This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 13 October 2012, At: 17:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Biological EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

The feasibility of systems thinking in biologyeducationKerst Boersma a , Arend Jan Waarlo & Kees Klaassena Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht University,Utrecht, The Netherlands

Version of record first published: 28 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Kerst Boersma, Arend Jan Waarlo & Kees Klaassen (2011): The feasibility of systems thinking inbiology education, Journal of Biological Education, 45:4, 190-197

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.627139

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Research paper

The feasibility of systems thinking inbiology educationKerst Boersma, Arend Jan Waarlo and Kees Klaassen

Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht University, Utrecht,The Netherlands

Systems thinking in biology education is an up and coming research topic, as yet with contrasting feasibility

claims. In biology education systems thinking can be understood as thinking backward and forward between

concrete biological objects and processes and systems models representing systems theoretical characteristics.

Some studies claim that systems thinking can be readily introduced at the level of primary-school education;

other studies claim that even in upper secondary-school education the introduction of systems thinking requires

a carefully outlined approach in order not to strain students’ capacities too much. In order to explain these con-

trasting claims a procedure of analysis was used to map and compare the conceptual frameworks of the various

studies, focusing on the selection of systems, references to systems theory and definitions of systems thinking.

The analysis demonstrates that the frameworks include different elements of systems thinking. In particular, the

analysis shows that the studies recommending the introduction of systems thinking in primary- or lower sec-

ondary-school education did not measure students’ ability to think forward and backward between concrete

objects and systems models. The analysis contributes to a discussion about useful preparatory learning and teach-

ing trajectories, preceding the formal introduction of systems thinking.

Keywords: systems thinking; systems concept; primary-school education; conceptual development; modelling

Introduction

Motive of the study

In recent decades the number of studies reporting about

systems thinking in education has increased. That is not

a coincidence since recent systems theory is better fit-

ting to physical and social reality than before, and ana-

lytical tools are available to predict possible future

systems behaviour. Systems thinking is considered an

important tool in decision-making and problem-solving

(Hogan 2000, 22). Since it contributes to our best

understanding of complex problems it is desirable to:

. . .address the widening gap between current best

understandings and analytical tools in the physical

and social sciences (informed by complex systems)

and the working knowledge of professionals, policy

makers, and citizens who must deal with challenging

social and global problems in the 21st century.

(Jacobson and Wilensky 2006, 13)

Noting the growing importance of systems thinking

we decided more than 10 years ago to investigate the

introduction of systems thinking in upper secondary-

school biology (Verhoeff 2003; Verhoeff, Waarlo and

Boersma 2008). Our general conclusion was that the

introduction of systems thinking in upper secondary-

school education is feasible but not at all straightfor-

ward.

Since then a number of studies have appeared

concerning primary- and lower secondary-school

students’ understanding of dynamic systems. Much to

our surprise, the results of these studies suggest that

the introduction of systems thinking can start in

primary-school education or lower secondary-school

education (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion 2005; Som-

mer 2005; Evagorou et al. 2009).

Although two of the present authors were

involved in the study by Verhoeff et al. (2008), the

motive to clarify the discrepancy is not only to know

if our analysis was correct and that the other studies

overlooked something essential. A clarification of the

discrepancy is important because it may provide

Corresponding author: Kerst Boersma, Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Utrecht University,

Postbus 85170, 3508 AD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: k.t.boersma@uu.nl

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION, VOLUME 45, NUMBER 4, DECEMBER 2011190

Journal of Biological Education ISSN 0021–9266 print/ISSN 2157–6009 online � 2011 Society of Biology

http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.627139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

further insights into when and how to develop sys-

tems thinking in biology education. It is accepted

that our understanding of the conditions for the for-

mal introduction of systems thinking should be revis-

ited if it is beyond reasonable doubt that primary-

school students show systems thinking competences.

The studies

Let us first introduce the various studies somewhat

further. Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) investi-

gated, using a pre–post test design, eighth-grade

junior high-school students’ perception of the water

cycle by implementing a teaching unit on water

resources. The findings indicated that most students

made some meaningful progress in their systems

thinking skills. It was concluded that introduction of

the first steps of systems thinking at the elementary

level might enable them to reach the higher levels of

systems thinking during junior high school (Ben-Zvi

Assaraf and Orion 2005, 557).

