ed 301 146 author mandinach, ellen b.; thorpe, margaret e. · 2014-03-24 · author mandinach,...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 301 146 IR 013 329
AUTHOR Mandinach, Ellen B.; Thorpe, Margaret E.TITLE The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation
Project. Technical Report, Part 1.INSTITUTION Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.REPORT NO ETC-TR87-6PUB DATE Sep 87CONTRACT 400-83-0041NOTE 51p.; A six-page article from the "New York Times
Magazine" of April 8, 1973, reproduced in AppenG.Lx B,is barely legible. For part 2 of this technicalreport, see IR 013 470.
PUB TYPE Reports - Res-larch/Technical (143) --Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTCtS *Cognitive Processes; *Computer Simulation; *Computer
Software; Curriculum Development; IntermodeDifferences; Models; Science Instruction; SecondaryEducation; *Secondary School Science; SocialStudies
IDENTIP:ERS Irattleboro Union High School VT; *Systems Dynamics;Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation
Project
ABSTRACTThis document reports on the first year of the STACI
(Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation) project, a two-yearproject which is examining the cognitive demands and consequences ofusing the STELLA (Structural Thinking Experimental LearningLaboratory with Animation) software to teach systems thinking,content knowledge, and problem solving. The study is also examiningthe extent to which this approach helps students to acquirehigher-order thinking skills and generalize their new knowledge andskills to other areas. Teachers in physical science, biology,chemistry, and social studies at Brattleboro Union High School(Vermont) designed and tested ways to use STELLA; traditionallytaught courses provided control. In addition to time constraints,teachers identified five difficult aspects of their task: (1)determining the appropriate sequence of knowledge that should befollowed in teaching systems thinking; (2) identifying the points inthe curriculum where systems thinking can best be used; (3)developing models that illustrate systems thinking but are simpleenough for students to understand; (4) deciding how and when tointroduce STELLA; and (5) assessing the effectiveness of systemsthinking for teaching particular concepts. Teachers made progress incurriculum development, and students responded well to the newinstructional materials. The teacher questionnaire, a classassignment, an analysis of time spent on curriculum topics, and areprint of an article on the project are appended. (13 references)(Author/MES)
TR87.6
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
This document nes been reproduced asreceived from Wm person ar organizationoriginating it.
O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated this docu-ment do not necessarily repress -4 offic,a1OERI position or policy
THE SYSTEMS THINKING AND
CURRICULUM INNOVATION PROJECT
Technical Report, Part 1
September 1987
licatlesel 1%drudegy CesarHarvard Graduate School of Education
337 Gutman Library Appian Way Cambridge MA02138
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Beth Wilson
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation Project
Technical Report, Part 1
September, 1987
prepared by Ellen B. Mandinach
Margaret E. Thorpe
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey
STACI Project
Group Members
Nancy L. Benton
Hugh F. Cline
Ellen B. Mandinach
Margaret E. Thorpe
Preparation of this report was supported in part by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (Contract it OERI 400-83-0041).
Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily shared by OERI and do
not represent Office policy.
3
ABSTRACT
TR87-6. The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation Project: Part I
The field of systems dynamics focuses on connections among the elements ofasystem and how the elements contribute to the whole. Based on the concept of change, ituses simulations simplified representations of a real-world system and computer-basedmathematical models to represent complex relationships among variables in a particular
Pvironment. In this study researchers examine the cognitive demands and consequencesusing the systems thinking software STELLA (Structural Thinking Experimental
Learning Laboratory with Animation) to teach systems thinking, content knowledge, andproblem solving. The study also examines the extent to which this approach helps studentsacquire higher-order thinking skills and generalize their new knowledge and skills to othersubstantive areas.
In the first year of the project, experimental class teachers in general physicalscience, biology, chemistry, and social studies designed and tested ways to use STELLAas they proceeded through their curriculum; traditionally taught courses provided controls.Some experimental teachers were more successful than others in identifying appropriateapplications for systems modules. All recognized the delicate balance between usingtraditional methods and infusing systems thinking into their courses. In addition to timeconstraints associated with their normally heavy teaching responsibilities, they identifiedfive difficult aspects of their talk: (1) determining the appropriate sequence of knowledgethat should be followed in teaching systems thinldng; (2) identifying the points in thecurriculum where systems thinking can best be used; (3) developing models that illustratesystems thinking but are simple enough for students to understand; (4) deciding how andwhen to introduce STELLA; and (5) assessing the effectiveness of systems thinking as away to teach particular concepts. Despite these dilemmas, teachers made considerableprogress in curriculum development, and students generally responded well to the newinstructional materials. Biology most readily lent itself to a systems approach, while thegeneral physical science teacher and the chemistry teacher found it more difficult to identifyappropriate topics and devise lessons. In the War and Revolution seminar, offered to,4Iected students with advanced knowledge of both systems thinldng and STELLA,
systems thinking was used to study historical events and to develop analytical skills and anappreciation of the complexity and importance of policy decisions.
Using some published instruments and others developed specifically for thisproject, data were collected on student ability and achievement,on cognitive skills thoughtto be related to systems thinking ability, on content learning, and on acquisition of systemsthinking skills. These data are considered quite preliminary and have been used mainly toguide researchers and teachers in adjustments, changes, and revisions for the second, moreformal year of the project
4
Table of Contents
Systems Thinking
pacie
2
3
334
6
6
6
6
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
21
General Background InformationSystems ThinkingSite Description: Brattleboro Union High SchoolDesign and Data Collection
DesignData Collection: InstrumentationData Collection: Observations and Interviews
Ancillary StudiesThe War and Revolution Seminar
The courseThe study
Organizational Case StudyCurriculum Development and Implementation
General ObservationsGeneral Physical Science
Subject contentSystems content
BiologySubject contentSystems content
ChemistrySubject contentSystems content
Other ActivitiesData Analyses and Quantitative ReportDissemination of Project InformationPotential Caveats
FootnoteReferencesAppendix AAppendix BAppendix C
Systems Thinking
The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation ProjectTechnical Report, Part 1
General Background Information
The intent of the Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation(STAC1) Project is to examine the cognitive demands andconsequences of learning from a systems thinking approach toinstruction and from using simulation modeling software. Thepurpose of the study is to test the potentials and effects of usingthe systems thinking approach in existing secondary schoolcurricula to teach content-specif.: knowledge as well as generalproblem solving skills. The study also examines the effectivenessof using STELLA (Structural Thinking Experimental LearningLaboratory with Animation; Richmond, 1985; Richmond & Vescuso,1986), a software package for the MacintoshTM microcomputer, as atool with which to teach systems thinking, content knowledge, andproblem solving. The research focuses on (a) the learning outcomesand transfer that result from using such an approach and softwarein classroom settings, and (b) the organizational impact of thecurriculum innovation.
The study is being conducted at Brattleboro Union High School(BUMS), Brattleboro, Vermont in which four teachers are usingsystems thinking in their courses. The content areas includegeneral physical science, biology, chemistry, and an experimentalsocial studies course entitled War and Revolution. These fourteachers were trained to use STELLA and system dynamics (Mandinach& Thorpe, 1987b). They are using systems models and illustratingthem on the computer. Students examine the interrelationshipsamong variables and system properties through their interactionswith the simulation modeling software. The STELLA software enablesstudents to model the characteristics and interrelationships ofcomplex systems in the real world, and to follow the evolution ofthese models over time.
The purpose of the project is to examine the extent to whichstudents acquire higher-order cognitive skills through exposure toand interaction with a curriculum infused with systems thinkingand subsequently generalize knowledge and skills to problem solvingtasks in other substantive areas. Comparisons are being drawnbetween traditionally taught courses and those that use the systemsapproach and STELLA. The research enables the examination of skilland knowledge transfer across content areas as students are exposedto several courses that use the systems approach.
Two ancillary studies are being conducted in conjunction withthe main classroom study. The first substudy focused on a selectgroup of students who received extensive exposure to systemsthinking and STELLA in a social studies class on War andRevolutions. These students were studied in an intensive casestudy format. The objective of this study was to collect indepthinformation about the students' thought processes, performancepatterns, knowledge, and general problem solving skills.
1
6
Systems Thinking
The second substudy is examining the organizational impact ofthe introduction and implementation of systems thinking in the highschool. The objective is to analyze aanges that occur in thestructure and functioning of the school as a result of thecurriculum innovation. These changes will be documented andanalyzed to shed light on educational organizations.
The STACI Project, which began during the 1986-1987 academicyear, is a two-year research effort that is concluding its firstyear. The purpose of this document is to report on the project'swork conducted during Year 1. The report is based on six sitevisits, correspondence, frequent telephone conversations, andseveral presentations to professional audiences. We providedescriptions of systems thinking, the site, the design, datacollection, instrumentation, the ancillary studies, and curriculumdevelopment. A forthcoming report will document the cognitive testresults from the main classroom study and the War andRevolution substudy.
Systems Thinking
The field of system dynamics, based on the concept of change,uses simulations and computer-based mathematical models torepresent complex relationships among variables in the environment(Forrester, 1968). It is possible to explore the rule-governedbehavior of complex systems by constructing models of variables andtheir interactions, and examining the cause-and-effectrelationships among the variables. Simulation models are used toexamine the structure of such systems. A simulation generally is asimplified representation of the real-world system.
To build a simulation, it is necessary to understand the majorvariables that comprise the system. These variables can be used toform a dynamic feedback system, whose mathematical expression is aset of simultaneous equations. Over time, variables change andsubsequently cause other variables and their interactions t3 changeas well. Thus, system dynamics focuses on the connections amongthe elements of the system and how the elements contribute to thewhole (Roberts, Andersen, Deal, Garet, & Shaffer, 1983).
