Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. (2 ed. Vol. 6). Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

McNeil, J., D. (1999). Curriculum: the teacher's initiative (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

McNeill, J. R. (2000). Something new under the sun: an environmental history of the twentieth-century world (1 ed.). New York: Norton.

Meadows, D. H. (1982). Whole Earth Models and Systems. The CoEvolution Quarterly, 98-108.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Rander, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Miller, G. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.

Minstrell, J. (2001). The role of the teacher in making sense of classroom experiences and effecting better learning. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (1998). Teaching science for understanding: a human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (2000). Assessing science understanding: a human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in the Pedagogy of School Science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems: from dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763-780.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, H. R. 1, 107th Congress of the United States of America Sess.(2002).

NRC. (1999). Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability (Report). Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.

Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences. Science, 263, 641-646.

Orr, D. W. (1994). What is Education For? In J. S. Goodlad (Ed.), The Last Best Hope: A Democracy Reader (pp. 282). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Pea, R. D., Tinker, R., Linn, M. C., Means, B., Bransford, J., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Brophy, S., & Songer, N. B. (1999). Toward a learning technologies knowledge network. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 19-38.

Perkins, D. N. (1986). Thinking Frames. Educational Leadership, 43(8), 4-10.

Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000, April 24-28, 2000). Models and Moves. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: man's new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Radzicki, M. J., & Taylor, R. A., Designer. (1997). Introduction to System Dynamics: A Systems Approach to Understanding Complex Policy Issues [e-book]. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved, 2004, from the World Wide Web:

Resnick, M. (1990). MultiLogo: A Study of Children and Concurrent Programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(3), 153-170.

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds (1 ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the Centralized Mindset. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 1-22.

Resnick, M. (1999). Decentralized Modeling and Decentralized Thinking. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 114-137). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching Dynamic Feedback Systems Thinking: an elementary view. Management Science, 24(8), 836-843.

Salomon, G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational Psychology and Technology: A Matter of Reciprocal Relations. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 222-241.

Salter, L., & Hearn, A. (Eds.). (1996). Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Scheetz, M., & Benson, T. (1994). Structuring Schools for Success: A View from Inside (Vol. 11). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Schneps, M. H., & Woll, S. (1989). A Private Universe [videorecording]: misconceptions that block learning

Matthew H. Schneps

Harvard University & the Smithsonian Institution (M. H. Schneps, Director). In P. M. Sadler & P. a. t. W. I. P. L. b. H. U. a. t. S. Institution (Producer). Santa Monica, CA: Pyramid Film & Video.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the Structure of the Disciplines (pp. 229-272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Shear, L., Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2004). Partnership Models: The Case of the Deformed Frogs. In M. C. Linn & E. A. Davis & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 412). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: University Press.

Sole, R., & Goodwin, B. C. (2000). Signs of life: how complexity pervades biology (1 ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Spalding, E. (2002). Of organelles and octagons: what do preservice secondary teachers learn from interdisciplinary teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 699-714.

Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In V. Patel (Ed.), Tenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 375-383). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoiciates.

Stott, P. A., Tett, S. F. B., Jones, G. S., Allen, M. R., Mitchell, J. F. B., & Jenkins, G. J. (2000). External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings. Science, 290, 2133-2137.

Sullenger, K., Turner, S., Caplan, H., Crummey, J., Cuming, R., Charron, C., & Corey, B. (2000). Culture Wars in the Classroom: Prospective Teachers Question Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 895-915.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Wandersee, J. H., Minztes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Learning: Alternative Conceptions in Science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan.

Warner, M. J., Kawase, M., & Newton, J. A. (2002). Recent studies of the overturning circulation in Hood Canal. Paper presented at the Puget Sound Research Conference, Olympia, WA.

Weaver, W. (1948). Science and Complexity. American Scientist, 36, 536-544.

Weingart, P., & Stehr, N. (Eds.). (2000). Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Inc.

White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1989). Metalearning and conceptual change. International Journal of Science Education, 11(Special Issue), 577-586.

Wiener, N. (1961). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (2 ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Wineburg, S. S., & Grossman, P. (Eds.). (2000). Interdisciplinary Curriculum: challenges to implementation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zaraza, R. (1995). Systems Thinking in the Classroom. Curriculum Technology Quarterly, 5(1), 1-7.

Zaraza, R., & Fisher, D. M. (1999). Training System Modelers: The NSF CC-STADUS and CC-SUSTAIN Projects. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 38-68). New York: Springer.

Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The Central Role of Fallacious Thinking in Science Education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.