Recently Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz (2010) pub-

lished the results of a second study on eighth-grade

junior high-school students’ understanding of earth sys-

tems, which included an adapted list of systems thinking

components. Although it is not recommended in this

study to implement systems thinking in primary-school

education, it is included in our analysis.

Evagorou et al. (2009) investigated, using a pre–

post test design, the impact of a simulation-based

learning environment on elementary-school students

(11–12 years old), focusing on the ecosystem of a

marsh. Two tests were designed to probe the extent

to which students could apply their system thinking

skills in new, unfamiliar contexts. Their findings

indicated that the learning environment provoked

considerable improvements in some systems thinking

skills during a relatively brief learning process. There-

fore, these authors claimed that elementary-school

students have the potential to develop systems think-

ing skills and that the ‘introduction of systems think-

ing in elementary school is absolutely reasonable’

(Evagorou et al. 2009, 671).

Sommer (2005) presents, in her PhD thesis, the

results of a study in which third- and fourth-grade pri-

mary-school students (students aged 8–12 years) inves-

tigated the white stork’s relationships with the biotic

and abiotic environment, among others, by playing a

computer game. Systems competence was tested in a

pre–post test design. The results showed that the stu-

dents’ components of systems thinking in the area of

system organisation were well developed. It was

concluded that the competence of systems thinking

can already be acquired in primary school (Sommer

2005, 4).

Verhoeff (2003) presented, in his PhD thesis, the

results of a design study aiming at the introduction of

a first systems model in upper secondary-school

education (students aged 15–16 years) based on the

General Systems Theory. The first part of the learning

and teaching strategy focused on the development of a

general model of the cell as a system, while the second

part focused on the introduction and application of

the systems model. The study indicates that systems

thinking can be introduced in upper secondary-school

biology education by using a carefully outlined learn-

ing and teaching strategy consisting of a sequence of

modelling activities.

Research question

Following the study of Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion

(2005), other studies presenting empirical data about

students’ systems thinking in primary- and lower sec-

ondary-school education were sampled from a wider

pool of literature about systems thinking in science

education. The findings of the five studies suffice to

raise the following research question: ‘How can the

contrasting claims about the feasibility of systems

thinking in primary and secondary education be

explained?’.

An answer to this question can be found by con-

ducting a systematic analysis of the five studies. Such

an analysis also introduces other issues of general

interest, such as the methodological issue of how to

‘measure’ systems thinking and the didactical issue of

how to prepare usefully the formal introduction of

systems thinking. We will come back to this last

issue in the final section.

Method of analysisOutline of the procedure

In the educational literature systems thinking is not

unequivocally defined and it has been noticed that

there are as many lists of systems thinking skills as there

are schools of systems thinking (Booth Sweeney and

Sterman 2000, 250). However, it may be expected

that these differences cannot only be attributed to dif-

ferent schools of systems thinking but also to the dif-

ferent domains in which systems thinking is applied,

and by the objects that are considered as systems in

these domains. For example, it makes a difference

whether a technical, a social or a biological system is

considered as a system, since in these objects partly dif-

ferent systems characteristics may be recognised.

Consequently it was expected that the contrasting

conclusions might be because of different definitions

of systems thinking resulting from preferences for

different ‘schools’, disciplines and the different

objects presented as systems. Since the five afore-

mentioned studies handled a diversity of objects as

systems we decided to analyse their conceptual

frameworks in terms of general systems theoretical

characteristics identified in the literature about

systems theory. The analysis consisted of searching

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

the frameworks of the five studies for the presence of

the systems theoretical characteristics indicated in

Table 1. The frameworks were analysed by the first

and second author and a few discrepancies were dis-

cussed until complete agreement was reached.

Systems theoretical characteristics

In the historical development of systems thinking

three phases may be distinguished. Von Bertalanffy

founded systems theory in the 1930s, but it was not

before publication of his General Systems Theory in

1968 (Von Bertalanffy 1968; see also Koestler 1973)

that systems theory was applied in a large diversity of

disciplines. In the mean time Cybernetics, developed

in the 1950s (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1956; Bayrhuber

and Schaefer 1980), allowed some understanding of

biological systems’ dynamic behaviour. Nevertheless,

it was for many years impossible to describe ade-

quately the dynamic behaviour of biological systems.