The concepts that underlie the field of system dynamics formthe basis for much of the simulation software that currently isused in educational settings. Until recently, the system dynamicsapproach to simulations was constrained to environments that hadpowerful mainframe computers (i.e., Dynamo and Micro-dynamo). Theadvent of a new software product has made it possible to translatethese concepts to the microcompute level. The software, STELLA,capitalizes on the graphical capabilities of the Apple MacintoshTMand enables learners to build systems models using icons and mousetechnology. STELLA makes systems modeling approachable to thenovice by minimizing the mathematical and technical skills neededto construct models. The user supplies the logic and knowledge ofa domain necessary to build the model, and STELLA creates the
2
Systems Thinking
structural diagrams, graphs, and data that represent the system.Thus, STELLA is a powerful software tool that enables students tobuild models and simulations within the context of a systemsthinking approach to learning.
Site Description: Brattleboro Union High School
BUNS serves a rural five-town district in southeastern Vermontwhose population is approximately 20,000. The school has roughly1,600 students and a faculty of 80 teachers.
Since 1985, BUNS has been the site of a number of systemsthinking activities, all with the purpose of introducing students,educators, and the public to the principles that underlie thefield. Two informational workshops were an outgrowth of an initialcollaborative group that was formed to support systems thinkingactivities. The first workshop was a one-day seminar given in thespring of 1985 by experts from the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology (MIT). The intent of the meeting was to providesufficient knowledge of system dynamics to high school teachers sothat the concepts could be integrated into their courses. Thesecond workshop was an intensive five-day introduction to systemsthinking. Taught by representatives of MIT and Dartmouth, thisseminar was attended by BUNS teachers, students, parents, schoolboard members, and individuals from local business.
Four teachers comprised the core of the systems group at BUHS.All were trained by experts to use the systems approach andintegrated this perspective into their courses. One course,entitled War and Revolution, was heavily infused with systemsthinking and the use of STELLA. That is, systems thinking formedthe basis for this course. In contrast, an integrative approachwas used in the science courses. The approach was integrative inthat the teachers identified concepts within their curricula thatcould be enhanced by the use of systems thinking principles.Rather than teach the particular concepts as they had in the past,the systems teachers explicitly emphasized the systemic nature ofthe topics, noting such ideas as causality, feedback, variation,and interaction. The courses covered the same body of knowledgetaught in the traditional curriculum, but specific concepts andtopics were discussed from a systems thinking perspective. Thesecourses will be described in greater detail in the curriculumsection. The BUNS teachers next plan to develop for theforthcoming academic year a new course entitled Science,Technology, and Society that will incorporate an extensiveintroduction to system dynamics and STELLA.
Design and Data Collection
Design
Systems thinking was integrated into three general physicalscience, four biology, and three chemistry classes. An equivalentnumber of traditional (control) courses were taught concurrently by
3
8
Systems Thinking
other members of the faculty. Table 1 presents the enrollmentfigures for the classes participating in the study.
As noted in the first STACI progress report (Mandinach &Thorpe, 1987), obtaining parental consent was problematic. ETS andthe eight BUMS teachers made every effort to gain permission forstudents' participation. We were able to obtain consent for 353of the 412 students (or 86%). Consent was withheld forapproximately 14% of the students. The figures differed acrossclasses and subject areas, with nearly all chemistry students (94%)willing to participate. Biology, across the three teachers, hadthe lowest consent rate (77%). The consent rate for generalphysical science was 87%. The percents of consent(85Y.) and traditional (86%) groups were roughly
Table 1
Classes and Enrollment Figures - 1986-1987
for the systemsequal.
Class Systems Thinking TraditionalClasses Students Classes Students
General Physical Science 3 40(11) 3 57( 3)
BiologyTeacher 1
Teacher 24 68(16) 2
232(12)29(10)
4 68(16) 4 61(22)
Chemistry 3 57( 3) 3 63( 4)
TOTAL
War and Revolution
10
1
165(30)
7( 0)
10 181(29)
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the students for whomparental consent was either denied or could not be obtained.
Data Collection: Instrumentation
As noted in the ETS proposal (Mandinach, 1986), several typesof instruments were used to assess outcomes in various stages ofthe research. These instruments included pretest, in-class, andposttest measures, which were used to assess ability, content-specific knowledge, systems thinking, and higher-order thinkingskills (including general problem solving, metacognition, and self-regulation).
Pretests were used to assess subjects' ability, content-specific knowledge, and knowledge of systems thinking. Existinginstruments were used or modified, and other tests developed whereneeded. BUMS supplied the students' most recent standardizedachievement test scores. The California Achievement Tests servedas rough estimates of general ability. ETS also administered asmall battery of tests, If-clueing the Advanced Progressive Matrices
4
, 9
STACI Year 1 Report
(Raven, 1958, 1962), to provide another index of general ability.Other measures related to skills hypothesized as important conceptsunderlying systems thinking were given. These included inductiveand deductive reasoning, figural analogies, and understandingrelationships.
Modified versions of previous final examinations wereadministered to both the systems and traditional classes. Thegeneral physical science, biology, and chemistry teachers took lastyear's tests, identified critical, yet basic concepts, and gave theshortened versions to their classes early in the academic year.These tests served as baseline assessments of content knowledge inthe subject areas. An initial assessment of systems thinkingskills, developed by TERC, containing 24 items, also wasadministered early in the semester to serve as a baseline for theexperimental classes.
Teachers administered content-specific tests and exercises intheir courses throughout the academic year. These examinations andexercises were roughly comparable for the systems and controlclasses in their subject-matter coverage. The teachers alsoprepared and gave common final examinations to their classes.Because traditional and systems thinking classes within a subjectarea received the same test, we were able to compare differences incontent knowledge that resulted from using the systems approach.These measures of content knowledge were not used to assess pre-and posttest differences. Instead, they were used to provideinformation about the evolution of differential performance overtime between the two sets of classes.
ETS developed a 39-item instrument that was used to assessknowledge of systems thinking and STELLA. The instrument containeditems of increasing difficulty that measured a broad spectrum ofskills along a continuum ranging from elementary concepts tocomplex modeling skills. These skills were identified inconsultation with the BUHS teachers and systems experts and throughrational task analyses as critical components that underlie systemsthinking. Measures of systems thinking focused on concepts such asknowledge of graphing, equations, variation and variables,causation and causality, feedback, looping constructs, modeling,and STELLA. This test was administered at the end of the year toonly the systems thinking classes.
It should be noted that instrument development is critical tothe STALl project. Much of the project's success rests on theassumption that reliable and valid measures, particularly ofsystems thinking, can be designed. These measures must captureboth qualitatively and quantitatively students' performance,viderstanaing, and cognitive processing. Reliabilities for each ofthe instruments will be calculated. We will examine the systemsthinking test's internal consistency, using the Cronbach alphacoefficient and will perform split-half reliabilities on themeasures in the reference battery.
5
1 0
STACI Year 1 Report
Given the exploratory nature of the first year, we developedand administered the instruments on a preliminary basis and plan torevise them as indicated by the results. Our primary focus will beon the required revisions to the systems thinking test.Examination of the reliability results, in addition to a factoranalysis, will provide an indication of the consistency andperformance of the instrument in assessing skills thought to becritical in systerv. thinking. Furthermore, we will examine item-level data by class to identify the appropriate level of difficultyfor each course. Initial results indicate overlapping, butprogressively more difficult ranges of performance in moving fromgeneral physical science, to biology and then chemistry.The data analyses currently are being conducted. Revisions will bemade accordingly. The results will be reported in the subsequentdocument that will focus on the quantitative analyses.
Data Coilection: Observations and Interviews
Classroom observations were conducted during six site visitsthroughout the school year. Two project members observed bothsystems and traditional classes to obtain information about coursecontent, structure, and classroom procedures. Systems classes wereobserved when systems modules as well as traditional materials werepresented. Observations were scheduled when similar topics werecovered to see how the systems and traditional teachers differed intheir approach to the highlighted concepts. For example, weobserved how the chemistry teachers presented the topic of reactionrates, noting differences in emphases, presentation, and otherareas due to the use of systems concepts.
Interviews with systems and traditional teachers wereconducted to obtain additional information about the classes (seeAppendix A). It WAS critical to gather information from thesystems teachers concerning the issues they confronted during theimplementation of the curriculum innovation. The interviews alsoprovided an opportunity to probe teachers about their perceptionsof the systems thinking modules, implementation difficulties, andother issues related to the effects of the curriculum innovation ontheir teaching activities.
To examine variation in content emphasis, all science teacherswere asked to provide information on the number of days devoted todifferent curriculum topics. The systems teachers also were askedto indicate the time devoted to instruction in systems thinking andto which topics the approach was applied.
Ancillary Studies
The War and Revolution Seminar
The course. The War and Revolution seminar provided a uniqueapproach and structure to the examination of historical events.The course was conceived by the teacher and David Kreutzer, of theSystem Dynamics Group at MIT, as a means of applying systems
6
11
STACI Year 1 Report
thinking to an understanding of political-social events. Theunique aspect of this course was the prominent role given tosystems thinking in the study of historical events. The course wasoffered for the first time to a group of seven academicallytalented students, three of whom were National Merit Scholars.Among these students were two seniors who received outside trainingin systems thinking and STELLA. These two students previouslydeveloped causal loop diagrams and structural models related toother topics. They also assisted their classmates in learning howto develop models and use STELLA.
The class functioned much like a college seminar. Studentsmet together as a class three times per week with the remaining twoperiods spent working individually or cooperatively in smallgroups. Through class discussions and independent researchprojects, students analyzed dynamic situations from the perspectiveof decision makers. The intent was to develop both analyticalskills and an appreciation of the complexities and importance ofpolicy decisions. Through the course students developed abilitiesto pose questions, gather relevant information from a variety ofsources, develop scenarios depicting relationships among kevforces, and critique as well as defend these views.
The primary text, Thinking in Time (Neustadt & May, 1986) wassupplemented with other sources that pertained to topics for groupdiscussion and students' independent research interests. Studentswere expected to read major newspapers including the New York Timesand news magazines. They also were encouraged to broaden theirsources of information to include professional journals, books,government documents, and other media.
