Factors Influencing the Adoption of Systems Thinking in Primary and Secondary Schools in Switzerland

Abstract

Systems thinking is well suited to complement widespread linear thinking in schools. However, previous studies showed that computer modelling can act as a barrier. Therefore, this study focuses on qualitative systems thinking and thus excludes computers as potential barriers. We analyzed factors influencing the implementation of systems thinking in K-9 schools in Switzerland. In our design-based research teachers participated in a standardized training followed by several months of implementation in the classroom. The results showed that teachers' ex ante knowledge of systems thinking was poor; however, this is not a barrier to integrate systems thinking in schools. Easy-to-access supporting material and motivational factors such as self-efficacy and self-determination proved to be important; however, above all, the attribution of significance by teachers is the most promising leverage to foster the adoption of systems thinking in classrooms. Although this may seem trivial, it offers new ways to disseminate systems thinking in schools. The concepts of system dynamics are often overwhelming for novices. Further consideration is needed for how to introduce the concepts without turning people away.(LaVigne et al.

The Mystery Method Reconsidered—A Tool for Assessing Systems Thinking in Education for Sustainable Development

“…The connections we can find in the models or diagrams provide visuals for the students' capabilities for systems thinking. They are of high value for researching systems thinking, and comparable approaches are found in most studies on systems thinking or similar constructs (e.g., in Kunz, Frischknecht-Tobler, Bollmann-Zuberbuehler and Groesser [11]; Fanta, Braeutigam and Riess [19]; Assaraf and Orion [20]; and Mehren, Rempfler, Buchholz, Hartig and Ulrich-Riedhammer [9]). Since the mystery method also represents a kind of mapping technique, a more explicit treatment of such techniques is necessary to develop the mystery method's role in assessing systems thinking.…”

“…Many approaches to developing a system-related competence exist, including, among others, networked thinking [8], geographical system competence [9], and systems thinking [6,10], each with a conceptual overlap. In principle, such a competence is understood as the ability to describe, reconstruct, and model a complex realm of reality as a system and, on the basis of the model, provide explanations, make forecasts, and design, assess, and implement possible courses of action [11]. As noted previously, this is a central competence within ESD, along with socio-scientific reasoning and decision-making [12] and Gestaltungskompetenz [13] ( approx.…”

Teaching and Learning Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, Who, What For, How?

“…Of course, easy-to-access supporting material and motivational factors such as self-efficacy and selfdetermination are proved to be important. However, above all, the attribution of significance by teachers is the most promising leverage to foster the adoption of systems thinking in classrooms [45]. [8,24].…”

Factors affecting the adoption of systems thinking

“…DiMaggio () argued institutionalization is a political process, and the success of the process and the form it takes depends on the relative power of the actors who strive to steer it. Powell and Bromley () point out that “in economics rational choice institutionalism emphasises coordination mechanisms that solve collective action problems by generating new forms of commitment and rule‐following or norm‐building behaviour.” Kunz, Frischknecht‐Tobler, Bollman‐Zuberbuehler, and Groesser () argues that institutionalization includes, among others, those factors that foster systems thinking. For example, questions could be “Does my employer create an innovative environment that supports new ideas?…”

“…For example, questions could be “Does my employer create an innovative environment that supports new ideas? Does the organization provide the necessary resources that support the development of innovative thinking?” Kunz et al () also believe that in addition to (Figure a(A)) institutional efficacy, there must also be (Figure 1a(B)) self‐efficacy. In other words, are individuals confident in systems thinking?…”