Therefore, for most biologists systems theory and sys-

tems thinking remained a way of thinking about bio-

logical objects, without much impact on their

research. This situation changed in the 1970s when,

after the development of dynamic systems theories

(Prigogine and Stengers 1984; Thelen and Smith

1994), including Chaos and Complexity Theories,

computers made it possible to process large data sets

and to simulate the behaviour of complex biological

systems. Drawing on the literature about all three

systems theories, we compiled in Table 1 an over-

view of the basic systems theoretical characteristics.

Each characteristic is described in general terms and

specified or exemplified for biological systems.

Table 1 was used to characterise the conceptual

frameworks of the five aforementioned studies in

terms of explicit or implicit references to systems

theory of the studies with systems theoretical charac-

teristics. For example, implicit reference to Cyber-

netics was identified when concepts such as feedback

or self-regulation were mentioned.

ResultsWe searched in the conceptual frameworks of all five

studies for the objects presented as systems, a defini-

Table 1. Systems theoretical characteristics according to different systems theories. Each

characteristic is indicated as a general systems characteristic and specified or exemplified

for biological systems

Systems theory Systems theoretical characteristics

General Systems

Theory

1 Systems have an identity, which makes it possible to identify them as objects. Not all biological

systems have a distinct systems boundary. Cells and organisms generally have a distinct system

boundary, populations and ecosystems generally have not.

2 Systems consist of components or partial systems of the same or different categories, which

means that a system not only has its own identity, but also is a partial system in a higher-order

system. Biological systems’ components are partial systems of a higher-order system. The levels

according to which biological systems can be categorised are indicated as levels of biological

organisation (eg the cellular and the ecosystem level).

3 Systems’ components (partial systems) perform functions in the system. In biological systems like

organisms organs perform a specific function (eg organs in an organism).

4 Systems’ components (or partial systems) are interacting with each other. In biological systems

partial systems are interacting (eg the interaction between a predator and its prey).

5 A distinction can be made between open and closed systems. Open systems are exchanging

matter, energy and/or information with the environment, closed systems do not.

Biological systems are open systems and have an input, throughput and output of matter, energy

and information. Energy flows and cycles of matter can be identified.

Cybernetics 6 Systems are self-regulating systems, which means that feedback mechanisms effectuate a

reduction of exceeding values of systems properties and a return to original values (set points) or

mean values. In biological systems many values of properties are in equilibrium and balance

around a mean value (eg the mean size of a population). At the level of the cell and the organism

this process is called homeostasis.

Dynamic systems

theories

7 An open systems can be a self-organising system, which means it goes through a lifecycle in

which emergent properties result from interaction between components (or partial systems).

Biological systems are self-organising systems, demonstrate reproduction at several levels of

biological organisation and have emerged in the course of evolution.

8 During its lifetime an open system is in equilibrium for one or more limited periods of time. From

such a temporary equilibrium the system will typically make a transition into a chaotic phase,

in which the predictability of its future development is limited. From a chaotic phase the system

may develop into one of several new equilibrium states. Biological systems demonstrate

equilibrium for limited periods of time (eg a pond with or without duck weed).

Note: The concepts in bold are used as indicators for analysing the frameworks of systems thinking of the five studies (see Table 2).

192 K. BOERSMA ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

tion of a system, references to systems theory, a defi-

nition of systems thinking, and a list of elements of

systems thinking. An overview of the results of this

analysis is presented in Table 2.

The results show that the studies focus on different

objects as systems, ranging from the water cycle (Ben

Zvi-Assaraf and Orion 2005) and a pizzeria (Evaga-

rou et al. 2009) to cells (Verhoeff 2003).

Furthermore, it may be noticed that the studies of

Evagorou et al. (2009), Sommer (2005) and Verhoeff

(2003) present a definition of systems thinking. The

definitions of Sommer (2005) and Evagorou et al.