The teacher used various revolutions (e.g., the 1956 HungarianRevolution, the Iranian Revolution, and the Revolution inNicaragua), as well as Kreutzer's model of terrorism, to introducestudents to systems thinking as a strategy for analyzing thedynamics of historical and current events. They studied basicconcepts for modeling systems, reviewed some existing models andexperimented with constructing models of their own. Kreutzerconducted several seminars for the class to discuss the logicunderlying model development, reinforce fundamental systemsconcepts, address specific questions, and assist students withtheir special projects. He provided consultation throughout theyear as students developed their own models.
The study. The ancillary study focused on a limited number ofstudents who exhibited particularly advanced knowledge of systemsthinking and skills in using STELLA. The purpose of this substudywas to collect indepth information about the thought processes,performance patterns, knowledge, and general problem solving skillsof experienced students who were exposed to a seminar fully infusedwith systems thinking and the simulation modeling software.
Students were introduced to systems thinking as a strategy foranalyzing the dynamics of historical and current events. They
7
12
STACI Year 1 Report
studied basic concepts for modeling systems, reviei-.ed some existingmodels and experimented with constructing models of their Thestudents prepared final versions of their maaels of revolutionduring the last quarter of the year. Each student prepared asystems model to illustrate the dynamic factors underlying theirparticular topic, presented a formal report and STELLA model, andmade a presentation to the class describing the model. Inaddition, the teacher requested th.Pt the students include in theirreports a discussion of the effects systems thinking had on theirwork and perspective of the subject area.
In Year 1, the seven students enrolled in the War andRevolution class received extensive exposure to systems thinkingand us rd STELLA for innovative applications of modeling. Thesestudents were studied in an intensive case study format throughoutthe academic year, culminating in a special project conductedduring the last month of school ETS observed their performance inthe seminar and with STELLA (observations of approximately 20 classperiods), assessed their knowledge, collected verbal protocols,conducted interviews, and examined their major projects completedfor the course. The interviews and verbal protocols eliciteddetailed information about how students approached, analyzed, andwork through problems assigned in the course.
The special project. for the War and Revolution class wasconducted at HUH, during the weeks of May 18 and 25. The problemused was the Zimbardo Prison Experiment. This experiment created asimulated prison environment in which college students portrayedinmates and guards (see Appendix 13 for additional information).Initial reading materials were sent to the students, followed by aslide/sound presentation of the problem. Studer;.s were given aweek in which to develop and prepare systems and STELLA models ofthe experiment. Kreutzer provided facilitation during theadministration of the project. At the end of the week, eachstudent handed in a brief report, tweir causal models, and a diskon which their STELLA models were saved. Analyses of the modelsand accompanying materials currently are being conducted.
Oraanizational Case_Studv
Interviews were used to trace the organizational impact of theintroduction and implementation of systems thinking at BUHS.Whenever new technologies and expertise are introduced in schools,changes w-cur in organizational structure, division of labor,communication patterns, and distribution of authority andinfluence. These changes are being documented and analyzed to shedlight on the impact of technology on the structure and functioningof educational organizations.
Initial data collection for the ancillary study was conductedin the April and May site visits. During both visits, interviewswere conducted with a number of individuals at Brat*leboro who hadvarying 'es of involvement in the STACI Project.' Interviewsincludes 4he systems thinking teachers, the science and social
8
13
STACI Year 1 Report
studies departmental chairpersons, the principal, superintendent,the head of guidance, and other BUHS teachers. Follow-up andadditional interviews will continue throughout the next academicyear. These data then will be synthesized in the form of a casestudy that depicts how systems thinking evolved at BUHS and whaits impact has been on the school as an organization. The casestudy will be reported at the conclusion of Year 2 in order toexamine the innovation's impact as it evolves over the course ofthe project.
Curriculum Development and Implementation
This section describes the 1986-1987 curriculum for thetraditional and systems thinking science classes. We begin withseveral observations about the curriculum in general. Summaries ofboth subject and systems thinking content are provided.Information about the curriculum content was obtained throughinterviews with teachers, brief questionnaires, textbook reviews,and classroom observations.
General Observations
Curriculum development in systems thinking has been a labor-intensive and ongoing effort. ETS recognizes that during thisfirst year as systems thinking was introduced, instructionalmethods and course content underwent a great deal ofexperimentation. Some teachers were more successful than others inidentifying appropriate applications for systems modules. All theteachers were acutely aware of the delicate balance between usingtraditional methods and infusing systems thinking into theircourses.
Though the teachers were intrigued by the possibilitiesoffered by systems thinking and STELLA, they grappled with therealities of developing an innovative curricular approach whilemaintaining heavy teaching responsibilities. One of the mostdifficult realities was the time required to develop expertise insystems thinking and then integrate the concepts into theirexisting curricula. Other issues included: (a) the appropriatesequence of knowledge that should be followed in teaching systemsthinking; (b) the points in the curriculum where systems thinkingcan best be used; (c) the development of examples that illustrateimportant variables and relationships, but are simple enough forstudents to understand; (d) the introduction of STELLA; and (e) theeffectiveness of systems thinking as a way to teach particularconcepts. (Is systems thinking worth the tradeoff in time thatcould be spent teaching the subject matter in more traditionalways?)
Both the systems and traditional classes used the same textsin their classes as primary components of the curricula. Commonfinal examinations also were administered to all classes within agiven subject area. Despite these commonalities, the teachersdiffered in their content emphases, assignments, classroom
9
14
STACI Year 1 Report
organization, and instructional styles. These differences and thepotential impact they may have on learning processes and outcomeswere examined through observation, interview, and performancemeasures during the project's first year.
Curriculum development and implementation also were affectedby the availability of hardware and software for project use.Apple Computer, Inc. donated fifteen MacintoshTM computers to BUHSthrough the Educational Technology Center for project use. Aclassroom set of STELLA software was obtained, in addition to aLimelight projection system. These acquisitions enabled BUHS toset up a computer classroom which was devoted to the STACI project.This room did not materialize as early as anticipated due to delaysin the construction of a new science wing. It was not until Marchthat the teachers moved into their new facilities, thereby makingavailable the room in which the computer laboratory now is located.This delay hindered not only the introduction of systems thinkingand STELLA, but also affected science instruction more generally.
In the coming year, the data collection procedures,implemented on a trial basis, will be revised in order to maximizethe informativeness of the data gathered. We will collaborate withthe teachers to develop efficient and complete data collectionprocedures. Because teachers were in the process of developingtheir curricula over the course of the year, it was somewhatdifficult to schedule observations to collect the informationrelating specifically to the understanding of content or theeffects of systems thinking. The teachers were often unable tospecify in advance either the topics or dates when systems lessonswould be taught. Due to differences in curriculum integration, thethree science teachers did not conduct their systems lessons at thesame time. As a result of these contraints and the distancebetween ETS and Brattleboro (approximately 300 miles), it was notpossible to observe all instances of systems instruction. Whileteachers' notes, handouts, and exercises were extremely helpful inreporting about many aspects of systems instruction, it was notalways possible to obtain data sufficient for a completeunderstanding of the curriculum innovation. Discussions with thesystems teachers will be held early in the fall to consult aboutdata collection requirements for Year 2.
In Year 1, although we collected information from the systemsteachers on student assignments related to systems thinking, we didnot request classroom assignments on these same science topics fromthe control teachers. The decision to forego this informationduring this initial year was made to reduce the response burden ofthe traditional teachers. During the coming year we will seekclassroom assignments from the traditional teachers for selectedtopics taught from a systems perspective.
General Physical Science
Subject content. General physical science is an introductorycourse for freshmen and sophomores consisting of one semester of
10
15
STACI Year 1 Report
chemistry and another of physics. Because of the temporaryshortage of laboratory facilities this year (i.e., the constructionof the new science wing), the systems and traditional teacherstaught the course in reverse sequence. Chemistry was taught to thecon;:rol classes during the first semester, followed by physicsin the spring. The systems classes began the year with physics andstudied chemistry in the second semester.
The course covered topics related to matter and energy. Thepurpose of the course was to introduce students to concepts inchemistry and physics as they apply in everyday life. Studentslearned the basic principles of measurement, concepts of work,energy, and motion. Chemistry concepts were introduced through thestudy of atomic structure, properties of elements, and chemicalreactions. Physics concepts were covered through the topicsof light, sound, heat, electricity, and nuclear energy.
Although both teachers used Focus on Physical Science (Heimler& Price, 1984), there were considerable differences in how textualand other supplementary materials were assigned (see Appendix C).The systems teacher spent more time on physics concepts and less onchemistry, whereas the reverse was true for the traditionalteacher. (This was in part due to when the laboratory facilitiesbecame available.) The systems teacher supplemented the text withother material in addition to the systems lessons, whereas thetraditional teacher followed the text more closely. Comparisons ofstudents' understanding of particular science topics taught througha traditional versus a systems thinking perspective will take intoaccount differences in exposure to topics as well as differences ininstructional methods and materials.
Systems content. The general physical science teacherintroduced systems thinking more slowly into his course than didthe other systems teachers. He initially cited some difficulty indetermining how to integrate the approach into his lessons anddevising appropriate examples that students could understand. Themathematical nature of physics led him to begin with graphingcause-and-effect relationships and translating that informationinto simple arrow diagrams. This approach was used in a variety oftopics over the course of the year, including discussions ofmotion, electricity, magnetism, light and sound waves, color,density, and compound formation. The teacher noted that thoughthe approach was used for several topics, each discvssion was verybrief, averaging approximately 10 minutes.
Unlike the systems teachers in biology and chemistry, morecomplex causal loop structures were not developed in generalphysical science. The teacher reported that GPS curricular topicsdid not lend themselves to simple feedback relationships. Feedbackwas discussed briefly at the beginning of the year and again at theend during the introduction to STELLA modeling. However, theteacher reported that time constraints limited the discussion.
