Critical thinking and systems thinking: towards a critical literacy for systems thinking in practice

About the book: In reflective problem solving and thoughtful decision making using critical thinking one considers evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand. In this book, the authors present topical research in the study of critical thinking. Topics discussed include developing critical thinking through probability models; the promotion of critical thinking skills through argument mapping; an instructional model for teacher training in critical thinking; advanced academic literacy and critical thinking and critical thinking and higher education

Ecological conversations and systems thinking

Ideas like ‘ecosystems approach’ or ‘complex adaptive systems’ are often invoked as a panacea for addressing the complex interrelationships and interdependencies associated with issues of climate change. But thinking about nature through ‘systems’ invokes different perspectives, and therefore limitations on our understanding of nature. Systems are maps – conceptual devices for making sense of complex realities and communicating with others about improving those realities. Worthwhile enthusiasm for the study of living systems by complexity scientists and chaos theorists can sometimes distract attention away from this basic premise behind systems thinking. The semiotic idea of confusing the map for the territory is significant particularly when systems are used not only as (inevitably partial) representations of reality, but also as mediating devices for effective ecological conversation with the purpose of generating meaning and value. Fritjof Capra’s ideas on ecoliteracy provides an example of a well-intentioned systems-informed approach towards better informed conversations on environmental issues, but how politically sensitive is this framing device? Building on other systems philosophers - West Churchman, Werner Ulrich and Humberto Maturana - a critical systems approach towards supporting ecological conversations is explored identifying three distinct systems framing – frameworks for understanding (fwU), frameworks for practice (fwP), and frameworks for responsibility(fwR). Whereas fwU can help appreciate the holistic realities of the natural world, fwP can support constructive engagement with multiple perspectives, and fwR reminds us of the limitations of any fwU and fwP whilst keeping attention to improving our framing devices to suite demands of environmental responsibility. Although the gift of framing is one shared by all humans, some frameworks of reference are inevitably given primacy over others, particularly in formulating policy and guiding action. This raises questions about who constructs the framing devices and what legitimacy they have

How can we think the complex?

In this chapter we want to provide philosophical tools for understanding and reasoning about complex systems. Classical thinking, which is taught at most schools and universities, has several problems for coping with complexity. We review classical thinking and its drawbacks when dealing with complexity, for then presenting ways of thinking which allow the better understanding of complex systems. Examples illustrate the ideas presented. This chapter does not deal with specific tools and techniques for managing complex systems, but we try to bring forth ideas that facilitate the thinking and speaking about complex systems

Sociohydrologic Systems Thinking: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Operationalization and Modeling of Coupled Human-Water Systems

One of the keys to science and environmental literacy is systems thinking. Learning how to think about the interactions between systems, the far-reaching effects of a system, and the dynamic nature of systems are all critical outcomes of science learning. However, students need support to develop systems thinking skills in undergraduate geoscience classrooms. While systems thinking-focused instruction has the potential to benefit student learning, gaps exist in our understanding of students’ use of systems thinking to operationalize and model SHS, as well as their metacognitive evaluation of systems thinking. To address this need, we have designed, implemented, refined, and studied an introductory-level, interdisciplinary course focused on coupled human-water, or sociohydrologic, systems. Data for this study comes from three consecutive iterations of the course and involves student models and explanations for a socio-hydrologic issue (n = 163). To analyze this data, we counted themed features of the drawn models and applied an operationalization rubric to the written responses. Analyses of the written explanations reveal statistically-significant differences between underlying categories of systems thinking (F(5, 768) = 401.6, p \u3c 0.05). Students were best able to operationalize their systems thinking about problem identification (M = 2.22, SD = 0.73) as compared to unintended consequences (M = 1.43, SD = 1.11). Student-generated systems thinking models revealed statistically significant differences between system components, patterns, and mechanisms, F(2, 132) = 3.06, p \u3c 0.05. Students focused most strongly on system components (M = 13.54, SD = 7.15) as compared to related processes or mechanisms. Qualitative data demonstrated three types of model limitation including scope/scale, temporal, and specific components/mechanisms/patterns excluded. These findings have implications for supporting systems thinking in undergraduate geoscience classrooms, as well as insight into links between these two skills

Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond

This pdf article discusses the need for teaching systems thinking and critical thinking skills. Systems thinking and systems dynamics are important for developing effective strategies to close the gap between the interdependent nature of our problems and our ability to understand them. This article calls for a clearer view of the nature of systems thinking and the education system into which it must be transferred. Educational levels: Graduate or professional

Thinking Tracks for Integrated Systems Design

The paper investigates systems thinking and systems engineering. After a short literature review, the paper presents, as a means for systems thinking, twelve thinking tracks. The tracks can be used as creativity starter, checklist, and as means to investigate effects of design decisions taken early in the process. Tracks include thinking about time, risk and safety, and different types of life-cycles. The thinking tracks are based on literature, teaching experience and practice as a system designer. By using the tracks a more complete picture of the system under design, the issue to be solved, the context, stakeholders and the rest of the world is created

Framing professional competencies for systems thinking in practice: final report of an action research eSTEeM inquiry

The Open University eSTEeM project (The OU Centre for STEM Pedagogy) was a 12-month inquiry beginning March 2017 building on an initial eSTEeM project (2014-2016) entitled ‘Enhancing Systems Thinking in Practice in the Workplace’ reported on in Reynolds et al (2016). The initial report highlighted the challenges of enacting systems thinking in practice (STiP) in the workplace after qualifying with STiP core modules at The OU. Expressions of interest were manifest amongst systems thinking practitioners and employers for having some kind of formalised externally validated ‘competency framework’ for professional recognition of systems thinking in practice. The primary aim of the inquiry was to provide STiP alumni with externally recognised institutionalised professional backing for their newly acquired skill-sets associated with systems thinking. The project aimed to design a learning system – through the idea of an action learning lab – for developing a competency framework associated with systems thinking in practice. The project was carried out by a core team of three academics – Reynolds, Shah, and van Ameijde, associated with the Applied Systems Thinking in Practice (ASTiP) Group in the School of Engineering and Innovation, along with advice and support from other ASTiP colleagues – most notably Ray Ison and Chris Blackmore. The inquiry comprised some desktop research on competency framings, a series of online interviews, the drafting of an interim report, a video recording of employee/ employer interaction regarding application of STiP competencies in the workplace, a workshop held in London Regional Office in June 2017, and follow-up reporting and conversations arising from the workshop. One significant outcome from this activity led to ideas and consultations with Employer representatives, professional bodies and the Institute for Apprenticeships to initiate a Trailblazing Committee for a new Systems Thinking Practitioner apprenticeship Standard

Systems thinking and Equity-focused evaluations

Questions about access to resources - who gets what? - ought not to be seen in isolation from related questions of power - who owns what? They also ought not to be seen in isolation from questions of knowledge and expertise - who does what? Moreover these questions relate to important questions regarding legitimacy - who gets affected by what some people get? Such questions are often more easily avoided in a normal evaluation for fear of the ethics and politics involved in addressing them. But such questions as formulated above also may not be easy to grasp or work with in terms of an approach to evaluating an intervention. To the systems thinker C. West Churchman (1913-2004), such ethical and political questions were profoundly important. It was Churchman's life-long task to surface the need to address such questions. One of the most significant insights offered by Churchman in order to address ethical issues was the need to engage meaningfully with different perspectives

Framing purposeful evaluation through critical systems thinking

Two traditions of practice – evaluation and systems – share three significant concerns regarding development intervention: (i) making sense of complex interrelationships and the continual change brought about by such relationships; (ii) engaging with multiple (including exogenous and endogenous), often conflicting, perspectives on situations; and (iii) challenging vicious cycles of practice and understanding by cultivating a more radical learning culture. These challenges might be described successively in terms of cultivating a shift from (i) summative to formative evaluation (ii) positional bargaining to interest based negotiation, and (iii) purposive to purposeful action. Some ideas from traditions of social learning and critical systems thinking are presented to support a re-framing of intervention and evaluation from one serving the 'project state' towards one serving more radical transformative practice