(2009) focus on general characteristics of systems,

while Verhoeff’s (2003) definition focuses explicitly

on biological systems.

The results also show that only the studies of

Sommer (2005) and Verhoeff (2003) refer explicitly

to systems theory and that only the study of Verhoeff

(2003) refers to all three systems theories. The frame-

works of elements of systems thinking are sometimes

partly (Sommer 2005) or entirely based on systems

theory or on a review of literature about systems

thinking (both studies of Ben-Zvi Assaraf [Ben-Zvi

Assaraf and Orion 2005; Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz

2010], Evagarou et al. [2009], and partly Sommer

[2005]). The frameworks of elements of both studies

of Ben-Zvi Assaraf (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion

2005; Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz 2010) and

Verhoeff (2003) are specified respectively to earth

science and biology.

If the elements of systems thinking are considered,

it can be noticed that the first four studies generally

refer in their elements to specific systems characteris-

tics, while Verhoeff (2003) refers to different systems

theories in his second element, and to the relation

between biological objects and systems models in his

third element. In order to facilitate a comparison

between the elements of systems thinking referring to

systems theoretical characteristics, the results presented

in Table 2 are collected in Table 3.

Table 3 shows that references to all systems theo-

retical characteristics from Table 1 were only found

in the framework of Verhoeff (2003), and that not

all elements of systems thinking refer to systems the-

oretical characteristics. Some elements of systems

thinking were not specific enough to allow an

unquestionable identification of systems theoretical

characteristics. This was especially the case when ele-

ments of systems thinking referred to the behaviour

of dynamic systems (eg element no. 5 of systems

thinking of Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion [2005] and

Sommer [2005]). Furthermore, systems theoretical

components from Cybernetics were found in the

studies of Evagorou et al. (2009), Sommer (2005)

and Verhoeff (2003). Elements of systems thinking

with unquestionable systems theoretical characteristics

from dynamic systems theories were only found in

the study of Verhoeff (2003).

Systems theoretical characteristic number 3, that

components of a system perform a function, was

only distinguished in the study of Verhoeff (2003)

and systems theoretical characteristic number 5, that

systems should be considered as open systems, was

not found in the studies of Sommer (2005) and

Evagorou et al. (2009). Since the systems boundary

can be considered as one of systems theory’s most

basic characteristics it is remarkable that this systems

theoretical characteristic is missing in both studies of

Ben-Zvi Assaraf (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion 2005;

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz 2010). This finding cor-

relates with the finding that in these studies objects

with an ill-defined systems boundary were selected

(see Table 2). Since in systems with an ill-defined

systems boundary the systems’ components and the

interaction between these components are the most

striking characteristics, it seems no coincidence that

the corresponding systems theoretical characteristics

numbers 2 and 4 were found in all studies.

Conclusions and discussionExplanation of the contrasting claims

about the feasibility of systems thinking

Although Table 3 reveals some remarkable differ-

ences between the elements of systems thinking and

its references to systems theoretical characteristics, we

do not see that these differences account for the con-

trasting claims. On closer inspection, however, we

noted that the framework of Verhoeff (2003) con-

tains one element of systems thinking that is not

present in the other studies. It is his third element

that students should be able to think backward and

forward between general systems models and con-

crete biological objects and processes. This requires

that students should be able to compare an abstract

systems model with concrete biological objects and

processes, and to understand which systems theoreti-

cal characteristics an object should have in order to

count as a system. Therefore, it is suggested that the

contrasting claims about the feasibility of systems

thinking can be explained by whether or not the

recognition of an object as a system is considered to

be an essential element of systems thinking.