11
16
STACI Year 1 Report
Models were introduced at the beginning of school andcontinued to be a major topic of discussion throughout the year.One week was spent on the general concept of models which includedthe "Modeling" video tape in the "Search for Solutions" series.The atomic model, used as an explanation for static electricaleffects, was the first physical science model to which severalclass periods were devoted. Models also were used in explainingelectrical circuits as well as the distinctions and relationshipsamong potential, current, and resistance. A wave model wasconstructed to help students understand the behavior of light.While students were interested initially in the demonstrations andinvestigations, the teacher reported that several students haddifficulty synthesizing the information and extrapolating the lightwave model to analogous physical phenomena. The atomic model wasrevisited briefly later in the year to help explain chemicalbonding and compound formation.
Simple mathematical modeling was introduced early in the year.Graphs were developed to illustrate relationships among distance,speed, and time. Mathematical modeling also was used to understandthe concept of density as a function of mass divided by volume.
At the end of the year STELLA was introduced with the motiondetectors developed at the Technical Education Research Centers(TERC), in Cambridge. A bathtub model was constructed to study theinflow and outflow of water. The teacher noted that the weekallotted to the presentation was insufficient. Only one day couldbe devoted to introducing stocks and flows prior to demonstrating asimple STELLA model of a bathtub filling with water. Students wereable to spend only a short time learning to use the MacintoshTMthen exploring the bathtub model themselves on the computer.Difficulties with the equipment, notably the projection system andthe probes prevented the most effective use of the limited timeavailable.
Bioloav
SubJect content. The systems and traditional teachersindicated that the content for all biology classes was similar.Though there was some variation in the selection and emphasis ofcertain topics (see Appendix C), all classes used Bioloav: LivingSystems (Gram, Hummer, & Smoot, 1986) and followed the samesequence with approximately the same scheduling of topics.
The curriculum presented information about how living
organisms are structured, function, and the processes by which theyrelate to other organisms and the environment. The text isorganized around the theme that all living organisms share commonlife processes. The goal of the course was to develop anunderstanding of these basic processes and how they are expressedin a diversity of life forms.
To develop this understanding, the course began with anoverview of the basic processes of food production and energy
12
17
STACI Year 1 Report
transfer, growth and development, maintenance and repair, andreproduction. The concepts of organization and interrelationshipamong living organisms also were introduced. Methods and measuresof scientific inquiry were presented, followed by the generalprinciples of chemistry and cellular biology necessary tocomprehend physiological processes. A discussion of geneticscovered the cellular basis of heredity, reproduction, andvariation. The course also included the topics of evolution andadaptations that promote survival and reproduction. As the courseproceeded, the five kingdoms were presented and described in termsof the life processes of their members, ranging in complexity fromthe simplest to the most intricate organisms.
Systems content. The science teachers agreed that biologicalscience, of all the subject areas, lent itself most readily to asystems approach. Because interrelationships among living systemsis a key concept stressed in this course, .he potential is presentfor identifying a number of relevant examples to which systemsthinking can be applied.
Systems thinking was introduced in biology, beginning withdefinitions and fundamental principles such as a system, componentsof a system, feedback, and causal re;ationships. The "Modeling"video also was shown to the biology classes. Following theintroduction of terms and concepts, students were shown examples ofcausal loops. Initially, single loops were introduced, followed byexamples illustrating complex loops. These ideas were presentedusing both biological and non-biological examples. Biologicalmodels included the fight/flight response of the cell duringinsulin reaction as well as models for cellular respiration,photosynthesis, and decomposition. Non-biological illustrationswere drawn, primarily from Introduction to Comouter Simulation: ASystems Dynamics Modeling Approach (Roberts, et al., 1983). Theselatter models included examples of traffic dynamics and thespending, earnings, and savings model.
In assessing students' reactions to systems thinking, theteacher indicated that students appeared initially interested inlearning the concepts and discussing simple causal diagrams.Difficulties arose as complexity was introduced. Not all studentswere able to follow the connections between loops. As otherexamples from the Robert's et al. book were introduced, includingthe development of a forest (which contains four loops and thecarbon cycle which contains more than eight loops), the teacherfound it helpful to discuss one loop at a time and give students arule to guide their pathway through the system ("take the shortestroute back to where you started").
After a few weeks, the teacher reintroduced causal loops usinga model for the role of enzymes in metabolism. In presenting thisexample, the teacher displayed the prepared model and used aproblem solving approach to interpret the process depicted. Usingthe analogy of a puzzle, the concept of structure, coupled withfunction was illustrated. Students were asked what would happen if
13
18
STACI Year 1 Report
one piece of the puzzle was changed. In this instance, systemsthinking was employed to help students understand the process ofmetabolism and the idea of the relatedness among :ell structures.Students then were given homework assignments to describe themetabolism diagram discussed in class and the process of how threecell structures were related.
The concepts of levels and rates were taught early in thesecond term in conjunction with a brief exposure to graphing. Theconcept of modeling was presented as an introduction to STELLA andthe population model. Analogies were drawn to familiar scientifictopics, including mitosis and meiosis, that students had justreviewed. The teacher reported that students were responsive tothese discussions and demonstrations, but that time did not permithands-on experience with STELLA.
After an interim of three months, students again wereintroduced to computer modeling in conjunction with laboratory workon temperature changes. Using lthe projection system, the teacherpresented a model for "cooling soup" constructed on the computer.Students recorded temperature changes and constructed their ownpaper-and-pencil graphs as the soup cooled. The teacher modeledthe temperature changes using STELLA. This experience providedstudents with an opportunity to see the effects dynamicallyportrayed in the STELLA model and compare their results with thosedisplayed by STELLA.
A model of oxygen production was presented using STELLA priorto conducting a laboratory experiment on photosynthetic rate.Students then were asked to posit hypotheses to predict therelationship between light intensity and oxygen production.Through guided discussioh, students also were asked to identifyelements to construct a structural model by suggesting stocks,flows, and the factors that might affect the relationship. Theteacher indicated that some students did not appear to understandthe relationships depicted in the model. However, following asubsequent laboratory experiment, students were able to recognizethe relationship between light intensity and photosynthetic rate.
Near the end of the school year, students were given a chanceto use the computers to work on a model of oxygen production.Reactions to these experiences generally were positive, but manystudents indicated that more time was needed to become familiarwith the computers and the model. The teacher also indicated thatmore hands-on time with the computers and STELLA was needed toassess the learning potential of this experience.
Chemistry
Subiect content. All classes used Chemistry : A Modern Course(Smoot, Price, & Smith, 1979) with the same sequence andapproximately the same scheduling of topics. The central theme ofthe course was that the characteristics of matter are dependent ontheir structure. A primary objective was to develop an
14
19
STACI Year 1 Report
understanding of the properties of matter and the relationship ofstructure to properties. In addition to principles of structure,the course introduced matter-energy relationships, the concepts ofmoles, thermodynamics, and chemical equilibrium. The course beganby presenting the fundamental knowledge and approaches needed tosolve chemical problems. Information was given on measurement,scientific notation, and classification as well as a systematicapproach to problem solving that emphasized problem decompositionand pattern recognition. The structure and properties of solids,gases, and liquids then were introduced. Subsequent lessonswere built on this foundation and described the behavior of matterin terms of energy and disorder, reaction rates and chemicalequilibrium, acic -base behavior, oxidation-reduction, andelectrical reactions.
Systems content. The teacher intended to use systems thinkingto teach students about social and environmental problems relatedto chemistry. Problems were selected that had a chemical basis andwere relevant to the students.
During the fall, chemistry students were introduced to basicterminology and concepts in systems thinking. The relationshipsamong rates, time, and levels were illustrated through constructionof formulas and graphing. Students were given verbal problems ordata sets and were instructed in graphing data, deriving rates andlevels, and interpreting graphical trends. These concepts thenwere applied to the construction of both causal diagrams and simplestructural models. After introducing examples from everyday life,such as the rate at which cars enter and leave a parking lot °vet-the course of the day, chemistry-related problems were modeled.These models included the development of smog and tooth decay.
According to the teacher, initially students were moderatelyinterested in the problems and model building. The level ofinterest increased later in the year when STELLA was introduced andinstruction focused on more traditional topics (reaction rates),thus enabling students to see the relevance and applications of theapproach to content-related problems.
In addition to the problems of time mentioned by the othersystem teachers, selection of relevant, understandable examples wasparticularly difficult in chemistry. The teacher indicated thatmodeling a chemical system involved a high degree of complexity andknowledge that often was beyond the level of students'understanding. Even an apparently simple model of tooth decaybecame difficult due to the number of elements and the nature ofthe chemical reactions involved. Therefore, it was not easy todevelop examples that were accurate, yet appropriate for students'level of knowledge.
An additional concern was the integration of systems thinkinginto the regular curriculum. While discussion of socially relevanttopics was interesting for students, it did not relate directly tothe core curriculum. Therefore, during the second part of the
13
20
STACI Year 1 Report
year, the teacher decided that the most appropriate application forsystems thinking appeared to be in the instruction of reactionrates, a traditional topic for all chemistry classes.
Students were introduced to STELLA with the "cooling soup"lesson used in the biology classes. They recorded and graphed thedata for the cooling rates of two liquids with differing initial
temperatures, and were instructed to note differences in the slopesof the two liquids and conclude which liquid had the faster coolingrate. Students also were asked to note changes in slope andhypothesize reasons for the changes. Initially a causal loopdiagram was developed to depict the relationship betweentemperature and rate of cooling. A structural diagram then ;asdeveloped to test the model and determine if the expected behaviorwould result. The teacher used STELLA to demonstrate the behaviorof the model and showed students how the model could be changed toreflect different conditions and thus different hypotheses. A
population model was another example used to familiarize studentswith STELLA and structural thinking.
In studying reaction rates, students were guided to developsystems models for chemical equations. Creating structuraldiagrams on STELLA provided an instructional tool not only toillustrate the function and relationship of certain variables toeach other, but 4o hypothesize and then test changes in thebehavior of these variables over time, under different conditions.From these experiences, a generic understanding of the behavior ofa set of interacting variables could be developed.
