Dr. Sean BridgenDr. Terry Musser

Penn State University

At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to:

Identify the primary concepts of systemic thinking

Articulate connections between systemic thinking and systemic inquiry

Identify ways to utilize systemic inquiry in their own settings

What is systemic thinking?

Looking at the whole

Adding parts does not = the whole

Change is necessary

Interaction with the environment is inevitable

Human Social Systems

Assembly of people organized to accomplish a purpose;

Maintain sets of relations among system members;

Are open to and interact with the environment.

Human Social Systems

Change occurring in 1 part affects all parts

Structured activities

◦ Information processing

◦ Planning

◦ Performing

◦Monitoring

Traditional assessment does not show how effective a system is within the larger system.

Judging the quality is illogical & unimportant

Ontology (what) study

Epistemology (how) study

Two world views of scientific inquiry:

1. The world consists of “things”

Things are “stills” from a moving picture

2. The world consists of processes

Properties of systems emerge after an understanding of the organizing relationships between entities

We design systems that value and serve people. We design systems that build and nurture human qualities. We believe that it is our destiny -- and it is within our power -- to guide our evolution and the evolution of our systems and to shape our individual and collective future by design. Therefore, we should embrace systems design as an essential part of our professional repertoire. We can attain this by developing organizational capacity and individual and collective capability in systems design.

- Banathy, 1996

What is a concept map?

• A visual representation of knowledge

• Concepts usually words or pictures in circles

or boxes

• Relationships between concepts depicted on

lines linking the concepts

Using the paper and markers, draw a concept map of the advising system in which you work;

Be sure to include lines which connect sub-systems;

You have 10 minutes!

GO!

THE ADVISING

TABLE

Advisor

StudentInstitution

Values

Cultural Beliefs

Educational Goals

Interests

Strengths/Weaknesses

Past performance

Mission

Advising History

Advising Culture

Educational

Opportunities

ResourcesValues

Cultural BeliefsDisciplinary Theories/Knowledge

Past Advising Experiences

Institutional Knowledge

Desire to Advise/Mentor Students

External

Influences

Finances

Family Economic Outlooks

Career Trends and Counseling

Advising Theories/Techniques

THE CONCEPT OF ADVISING

Race/Ethnicity

IQ

Religion

Aptitude

Motivation

Family

StructureSupport or Lack of Support

Scholarship Requirements

Financial AidDebt Load

Sexual Identity

Politics

Investments

MajorMinor

Study AbroadGrad School Prep

InternshipHobbies

Passions

Race/Ethnicity

Religion

Sexual Identity

Student Development Theory

Decision-Making Theory/Skills

Communications skills (listening, reflecting, etc.)

Teaching/Learning Theory/Skills

Academic Programs

Referrals

Support Services Policies/Procedures

Good or Bad?

Personal arsenal of theories/philosophies

Institutional Type

Technology

Personnel$$

Physical Plant

Institutional History

Faculty

Industry

Solid Line = Direct connection or impact

Dashed Line = Indirect connection or impact

Use of technology in advising

Advising Styles/Theories (developmental, appreciative, etc.)

Faculty or professional adviser?

shap

es

determ

ines

Vision

imp

acts

Methodology

Determined by the context, content, & type of system being examined;

How does the system change and adapt?

Constructivist approach◦ Allow the system to determine its meanings;◦ Members & sub-systems may apply different

meanings to the same thing;

- Banathy, 1996

Study of university advising system

Conducted over a full academic year

Used Hutchins 10 principals for Systemic Thinking

Also observed systemic change

Conclusions

Advising needs a “distinct identity”

The behavior of a system defines its identity, not its “rhetoric or stated goals” (Meadows)

How does the behavior of a system compare to its stated purposes?