Some additional support for this explanation can be

found. Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz (2010, 545) argue

that ‘. . .to understand whole systems, separate under-

standings of the parts will not suffice. One must

acquire, rather, a holistic view of the system as an

entity in itself, having characteristics beyond its mere

parts’. However, in their discussion it is concluded

that their findings ‘. . .are consistent with Ben-Zvi

Assaraf and Orion’s [2005] earlier result that students

perceive the water cycle system as a set of unrelated

pieces of knowledge. They understand various hydro-

biological processes, but lack the perception of the

system as one unit’ (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz 2010,

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

Table 2. Characteristics of the conceptual frameworks

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005)

Object Water cycle

Definition of a system A system is an entity that maintains its existence and functions as a whole

through the interaction of its parts. However, this group of interacting,

interrelated or interdependent parts that form a complex and unified

whole must have a specific purpose, and in order for the system to

optimally carry out its purpose all parts must be present. Thus the system

attempts to maintain its stability through feedback. The interrelationships

among the variables are connected by a cause and effect feedback loop,

and consequently the status of one or more variables affects the status of

one or more variables, affects the status of the other variables. Yet, the

properties attributable to the system as a whole are not those of the

individual components that make up the system. (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and

Orion 2005, 519–520)

Reference to systems theory Not explicitly; implicitly to Cybernetics

Definition of systems thinking and/or

framework of elements of systems thinking

The ability:

1. to identify the components of a system and processes within the

system

(2, 4)

2. to identify relationships among the system’s components (4)

3. to organise the systems components and processes within a frame-

work of relationships (4)

4. to make generalisations

5. to identify dynamic relationships within the system

6. to understand the hidden dimensions of the system

7. to understand the cyclic nature of systems (5)

8. to think temporally: retrospection and prediction (Ben-Zvi Assaraf

and Orion 2005, 523)

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz (2010)

Objects School environment; Ecosystem of the poles.

Definition of a system No

Reference to systems theory Not explicitly; implicitly to Cybernetics

Definition of systems thinking and/or

framework of elements of systems thinking

The ability:

1. to identify the components of a system and processes within the

system

(2, 4)

2. to identify dynamic relationships among the system’s components

(4)

3. to organise the systems components and processes within a frame-

work of relationships (4)

4. to understand the cyclic nature of systems – a perception of the

system as a whole (5) (Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orpaz 2010, 529)

Evagorou et al. (2009)

Objects Marsh; Pizzeria; Forest

Definition of a system Taken from Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) (see earlier)

Reference to systems theory Not explicitly; implicitly to Cybernetics

(Continued)

194 K. BOERSMA ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

Table 2. (Continued)

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005)

Object Water cycle

Definition of systems thinking and/or

framework of elements of systems thinking

Systems thinking is the ability to understand and interpret complex

systems (Evagorou et al. 2009, 655). The identification of:

1. the elements of a system (2)

2. the spatial boundaries of a system (1)

3. the temporal boundaries of a system (1)

4. several subsystems within a single system (2)

5. the influence of specific elements of the system on other elements,

or the whole system (4)

6. the changes that need to take place in order to observe certain

patterns (6)

7. the feedback effects in a system (6) (Evagorou et al. 2009, 663)

Sommer (2005; translated from German)

Objects White stork; School

Definition of a system Quoting Von Bertalanffy (1968): ‘Systems are sets of elements standing in

interaction’

Reference to systems theory General Systems Theory; implicitly to Cybernetics and dynamic systems

theories

Definition of systems thinking and/or

framework of elements of systems thinking

Systems thinking is the representation of basic systems characteristics in a

person’s thinking, and is composed of the following components:

1. Identification of important components of the system, and their

interrelations (2, 4)

2. Recognising and drawing systems boundaries (1)

3. Organising systems components and interrelations in a framework

(2, 4)

4. Distinguishing characteristics of a system from characteristics of its

components (2, 4)

5. Recognising dynamic interrelations

6. Predicting the results of changes (6)

7. Evaluating complex interactions in a system

8. Identifying and describing feedback processes (6) (Sommer 2005,

78)

Verhoeff (2003)

Object Cell

Definition of a system According to the three systems theories; according to the General Systems

Theory a biological system has the following characteristics:

1. Biological objects can be seen as systems with an internal and an

external environment separated by a systems boundary

2. Living systems are open systems with a continuous exchange of

material, energy and information with the external environment

3. Living systems are characterised by their form, function and

behaviour

4. Living systems are hierarchical; several levels of organisation can

be distinguished

5. At each level of biological organisation, living systems can be dis-

tinguished that are functional subsystems of the system at a higher

level of organisation (Verhoeff 2003, 40)

Reference to systems theory Explicitly to General Systems Theory, Cybernetics and dynamic systems

theories

(Continued)

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

546). In the study of Sommer (2005) we did not find

evidence that students understood the white stork sys-

tem as a whole. What was instead measured was the

increase in students’ understanding of the number of

relations between the systems components. The results

from the study of Evagorou et al. (2009, 665) on the

pizzeria task demonstrate that the pizzeria as a system

was not equally defined by all students.