As in the other science classes, models were used inconjunction with laboratory activities in a variety of ways.Sometimes models were created prior to experiments to introduceimportant elements in particular chemical reactions and predict howthese elements might affect each other. At other times, modelswere created during or following experiments to illustrate thebehavior observed, simulate other conditions, and comment onpredictions.
Other Activities
Data Analyses and Quantitative Report
Due to the vast amount of data generated from the STACIProject's activities, the first year report has been separated intotwo parts: the present document which provides a generaldescription of the site, curricula, and procedures, and theforthcoming document in which all data analyses will be reported.
The student cognitive test data currently are being preparedfor analysis. The analyses will focus on the preliminary resultsof students' performance on content tests and the systems thinkinginstrument. We will examine ability differences, as defined byperformance on the reference battery and standardized tests. Mostimportantly, we will compare performance differences between the
16
21
STACI Year 1 Report
systems thinking and traditional groups on the various measures,particularly the specific content areas which were taught assystems models. The analyses will be conducted and reported duringthe fall, 1987.
Dissemination of Proiect Information
During the first year of the STACI Project, severalmanuscripts were prepared for publication or presentation atprofessional meetings:
Mandinach, E. B. (1986). Innovative uses of technology to fostercognitive skills development in a high school science program:Research and design issues. City University of New York,Graduate Center.
Mandinach, E. B. (1987). Computer learning environments and thestudy of individual differences in self-regulation. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Washington, D.C.
Mandinach, E. B. (1987). Integrating systems thinking into thehigh school curriculum: The STACI Project. Paper presentedat the National Educational Computing Conference, Philadelphia,PA.
Mandinach, E. B. (1987). The STACI Proiect: The second progressreport (STACI Rep. No. 11). Princeton, NJ: EducationalTesting Service.
Mandinach, E. B. (1987). The use of simulations in learning andtransfer of higher-order cognitive skills. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Washington, D.C.
Mandinach, E. B., & Thorpe, M. E. (1987). Systems thinking andcurriculum innovation: A Progress report (STACI Rep. No. 2).Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Mandinach, E. B., & Thorpe, M. E. (1987). The systems thinkingand curriculum innovation project. Technology_and Learning,1(2), 1, 10-11.
Mandinach, E. 8., & Thorpe, M. E. Caveats and realities intechnological curriculum innovation. Technology and Learning,1(4), 1-3, 5, 7.
An additional activity related to the project was a seminargiven at the Apple Computer Company at the request of Dr. BarbaraBowen, Director of the Apple External Research Program, on May 12.Bowen asked ETS to make a presentation to Bay Area educators,representatives from state and county education offices, and Appleemployees to describe the STACI Project and perhaps stimulate
17
22
STACI Year 1 Report
interest in STACI, systems thinking, and STELLA. ETS organized thepresentation which also included a teacher and student from BUHS.
Potential Caveats
In general, the STACI Project has progressed smoothly with fewevident problems. However, some of the implementation problemshave been outlined in an article (Mandinach & Thorpe, 1987a) thatrecently appeared in Technoloav and Learning (see Appendix D fordetails). As noted in the first progress report, curriculumdevelopment took longer than anticipated and thus influenced theconduct of the study. STACI's first year was consideredexploratory rather than a formal test of knowledge acquisition andtransfer. In addition, data collection was slightly dela/ed due tothe complexity of obtaining informed parental consent. Theseconstraints limited the extent to which we were able to drawconclusions from the first year of data collection.
On the positive side, teachers have made considerable progressin their development of the curricula and students generally haveresponded positively toward the instructional materials. Despitedelays in curriculum development, the teachers were able toidentify, design, and implement systems modules that wereintegrated into the existing courses. We have collected a wealthof valuable classroom data from which we will be able to makepreliminary comments about the impact of the curriculum innovationon teaching and learning activities. We also collected importantinformation from the War and Revolution seminar about the effectsof the systems thinking approach on the process of knowledgeacquisition.
As the project begins its second year, we again will confrontthe problem of parental consent. We will attempt to obtain consentfrmm parents who previously withheld permission. We also mustidentify those students who are new to the project and seek consentfrom their parents. This activity will be undertaken as early aspossible in the forthcoming academic year.
Much effort will be focused on revisions of instrumentation,observations, and data collection procedures, as indicated by thefirst year's results. The system thinking instrument already hasbeen revised. The formalization of data collection procedures willbe critical. We have faced and again must confront the delicatebalance between requesting certain pieces of information from theteachers and burdening them with too much documentation. As notedabove in the curriculum section, we are working toward identifyingthe specific data that will best inform us about curriculumprocedures and content. Such documentation must be made highlyexplicit in order for the teachers to be able and willing tocomply. These data collection procedures are essential because ofETS's distance from BUHS, which limits the amount of time staff canspend on site. It is virtually impossible to document all uses ofand outcomes of the curriculum innovation simply because we cannotbe in Bratt4eboro all the time. Thus, ETS must rely on other
18
23
STACI Year 1 Report
documentation procedures that will be used in our absence. We dobelieve, however, that several week-long observations, inconjunction with the procedures noted above, should providesufficient data from which to examine the impact of systemsthinking.
19
24
STACI Year 1 Report
Footnote
This research is being conducted under the auspices of theEducational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Educationand is supported by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement under contract number 400-83-0041. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of ETC, OERI, or ETS. The authors wish to acknowledgeTony Cline and Nancy Benton of ETS, Dr. Barbara Bowen of AppleComputer Company, Charles Butterfield, David Clarkson, ChrisO'Brien, Larry Richardson, and the administration and students ofBrattleboro Union High School.
STACI Year 1 Report
References
Forrester, J. W. (1968). Principles of systems. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Heimler, C. H., & Price, J. S. (1984). Focus on physicalscience. Cincinnati: Charles E. Merrill.
Mandinach, E. B. (1986) Systems thinking and curriculuminnovation: A naturally occurring classroom study (STACI Rep.No. 1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Mandinach, E. B., & Thorpe, M. E. (1987a). Caveats and realitiesin technological curriculum innovation. TechnalggY andLearning, 1(4), 1-3, 5, /.
Mandinach, E. B., & Thorpe, M. E. (1987b). Systems thinking andcurriculum innovation: A progress report (STACI Rep. No. 2).Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Neudstadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time: Theuses of history for decision makers. New York: Free Press.
Oram, R. F., Hummer, P. J. Jr., & Smoot, R. C. (1986). Biology:Living systems. Cincinnati: Charles E. Merrill.
Raven, J. C. (1958). Advanced Progressive Matrices (Set I).London: H. K. Lewis.
Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced Progressive Matrices (Set II).London: H. K. Lewis.
Richmond, B. (1985). STELLA [Computer program]. Lyme, NH:High Performance Systems, Inc.
Richmond, B., & Vescuso, P. (1986). STELLA [Computer program](2nd. ed.). Lyme, NH: High Performance Systems, Inc.
Roberts, N., Andersen, D., Deal, R., Garet, M., & Shaffer, W.(1983). Introduction to computer simulation: A systemdynamics modeling approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Smoot, R. C., Price, J. S., & Smith, R. G. (1979). Chemistry:modern course. Cincinnati: Charles E. Merrill.
Systems Thinking
APPENDIX A
27
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
TOPICS
What science concepts/knowledge have you tried to teach usingsystems thinking?
Are these topics also being taught in the traditional classes?
INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD
How have you introduced these topics?Prerequisite knowledgesequencelogic
Examples/illustrations used-
How would you have introduced these topics if you had taught themin the traditional manner?
STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS/ACTIVITIES (Paper/Pencil/ STELLA)
What have the students been required to do with systems thinkingbeyond class discussion?
Describe inclass activities e% assignments
LESSON ASSESSMENT:(BEHAVIORAL/ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE)
How receptive were the students to these lessons?
What were the strengths of the lesson?
What, if anything, did not work as well?
What would you do differently next time you wanted to teach theseconcepts?
23
INTEGRATION
How satisfied are you at this point with integration of systemsthinking which you have attempted?
Is the systems perspective influencing your teaching even whenyou are not discussing the behavior of systems? If so how, giveexamples.
NEXT STEPS
What needs to be done next?
Are there any particular problems/pressures that are inhibitingcurriculum development or conducting lessons?
What type of assistance., 6o you need?
29
Systems Thinking
APPENDIX B
30
1
War and Revolution ProjectThe Zimbardo Prison Experiment
May, 1987
You have learned a great deal about a number of revolutions andhave translated that understanding into complex systems models.You're now going to be asked to use your knowledge of revolutions,systems thinking, and STELLA in a new problem.
This problem is the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, that was conductedat Stanford University in 1971. Dr. Zimbardo, a socialpsychologist, conducted an experiment to examine what would happenwhen college students were placed in a mock prison situation. In
effect, Zimbardo constructed his own simulation.
Your task will be to try to create a systems model of theexperiment. You are bcing given an article from the New York TimesMagazine that describes the events surrounding the experiment.This article should provide valuable background information.Please read it carefully before class on May 22. On May 22, we
will show a slide-sound presentation, then conduct a classdiscussion about the experiment. On Monday, May 25, David Kreuterwill join us to help facilitate discussion about the study and themodels you are to build. The rest of the week will be devoted to
building your models.
By Thursday, we hope that you will have some well-developed models.Don't worry about the final product because we know that theexperiment is complex and contains many variables. All we asV is
that you try to develop your models as thoroughly a= possible.
Some Ground RulesUse the New York Times article as a basic reference.You can go back to the slide-sound presentation, if necessary.(We also will provide scripts of its narration for yourreference.)
Use Mr. Clarkson, David Kreutzer, other students, and ETS asavailable sources of information.
Collaboration is fine. However, we would life to get final
reports from each of you. That means you can work together asmuch as you would like, but each of you must submit your reportand model separately.
You will be given disks and a notebook. We ask that you save
a copy of each model you contruct toward the final one. We
also would like to see any notes or other aids you use inconstructing your model.
We really want to understand the process you use to develop your
model. :n the end, we will ask you some questions about howyou worked toward a solution, your thoughts about the model,and the similarities and differences between this project andyour revolution model.
