Systems Thinking in Ecological and Physiological Systems and the Role of Representations

Mambrey, Sophia; Wellmanns, Andrea; Timm, Justin; Schmiemann, Philipp

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98144-0_6

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to analyze students' systems thinking in detail, we also examined the linked structure of relations they took into account. First, and in line with previous results (Strogatz, 2001;Gotwals and Songer, 2010;Hokayem, 2016;Mehren et al, 2018;Mambrey et al, 2022b), we observed that students' mentions of low linked relationships greatly outweighed the references to high linked relations connecting multiple elements. When examining the specific types of relations, there was a particularly high occurrence of unidirectional, bidirectional, and complex relations bridging one element.…”

Section: Systems Thinkingsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Systems can be big or small, and relationships and behaviors may be simple or complex. Notably, there is a considerable difference between the degree of linkage in relationships (Jin et al, 2019;Mambrey et al, 2020Mambrey et al, , 2022b. Simple relations immediately connect two elements.…”

Section: Systems Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be well exemplified with a food web and the representation thereof. A statement mentioning rabbits eating grass would name a simple relationship (Mambrey et al, 2022b). This direct predator-prey relationship would be graphically represented by an arrow from prey to predator within a food web.…”

Section: Systems Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most simple example of a complex relationship is food competition between two herbivores such as rabbit and goose for grass, as the system is branched starting from the grass as central node. Previous research in the context of ecology shows that students often prefer to refer to low linked relationships including a small number of elements as an increased number of elements in a system strongly affects the difficulty of comprehension (Strogatz, 2001;Gotwals and Songer, 2010;Hokayem, 2016;Mehren et al, 2018;Mambrey et al, 2022b).…”

Section: Systems Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, modeling can involve inferring statements about future system states but also understanding and/or creating system models (e.g., Sommer and Lücken, 2010;Mehren et al, 2018;Gilissen et al, 2020;Mambrey et al, 2020;Streiling et al, 2021). From a different perspective, models are viewed as representations of complex systems (Streiling et al, 2021;Kiesewetter and Schmiemann, 2022;Mambrey et al, 2022b). In addition, they are the starting point for developing predictions (Gilissen et al, 2020).…”

Section: Modeling In Systems Thinking Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Students’ systems thinking while modeling a dynamic ecological system

Lankers,

Timm,

Schmiemann

2023

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world is facing global ecological changes, making it essential to prepare the future generation with the necessary understanding to effectively navigate and address complex tasks. Previous research has shown that both systems thinking and scientific modeling are particularly relevant in investigating the comprehensive understanding of such complex phenomena. However, there has been little research on the interrelation between systems thinking and scientific modeling. To address this research gap, we conducted a thinking-aloud study with nine high school students by confronting them with a simulation of a dynamic ecological system. Our qualitative content analysis of the students’ statements indicates an interrelation between systems thinking and scientific modeling. The students infrequently show systems thinking during the exploration, whereas when developing a graphical model, the students are involved in identifying the system organization and analyzing the system behavior. When predicting future system states, students engage in modeling the system evolution. Furthermore, during verbalizing analogies and experiences, students refer to the system organization and behavior, whereas in mental modeling, students additionally model the system evolution. These results illustrate a central difference between the two perspectives. Thus, scientific modeling focuses on students’ activities during their understanding process, while systems thinking addresses students’ analysis of systems and their properties. While the phenomenon exploration may not require systems thinking, pattern recognition and model development are frequently associated with identifying the system organization and analyzing the system behavior. Systems thinking must also be applied when deriving possible future system states by modeling the system evolution, an activity that is closely related to the prediction phase of scientific modeling. Interestingly, in our study, the students also demonstrated the modeling of system evolution in their mental modeling. In conclusion, a complementary consideration of systems thinking and scientific modeling affords a deeper understanding of students’ cognitive processes in dealing with complex phenomena.

show abstract