A methodological note

Only the study of Verhoeff (2003) focuses on a system

(the cell) with a distinct systems boundary, while in all

other studies the objects presented do not have distinct

systems boundaries (see Table 2). The pizzeria pre-

sented by Evagorou et al. (2009) may be defined as

the building being an open system, influenced by its

clients, or as the building including the clients; the lat-

ter interpretation is emphasised in Evagorou et al.’s

study. The water cycle in the study of Ben-Zvi Assaraf

and Orion (2005, 546) is not embedded in an ecosys-

tem with a distinct systems boundary. And the white

stork of the study of Sommer (2005) is living in two

ecosystems, in Africa and western Europe, and travels

to and fro. Summing up, it may be questioned if the

objects selected in the four other studies are appropri-

ate for testing students’ systems understanding. We,

Table 2. (Continued)

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005)

Object Water cycle

Definition of systems thinking and/or

framework of elements of systems thinking

Systems thinking competence is the ability and willingness to link different

levels of biological organisation from the perspective that natural wholes,

such as organisms, are complex and composite, consisting of many

interacting parts, which may be themselves lesser wholes, such as cells in

the organism (Verhoeff 2003, 4)

1. Being able to ‘think in levels of biological organisation’ (2)

2. Being able to choose a certain systems perspective and use the

subsequent descriptions of the system characteristics⁄ as a guideline

to understand biological phenomena (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

3. Being able to think backward and forward between general sys-

tems models and concrete biological objects and processes (Ver-

hoeff 2003, 46)

Notes: The numerals in parentheses following systems thinking elements refer to the systems theoretical characteristics presented in Table 1; numerals are notindicated when systems thinking characteristics could not be attributed unequivocally; ⁄the systems characteristics referred to are arranged according to the differ-

ent systems theories (Verhoeff 2003, 37–43) and largely conform to the systems characteristics in Table 1.

Table 3. Correlation between the systems theoretical characteristics (Table 1) and

elements of systems thinking (Table 2)

Systems theoretical characteristics Ben-Zvi Assaraf and

Orion (2005)

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and

Orpaz (2010)

Evagorou

et al. (2009)

Sommer

(2005)

Verhoeff

(2003)

1. Identity and systems boundary 2, 3 2 2

2. Consists of different

(categories of) components

1 1 1, 4 1, 3, 4 1, 2

3. Components (partial systems)

perform functions

2

4. Interaction between

components of the system

1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 5 1, 3, 4, 2

5. Open systems with input and

output

7 4 2

6. Self-regulation by feedback

mechanisms

6, 7 6, 8 2

7. Open systems as self-

organising systems

2

8. Temporary phases of

equilibrium

2

Note: The numerals in the columns 2–6 are the numerals of the elements of systems thinking represented in Table 2.

196 K. BOERSMA ET AL. ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2

therefore, recommend that in order to test students’

systems thinking ability, objects with distinct systems

boundaries need to be selected.

How to prepare usefully the formal intro-

duction of systems thinking

We have tried to account for the contrasting claims

about the feasibility of systems thinking by noting

that the studies recommending the introduction of

systems thinking in primary- or lower secondary-

school education did not measure students’ ability to

think forward and backward between concrete

objects and systems models. What further supports

this account is Verhoeff’s (2003) finding that pre-

cisely the meaningful preparation of the required for-

ward and backward thinking turned out to be

difficult to achieve. In the first part of Verhoeff’s

(2003) learning and teaching trajectory a general

model of the cell is developed by comparing free-liv-

ing cells with cells in organisms and attributing fun-

damental life processes to both types of cells. It was

intended that students would develop in the first part

not only a general model of the cell, but also a

motive for the introduction of a general systems

model in the second part. Although the study was

successful in developing a general model of the cell,

it was not successful in developing a motive for sys-

tems thinking. Consequently, the students did not

experience the need to introduce a model that could

equally be applied to cells, organs and organisms. It

was overlooked that a general systems model is gen-

eral indeed, and that from a student’s perspective it

makes no sense to introduce it. The introduction of

such a model as meaningful to students requires more

careful preparation.