31
2
At the end of the week, we will collect the work you have done.
That does not mean you have to stop work on the model. Feel
free to devote more time to the project. There is always lots
more you can discover about the systems within the experiment.
After you have handed in you model, we will provide someadditional background information and show a model of the
experiment constructed at MIT.
Good luck and have fun. We hope that this project will bechallenging, interesting, and a chance io use some of the ideas you
have learned in the War and Revolution class.
The New York Times Magazine/April 8,1973
ContentsI Saaday 11 La IlarsObainwar Oa Stoner and Spas.thalenveranee sox roles and Stella.Sy Soma Sokor Abop and ethes.
33WTshould Mends bloodwhoa tho Pioredest ran
A eesinterbudget for social progressSy Albs M. Rhea
34'Do yes kaor the ohs ofWar
The guru businessSy ShosInvont Singh
36Nero Songhai out *I Moms
There are swirls them teeSy A. Doak amen
l="
38vb. salad Is a Iseaddable jailorA Piraudelticon prison
Ry Philip C..tirsrendoand camp=
82Oa to MsAttorrowsess
Your move, lassIngerSy Janus Comm
74 WINN011ell SS Nea's radsloasreships. Prood-rtoutiaAnna they *idsall roomette Dy Mahn CompoesIty Ailiwnerieto 112 Bridge
Matta the72 rood of the land''A surclirol bitten ay Aka ThwartWads your dietand tivo 107 Nature Creditslly lam Mayor 114 Pusan111 rood (aDat.)A food sidesposter*
SheCavanBonn
oboksiorM SisluiP416 lity. agi Ktsoballone Asstil Merl it MAW, rich M
A. cholesterol . . . andSy Railroad AK soy Remy mitri-&haw denten. Poe* 72.$$ Maw k then no hope fer
the punnet? Ike PanTM M Mewrsel &mar theocrats bySy Norm Mocha Pig bode. 33
MI N111111 111111111 14111111 1314 111DE N ri p ;v1%
itbii
1;!" II; 11 i 11141 ii
1 11
i1,11 11111 Oil el 460411 'l Iiff!N
ilift ;illilli 11001PIPill11110411gthliMMIOgliffil
1111011111411 IfiTiliiiiiiiiiillillgikliniiqiiiiiilii011111141 41 111111111 WIIJ iliewillislislifilifiliiimiiithvikfliiiiivil
IiiWiltiginigiCilhigliariglinligligilitlilig11111111111,1111
1111
1111
1118
1N
ipt1
1911
tati
111
1:01
5/14
%16
1IL
r Cf/
P111
9111
11fe
4111
1/%
1411
1111
1191
rI
10:1
1411
1111
itiill
prig
iwild
eirg
el /1
1 t
aU
4411
1101
1;11
1441
:111
141i
gr li
fV
.ri
gi
13
(ittill
1411
41;1
111N
riV
illip
ilf
it
4/11
11R
irlit
e[H
i11
1411
01M
11
4111
0111
%11
114
ir 1
111 Irt
sith
riii;
e1M
retiV
iiihi
llial
lilip
lisitt
114
tiO
len
ill ;1
1014
11/1
111
1111
1111
11/1
11/1
101r
4
1111
1011
1111
11FI
PPIT
1111
1114
101
Pier
is fl4ta
li te
ll 1
id4
lin11
11[
qhfI
ttit !
grit
mill
ium
pilit
iriti
!pio
n'
opilo
wpo
luul
lpig
imm
igin
dipo
iI
'I'1
1113
Me
tili1
111
1141
11;4
1111
111
1;11
;1It
P:11
111
kii!
RIN
N10
1111
111
afiti
liNII
Ifn
i
.
$S MS.S NIl MIluwud by.- S.1w1wMm - 1W,- S. S. piMNygil_-I *1w the - US.a g.wd IMsI 1w uta.
Ms thus thiS. S.M a Ml a...1 eM* $11 d S.
- ,..,..ny us aD suusIll S.. Ml
- 1Ib.S.seu.l4.4 w MNsd Mm- S. S. N S.57 S.lS.S.Mmu, ,$JLSS.
Mm MM 1w - Is-Is 1w MIS. -
INI - S.. .151 Iss a d pd...." I -
S. l. S. Ml S. $I1w S.S. 1wsMl S. S.
Mm Is 1w $ 1uI S.m 1wI S.. aMmi sirs aM.1w- LMtMms- - _.Il__I 1wS- 1w IS. - usU- =M. A st Mm IS. ..I. - WNM I biUrs
.J S.1wS. IS. muIrS. MIS. s.. .11w- aslud by 1w'WilI1wIisaDy..
.UMiy 1w r...... 1w1w b - i.'- si.agiS. 1w w .1.pls Mm .1 S.. -
S.Ismsigkwd.*a- ,niL MS1w 1w-. k.usL...., SN
M1w&NSSNIN$S.turd s Mm .1 MI*MIS.,rdthuywu.1l1w.1w - s g
m ---MN us 1w pS.us mssra- wsusls____1w&....ik.(a.r-- AIIm - a
MS. S...111331.1 -Wl S.putSNp - 1w_ L_
Mm Mm S. 1w PMMIS P.115 D.r.JL...4S. is-
usawI .1- ,ila_.iS.1w IN dey J.1.pl_ - SN - Murd1w ,.Ji... .1 1wMI - siSN MIMI by iey IIli&
Mm .1.1w usif Musukaud_ Lw
1w __urn1wS.idur,
IMI III S.i usIs ausupWI. 1w CUS.PISMN
My suM S. 1w1w iM SN MN
1.1 S.. MmMrsSN 1w S. 31w'ale. AISir thsy MIs. s, suMaut*Ii 1w .......iU,.1 - MNS. y S..
1w Isle.We -- pummel S. Ise .
11*3 Mm- 1w L,i I.S.sus S. Ml bus
MS. priaud11. 1ir MIMI IS. S. S.- Mt-s 1w day Ml- S. eMIl weMm I. dma. sustul IS.aulIlSy MId S. Mr -.MI S.. SuM - -1w i MususussMN1w.1irdMIJay..1-.-----
WI. a ls.wU. iUp.MI w MiNI S. MS. MIS.1w (1w pI....- .-.-- MsMN .-4 S.-
by 1wpusugUg MNMm 1w 1w - S.b
....uui.IL,. ad. S. U,-IrS. p.1 iuL_L Mm1 UIsis. Mm S.m SS. slur S. t MD. irS. up.p.1 the thusp. aMN pus?iu,u m MmS. MiLL. S. MN
S. .1w S. N.- S. u15s .1 S._7. . .1w 11w- t IS. .
r .m. MmS., Me 1w Isdud MI 1waa -Mt .usS eli ur a paDli______ .1 thus apiMi1.1.1.11w MI1w .1w Mr a IuepWs isv-Mi Wi .1.11w Meyw. U.- L.I..4i the puMe.
MI puJad S.nusu- Ms 1wMI p.1.,. 1w Mi-
J__._..
.11w V.1w 1.1w.uu ar,L.isatpsd
Is. svd S. waspS.Mm S.Mry.1.11wmedm. 01w A.Pilr S. -g if NI51.
aiS. M I was p.uIMI MI- aMN - a Mm MN I- MI inS.
ASr .t n mNI.1u$u mIM
rd.11w aMIag .4h.1w pus.1MU *MI I dell elMs
.1s eMs 1w .
.1 _ MmS.. sus S.
Thus . '7.1w, thus1w piMmis eli athu Issif_7 $$plNMm ad I seuM,
Mm MuMaiMly 1w S. uMI. S.MUg iMy sy ir I. eMs- S. --' Is aD
a p.s. .. . At cull I
assp1w - sytukaMidMI Mi _7 S. MIS. 'WMI
-, 'us usD3 s 'NOMt&Mr. Curstulmi OMN.''Wil. - Mm pus dust CMI silk ii 1*5 isputrkMi Dupi 5.1.1
Mr a igiuuase MI 1e1MI-b.sus I -. usMmr MI - 1w CM-
... MwNe MsI es *51mg ..psthsiSc Is-esli I$3 I j.ieMI.d 1wS. S.S. sIll MI... .11w weMl Mm mmd - 1w10usd D MI I Ms . Mudusiwsd - -bus. S. is glut luMudu MIsMuwe eus p.1mg I. deS.
P1w Day £,.JL4 fur1w fluS. ikluusV .3gM
eMeg 1w puL..us1w S. aiM mmy -p"slum they su1w Ms sMI
tail, us d.lyS.s.t S. 1w Mm V. I
.sduwIsu.us.11w
1w vs sy Mm Mm.. MrMs aypu.1.w.lM11uu.$y U.. S.
keausy .MN u MIS.MN
M .11w alL WIse Msp511w MI p1Mm, 1w S.iUIe.IN$rMsMI.11wMm i"w MIsissdkMSg mmpthg I MSID.. Thu vs Ms Mm pmfl.1Me ..,iiL1w I vs
MI Mm valS..
Pmmnb . . Th
- -g IL_tuIl_,g a- uis MeUg 1wr--sI slum. MI I is-.1M - Mm ft M 1.1
r -y..ay MIt-.-_ _ 1_,_w7* 1 M _ 1wp.'
S. **1..J3rS. SD _ -
I M's iNjud MM 1w Mrmgrd.MIsMm _S.Milurlirdi 1-ply d.s1 S.. MI. tumiV.11k Mm at MN PIe- p,I._ (41$) Mm.MIUtMI _ij...suMN MI MI. Ms Ui.