-----------------------

[1] Quoted in Des MacHale, Wisdom (London, 2002). Referred to as “Einstein’s Dictum” in Natural Capitalism (1999).

[2] In studies related to learning skills and developing expertise, efficiency is associated with technical skills and the ability to perform a task efficiently; in contrast, “adaptive expertise” is associated with an openness to improvement and the intentional use of metacognitive skills to creatively look for ways to do something better and to adapt current skills to new situations (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986).

[3] ("No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," 2002).

[4] A paradigm is a set of organizing principles for thinking about particular types of problems.

[5] A system inquiry involves dynamic interactions among parts that generate changes in behavior over time (c.f., Forrester, 1971). System inquiries have led to the discovery of system archetypes - categories of systems and behaviors that occur in numerous natural and social environments. C. West ‘Churchman identified three images of inquiring systems: deterministic, goal-seeking, and probabilistic (Churchman, 1971).

[6] This “flow rate” is properly referred to as a “flux” because it is a rate per unit area.

[7] Jerome Bruner asserted that “to learn structure…is to learn how things are related” (Bruner, 1960, p.7), and used a dynamic systems as an example, namely, that to understand tides requires knowing how gravity acts upon a free-moving elastic body. By analogy, to understand the seasons requires knowing how solar insolation acts upon a rotationally tilted planetary body.

[8] Newton conceptualized the “law-abiding” system of celestial mechanics. Thermodynamic (stochastic) systems, quantum mechanics, relativistic physics, and chaotic nonlinear systems, have been conceptualized to explain “non-law-abiding” behavior patterns in physical, chemical, biological and social systems (Forrester, 1994; Harte, 2002; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).

[9] Bertalanffy recognized that the relationship among the parts, not the nature of the parts, determine system behaviors. Interactions among bacteria in a petrie dish, an economy, and an ecosystem may exhibit similar system behaviors, such as exponential growth and collapse.

[10] Cited in Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins (1999).

[11] The full report is online at URL: .

[12] In a collection, the elements neither interact nor exhibit behavior that changes over time, whether they are together or not.

[13] This informal typology includes the system design studies located in engineering and business contexts (e.g., control theory, operations research, cybernetics), but the focus of this research is on educational paradigms and methods that are related to the physical, life, and social sciences.

[14] Earth Systems Science is being institutionalized in academic programs such as the Department of Earth System Science at the UC Irvine, the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, the Institute for Computational Earth System Science at UC Santa Barbara), as well as Earth System Science course offerings in a number of universities.

[15] The Institute for Systems Biology at the University of Washington: .

[16] For the purposes of this research, interdisciplinary refers to research that appropriates methods from more than one discipline, for example, biophysics research. Multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary refers to research in different disciplinary fields that study the same problem. As the nature of academic research evolves, the forms of research methods, evidence and argument is also becoming more interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary (Klein, 1996; Kline, 1995; Salter & Hearn, 1996).

[17] Another way of describing this difference is between the classic celestial mechanics physics world view and the ecological, environmental and evolutionary world view, also known as the science of emergence (Capra, 1982; Sole & Goodwin, 2000).

[18] Dead zones are low-oxygen areas in lakes and coastal waters caused by high nutrient levels from pollution that have resulted in massive algal blooms followed by equally massive die-offs. Although living algae generates oxygen in the surface waters, the dead algae sinks and is consumed in deeper waters by bacteria that remove dissolved oxygen from the water in the process of feeding on the organic matter. With lowered dissolved oxygen levels, desirable species of fish die or leave the area, and the entire ecosystem becomes impoverished.

[19] “Counterintuitive” was introduced by Jay Forrester at MIT to express the impossibility of predicting how nonlinear models would behave (Forrester, 1971)

[20] Logic is called the “science of inference.”

[21] Italics in the original.

[22] Howard Kahane’s “Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life” (Kahane, 1971) is now in its ninth edition, and evaluates knowledge claims on the basis of whether or not the arguments are fallacious based on the rules of logic, or inference.

[23] Academic controversy has evolved as a distinct process from debate. The goal in an academic controversy is to arrive at a consensus (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). In contrast, debate is a competition between two sides of an argument that work against each other. The goal in traditional debate is for one side to put forth the better argument and therefore win the debate.

[24] Essentially all analytical methods, regardless of discipline, use standards that are as close as possible in composition to the target material.

[25] Lesley College in Boston, MA offers an elective course called Educational Uses of Systems Thinking, Models and Simulations, which describes system thinking as “the art and science of examining real world complexity and understanding patterns in relationships. Through computer-based exploration and discussion, students will develop understanding about this framework and the use of models and simulations as thinking tools in educational settings.”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download