In conclusion, we conjecture that it is worthwhile

elaborating learning and teaching trajectories on a

variety of biological objects, such that in these

objects or categories of objects a number of general

characteristics are made explicit. In such an approach,

in which similarities and differences are discussed, it

may be helpful to represent the similarities in a

model of the super-ordinate category. Considering

students’ prior knowledge and experience it seems

obvious to start at the level of the organism and des-

cend from there to the level of the organ and the

cell and to ascend to the level of the population and

community (Knippels 2002). If students notice that

the same characteristics can be recognised in objects

of different levels of biological organisation, a general

systems model can be introduced, representing sys-

tems theoretical characteristics that apply to objects

on all these levels. An alternative for such an induc-

tive approach might be to search for basic cognitive

structures underlying systems thinking, such as cau-

sality, form–function relation and part–whole rela-

tion. Such basic cognitive structures are embedded in

students’ early bodily experiences (Lakoff and John-

son 1999) and may be appropriate starting points for

their conceptual development (Klaassen et al. 2008),

including the development of the systems concept.

Following this line of reasoning it can be expected

that the data presented in the four studies other than

Verhoeff (2003) will reveal some of these basic cog-

nitive structures.

References

Ashby, W.R. 1956. An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall

Ltd.

Bayrhuber, H., and G. Schaefer. 1980. Kybernetische Biologie. Koln: Aulis

Verlag.

Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., and N. Orion. 2005. Development of system thinking

skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Sci-

ence Teaching 42, no. 5: 518–60.

Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., and T. Orpaz. 2010. The ‘Life at the poles’ study unit:

Developing junior high school students’ ability to recognize the rela-

tions between earth systems. Research in Science Education 40, no. 4:

525–49.

Booth Sweeney, L., and J.D. Sterman. 2000. Bathtub dynamics: Initial

results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review 16, no.

4: 249–86.

Evagorou, M., K. Korfiatis, C. Nicolaou, and C. Constantinou. 2009. An

investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing

system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-

graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education 31,

no. 5: 655–74.

Hogan, K. 2000. Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of

Biological Education 35, no. 1: 22–8.

Jacobson, M.J., and U. Wilensky. 2006. Complex systems in education: Sci-

entific and educational importance and implications for the learning

sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 15, no. 1: 11–34.

Klaassen, K., A. Westra, K. Emmett, H. Eijkelhof, and P. Lijnse. 2008.

Introducing mechanics by tapping core causal knowledge. Physics Edu-

cation 43: 433–9.

Knippels, M.C.P.J. 2002. Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics

in biology education. The yo-yo learning and teaching strategy. Utrecht, The

Netherlands: CDß-Press.

Koestler, A. 1973. The tree and the candle. In Unity through diver-

sity. A Festschrift for Ludwig von Bertalanffy, ed. W. Gray and

N.D. Rizzo, 287–314. New York: Gordon and Breach Science

Publishers.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind

and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.

Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue

with nature. New York: Bantam Books.

Sommer, C. 2005. Untersuchung der Systemkompetenz von Grundschulern im

Bereich Biologie. PhD diss., Christian-Albrechts-Universitat Kiel, Ger-

many.

Thelen, E., and L.B. Smith. 1994. A dynamic systems approach to the develop-

ment of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Verhoeff, R.P. 2003. Towards systems thinking in cell biology education. PhD

diss., Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-b Press.

Verhoeff, R.P., A.J. Waarlo, and K.Th. Boersma. 2008. Systems modelling

and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. Inter-

national Journal of Science Education 30, no. 4: 543–68.

Von Bertalanffy, L. 1968. General systems theory: Foundations, development,

application. New York: George Braziller.

Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics. New York: Wiley.

____________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH PAPER 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 1

7:13

13

Oct

ober

201

2