Ms S. Ms-I.S. .11 lumI. WI Muss .1w.1 sullud Mm,,5s4t _ii.1y gaS.. 1w MNwe M's sew Me aMuse. Wedads S. phy UPS. -w- MI tall thu .uwthu all thu ethus eli be I..puIvud .1 MINis be des.S. Nt MI Mew. ...Ieilkby sIMN MN MS. 1w
y at MU pd..w MrMg diusustut MI 5Mm MrMe isles. I S. firs.Mud Ms. MIS. esuMit -
37
IMIiMlsd.suNslass. I didu'I Miluss Uus - I. I Mad upusVMrsmlMgMIstbutIMad*15 1w aS. "3*5
S. awe. 11.1 dad but usS.D.d...sthw
eMI buss. .11w Ml.1ey MIb- theysu 3aykj &__....J.__We eus S. lu 1.1Mg
Us ____ ___S. sNub . -r-- vs1 a_.... S. MeMmuS. byMs .1Ms .4._ut WI WIN - upS. 1w pMI .11w pumm.Me ..115L4, Ms .u.d S..Mi- 1w sulubka 1waddr .1 ur MI .11.1
1w __ MitMN MI
vftM. We Mla.
iws-suth vsMNtud ails - 1w (vmm ftsly 1w?g dips mmd lL
WV's SsuMd lee f.. MI1w Is.51 as ,l_J1ssUMs ,u-Itfff ..,jlw..sMpsaf_7 _ S.L...
-1Mu $3mg
. .
Wau ft MN.11w Mm'S. eIsa uwup-
Issue-lIst sue -us emIr Uu eel MI
r UI1w 1.1.1IMmUslus iS. 1w Mm ft vsMN1w MN 1w NI-S.S. We 1Mm. Mrs as-, drHL__t -'r _S. S.derd lisa Mm_7at-ass. - $ tim .1 sNub usbe buss.IS. r1J .iNI Mm
Mm S.. MM Mm aisMI,-. --I y suurN M ealisly aMmMm1w,.- .1 $ MIS isiL 5thUS.p.
S. S. 1151 sMm.vMmS.. - Mm in p..P-S. MI piMe, MI V ft sadMpp S. the s.114M.asp .1A5aIa$ S., thus
Me eMs sudsey S. dulig laMS. the suM asudu .1 puS..suis vIe irs S. MI. vusy
p',-U. _ S. Met
lbs paS.&.$3 ala..J S.Mm MmSt 1.ably aNiMal S. p,e-'gp......DIj u. .11w
Mm 1pi15 biNsby 1w .uIuctIS.
Nu. sad urIs. 5..i1e. *Ms.th. -sIsuimsi Mimi MI-rswtiruu see 1st ii. as $
uS.e( 11* Debb. wLe..t M* a- theM sMrMteuJbe psthdagl..j S. sthir usIMgs. MI sS. thU pskue. 31.1 we aS.5Mm - -S.. liii yMus, MeMIt sS. emIl MmINS able S. aluMe
111Mm S. Mm,e.Mrdiucta ir pursusilsy s.sijuinri. eMs Mis .11w- ep suMMsMMquicWS.MbiMpssN
±:ic." TINamay S. IuMm Me ass .1I11auIai dI..jj..... Mlu apaiSkairpururirwipsi.
Ms pusurugMmM MOw DaN Pass.
IN, Mt su,11... Mt SN aNus puusar
S. S. pusMbMm - Mm. MI as.1MI Ma usal IMS.. labsI Mm S. SMeMs U tiusIud MI 1w MIpsiur. TIN lit _ MNjMNiy S. iu.,&.t S. Mepuuçls utcuidlig S. uNImiP
Mm MI Ms.ubMmIy mMI,- Mm I.Me p1l1w S. Im -ar usy I.
- by MmJusMIlS. usMI 1wMmS. we is
Mm the ff a$1115_lIspIlal S.
.ulsMmpk'uIdtheyasdrL wS..1S.s.sk_.
du us. ewl S. U.IS. Mm Mm
1l4I sues - S.Mm _ 't Msusasly eM
Me Made apeMs. .1 seMi arsI
slUM. sMf.& 4MtiNy. _ aa?,g ilcusub aM -
.1 Mm r 5S. sip. au,..iukla S.S.
_ --II-MN -DaWsuusls.1 -- -- Mm
- ailsall had In appusurley wieur 11Mg aul WiiDuil spen Ibi susi MIisk.3 MN .1 fausMI wu -fed Mm.- -sue asly IMale -S. uMuge. *
!
Ms.,Wwsslruup r5W Met MN suM Iwsi *u.J1iSi MI ISsUe
ally specific. but the elf.knowlwige gained has pie.sated.
for U, most disturbing M.Olathe of net researchcornea freer the parallels be.tweets what occurred in thatbasement mock prison anddaily earperiences la our owntivwand we presume yours.The physical institution ofprison Is but a concrete andNeel metaphor for the dabmire el more pervasive, albeitkm obvious, prisons of themind that all el es dailycreate. populate and perpetwate. We speak here of theprisons of tuba. entims.despair. abysms. sesuretichang ups and the lbs. Thesocial convention of mania's.as one exampk becomes for=say Callan a state of fo.
prisonmen in which one pert.am' agrees to be prisoner orrmrd. forcing or allowing theother to play the reciprocaltote invariably without auk.leg the contract explicit.
To what extent do we allowemotion to become hawk.used by docilely accepting therein others assip us or leadeed. choose to ternain prises.as because being passive anddependent frees us from theneed to act and be responsiblefor our actions? The prime offear constructed in the deliaims of the paranoid is noleas confining or leas real thanthe cell that every shy personmeets to limit his own free.dent in anxious anticipationof being ridiculed and mintedby his guards -.often guardsof his own maldng. 111
43.46114 a.' I'.
A rich prisoner enjoys the amenities of a - privilege earset up by guards to increase thaw psychological authority.
- 38
. ...L.J11.
Systems Thinking
APPENDIX C
33
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: BIOLOGY
CHAPTER%TIME
TOPIC PER TOPIC%TOPIC
W/SYSTEMS TEACHER
+1 Life: Common Characteristics 4
3
4 20 R*
2 Biology as a Science 9 G
3 C
3 R
3 Materials of Life 6 G
3 C
5 R
4 Energy of Life 6 G9 C
8 R
+5 Cell Structure & Function 17 G
12 C
16 16 R
+6 Cellular Basis of Heredity 7 G
6 C
12 29 R
7 Principles of Heredity 8 G
9 C
8 R
+ Systems Integrated Here
%TIME PER TOPIC: Reflects the percentage of time devoted to each topicduring 1986-87 school year. Percentage of timederived from the number of days per topic divided bytotal number of instructional days per year.
%TOPIC W/SYSTEMS: Reflects percentage of time a particular topic wastaught from a systems perspective. Percentage oftopic with systems derived from an estimate of thenumber of days devoted to instruction with systemsdivided by the number of days per topic.
TEACHERS: Godfrey (G)
Coles (C)
*Richardson (R) Systems Teacher
40
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: BIOLOGY
CHAPTER%TIME %TOPIC
TOPIC PER TOPIC W /SYSTEMS TEACHER
8 Genes and Chromosomes 11 G9 C24 R
9 The Genetic CAE: 7 G9 C7 R
10 Change With Time5
R
11 Adaptation & Specialization5
2
12 Classification3
R
13 Monerans, Frotists, Fungi 3
C
- R
14 Plan- 2
CR
15 Sponges to Mollusks 1
CR
16 Arthropods to Vertebrates 2
C
R
17 Simple Organisms 1 G3 C
R
19 Simple Organisms 4 Gand Disease 6 C
R
41
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: BIOLOGY
CHAPTER%TIME
TOPIC PER TOPIC%TOPIC
W/SYSTEMS TEACHER
20 Plant Reproduction 8 Gand Development 6 C
R
+21 Plant Nutrition 8 G3 C
12 50 R
22 Plants: Other Life Functions -
3
R
24 Animal Development3
R
+ Systems Integrated Here
42
Mr'
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: CHEMISTRY
CHAPTER TOPIC%TIME %TOPIC
PER TOPIC WAYSTEMS TEACHER
1 Nature, Science & You B*1
2 Measuring & Calculating 4
6
3 Matter2
4 Chemical Shorthand 12
8
5 The Mole 8
8
6 Atomic Structure 12
8
7 Electrons & Clouds 8
6
8 The Periodic Table 4
7
9 Process of Bonding 4
6
10 Results of Bonding 2
1
11 Structure/Propertiesof Molecules
1
12 Kinetic Energy 4
2
14 Liquids 2
8
TEACHERS: Groves (G)
*Butterfield (B) Systems Teacher
43
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: CHEMISTRY
%TIMETOPIC PER TOPIC
%TOPICV /SYSTEMS TEACHER
15 Gases 6 B5 G
16 Gases and the Mole 7 B
5 G
18 Solutions 2 B
8
+19 Itaction Rate & Chemical 12 100 BEquations 6 G
20 Acids, Bases, & Equilibrium 8 B
3 G
21 Oxidation - ;eduction 4 B
G
23 Nuclear Chemistry B
10 G
+s Environmental/ 9 100 B
Social Problems(Ecosystems, MineralDepletion, Smog, ToothDecay, Water Pollution)
+ Systems Integrated Here
s Supplementary Topics
44
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: G.P.S.
CHAPTER%TIME
TOPIr PER TOPIC%TOPIC
WS/STEMS TEACHER
+1 The Nature of Science 6 J
9 7 0*
2 Force and Work 12 J
2 0
+3 Motion J
9 13 0
+4 Laws of Motion J
1 0
+5 Properties of Matter 8 J
9 7 0
6 Elements & Periodic Table 17 J
9 0
+7 Compounds and Bonding 23 J
9 27 0
8 Families of Elements: Metals - J
2 0
9 Nonmetals J
1 0
10 Families of Elements: Carbon - J
1 0
11 Organic Chemistry J
1 0
12 Solutions J
1 0
13 Chemical Reactions 11 J
3 0
+ Systems Integrated Here
TEACUPS: Jessup (J)
*O'Brien (0) Systems Teacher
SCIENCE CURRICULUM: G.P.S.
CHAPTER TOPIC%TIME
PER TOPIC%TOPIC
W/SYSTEMS TEACHER
+15 Waves9 13 0
+16 Light and Color3 40 0
17 Light and its Uses3 0
18 Sound1 0
19 Heat1 0
+21 Electricity11 20 0
+22 Electricity & its Uses J
11 5 0
s Scientific Notation 10 J
s Nuclear Power 14
+ Systems Integrated Here
s Supplementary Topic
46
11$
iatt
. r
technologyand learnin
Editorial Advisory BoardJoan Baum
York College of Jamaica, NY
Jeffrey SonarLearning Research andDevelopment Center
John BranfordVanderbilt University
John Seely BrownXerox PARC
William J. CanaryStanford University
Wallace RamisBBN Laboratories Inc
Hermann HertelIPN West Germany
Alan UnsoldLearning Research andDevelopment Center
Matthew L wistamegieMellor Jniversity
Marcia LinnUniversity of California. Berkeley
Andrew MolnarNational Science Foundation
James MaherAT & T Research Center
Puede NailerUniversity of Hu la, Israel
Donald NixIBM Watson Research Center
Tim O'SheaOpen University, England
Seymour PawlMassachusetts Instit we of Technology
Roy PeaNOV York University
Peter PirelliUniversity of California. Berkeley
Joseph PsotkaArmy Behavioral Research Institute
John RichardsBBN Laboratories Inc
And,. RubinBBN Laboratories Inc.
Judah SchwartzHarvard University
Graduate School of Education
Andrea damesUniversity of Cabforma, Berkeley
Clem E. ftnelbeckerTemple University
Elliot SafewayYaN University
Vol. 1, No. 4July/August 1987
Caveats and Realities in TechnologicalCurriculum Innovation'
Ellen B. Mandinach andMargaret E. Thorpe'Educational Testing ServicePrinceton, NJ 05541
In a previous article (Mandinach EtThorpe, 1987), we described aninnovative curriculum project thatintegrates a perspective known assystems thinking into high schoolscience and social studies. Usingsoftware called STELLA (Richmond,1985) on the Apple Macntoshn",students can build models andsimulate the operation of thosemodels over time. The user can testthe effects of changes on selectedvariables or the system as a wholeby altering characteristics of par-ticular variables within the model.
The curriculum project, SystemsThinking and Curriculum InnovationISTACI), is a collaborative effort offour teachers at Brattleboro UnionHigh School 1BUHS) in Vermont andthe Educational Testing Service, incooperation with the EducationalTechnology Center at Harvard TheBUHS teachers are the curriculumdevelopers and implementers ingeneral physical science, biology,chemistry, and an experimentalcourse entitled War and Revolution.With the support of several indi-viduals within their community, aswell as experts from MIT and Dart-mouth, these teachers have assumedresponsibility for integrating systemsthinking into their curricula. The roleof ETS is to examine the cognitivedemands and consequen,:es of usingsystems thinking and the modelingsoftware. Of primary interest is theextent to which students acquirehigher-order cognitive skills throughinteraction with a curriculum infusedwith systems thinking concepts and,subsequently, generalize knowledgeand skills to other substantive areas.
48
. The intent of this article is todisLuss issues related to the develop-ment and implementation of atechnology-oriented curriculum inno-vation from the perspective of practi-tioners and researchers. Eachperspective has its own responsibi-lities, objectives, and interests, yetthere is comrr interest andreliance among the involved parties.We begin the discussion from theperspective of the. practitioners,whose responsibility for the cur-riculum development and implemen-tation underlies the innovation. Wethen describe the research perspec-tive and issues that arise betweenresearch aria practice in the wort tostudy curriculum innovation.
Practitioner PerspectiveThere are several issues related to
curriculum development and imple-mentation that arise from the practi-tioner's perspective administrativesupport, physical resources, person-nel considerations le.g., release time,expertise, and support from col-leagues), instructional concerns, anddissemination.
Administrative Support
A prerequisite for curriculum inno-vation is support from the adminis-tration. This support can take variousforms and lends credibility to theproject. Its absence can seriouslyundermine even the most educa-tionally sound effort. For example,the principal at BUHS thoroughlysupports the STACI project and haschosen to place responsibility fordecision making and overall opera-tion in the teachers' hands. He lendsassistance, if necessary, but prefersto allow the teachers to administertheir own project.
2
Mandinach and Thorpe (coned)
Physical Resources
A second issue is the provision offacilities, materials, and equipment
the resources that are necessary ifimplementation is to succeed.Because curriculum innovations thatfocus on new technologies are costlyendeavors, they often are beyond themeans of most school systems.Thus, assistance to obtain hardwareand software facilitates timely andeffective implementation.
Recognizing the difficulties ofmeeting their needs, the teacherssought assistance from internal andexternal sources. For initial develop-ment, they obtained a federal grantthrough wh:..:h software and oneMacintosh'"" were purchased. AppleExternal Research generouslydonated a classroom set of 15 com-puters. In addition, BUHS was ableto acquire 15 copies of STELLA anda portable projection system withhelp from ETS. Through theassistance of the principal, theteachers were able to secure a roomwhich now hoilsas the computerlaboratory. Without these resources,the systems thinking project couldhave functioned, but at a substan-tially diminished level.
Peisonnel Considerations
A number of personnel issuesconfront practitioners involved in cur-riculum development and implemen-tation Among the most pressingissues are release time, expertise, andsupport from colleagues.
Release time Curriculum develop-ment is a time consuming anddemanding process under normalcircumstances. It is more difficultwhen there are no models to followBecause curriculum guides do notexist, the BUHS teachers havecreated their own curricula. Develop-Ment required a considerable outlayof time to read, reflect, experiment,and refine ideas and lessons. Thoughthe teachers began some preliminarywork in the spring and summer of1986, the major development effortoccurred during the followingacademic year. As a consequence,the issue of release time for develop-ment was a primary concern. To freethe teachers for development sou-l/dais during the school day,paraprofessional support was obtain-ed to assume some of their non-teaching functions. Although thisstrategy has allocated intervals of
time for curriculum development, thecompeting demands of busy teach-ing schedules inhibited sustainedactivity and prolonged development.
There are no easy solutions to thissituation. The teachers Indicated thatrelease time was essential to theirdevelopment efforts. Before curriculacould be developed for students,staff needed time to further theirown knowledge of systems thinkingand STELLA. Delays in developingexpertise mitigated against thedevelopment of materials prior to thebeginning of school.
Expertise. Curriculum developmentdemands expertise in the domain ofinterest Although the BUNSteachers are expers in their subjectareas, they had to develop expertisein systems thinking and the use ofSTELLA. This required substantialtime to learn the concepts andexperiment with the tools.
The teachers independently pur-sued further training or assistancepertaining to their particular needs.They attended a summer workshopon systems thinking and consultedexperts in systems thinking fromMIT. The developers of STELLA haveconsulted on appropriate uses of thesoftware. Intellectual support fromthese experts has been instrumentalin developing the teachers' level ofknowledge and skill.
The process of developing exper-tise in systems thinking has hadunintended but beneficial effects. Ithas provided teachers with oppor-tunities to bring a fresh perspectiveto instruction by reflecting on cur-ricular goals and considering howsystems thinking can be used todemonstrate new Ideas or to rein-force traditional concepts in newways. It also has provided chancesto broaden traditional instruction toinclude a problem solving approachthat may be relevant to learning inother content areas. Furthermore, inattempting to understand systemsthinking, teachers have identifiedconfusions similar to thoseexperienced by students that canstrengthen their teaching of the cur-riculum. By anticipating possibleproblem areas, teachers may be ableto adapt their instruction to clarifydifficult concepts.
Support from colleagues. While.intellectually stimulating, curriculumdevelopment can be an uncertainand frustrating process. To complete
49
the process, difficult questions mustbe answered and creative solutions
'found. However, often the solutionsare not readily apparent. While out-side assistance has been invaluable,there is a need for internal support todeal with development questions.The four BUHS teachers have form-ed a collaborative group providingencouragement and assistance topuma individual and commoninterests. They exchange ideas andinstructional strategies, andcollaborate to develop and testmodels.
Instructional Concerns
Central to curriculum developmentand implementation efforts are issuesrelated to instruction. These con-cerns include questions of integra-tion, instructional sequence, instruc-tional time and academic standards.
Curriculum integration. The over-riding concern is to determine whattopics are most appropriately taughtwith a systems perspective, theselection of which has not beeneasy. Teachers have spent con-siderable time investigating areas thatmight be appropriate for a systemsapproach. In selecting topics, twocriteria were applied. First, examplesmust illustrate a cause-and-effectrelationship within a feedback struc-ture. Second, examples must bewithin a student's level of under-standing The availability of topicsthat lend themselves to systemsthinking has differed across subjectareas. Biology, with numerousexamples of living systems, appearsmost readily suited to a systemsapproach Finding appropriateexamples that are not too complexhas been most difficult in chemistry(e.g., reaction rates).
Instructional time. Inherent in thedevelopment and implementation ofany innovation are uncertaintiesabout demands that accompany theadoption of a new approach.Foremost is the issue of instructionaltime. The introduction of newmaterial is likely to decrease attentionto traditional topics. In the presentcase, time was needed to teachsystems terminology and conceptsThus, devoting time to instruction insystems thinking meant reducingtime devoted to traditional subjects.
It was not known how longstudents would need to learnsystems concepts, become familiarwith the microcomputer, and learn
Mandinach and Thorpe (coned)
STELLA. Further, it was not clearwhen these concepts should betaught and if students would transferknowledge across lessons orcourses. From their experience thisyear, the teachers gained a betteridea of learning time and the pointswhere systems can most effectivelybe used in the curricula. As a result,more efficient use of instructionaltime will be possible in the comingyears. Moreover, as students areexposed to systems thinking, lesstime will be needed to teach basicsystems concepts, allowing them tofocus on applications in the contentareas.
Instructional sequence Determin-ing appropriate sequences forinstruction is also a major concern.Again, because of the absence ofmodel courses, the BUHS teachersexperimented with various sequencesto best determine how to order thematerials. i he teachers tried differentpatterns le.g., varying when rr.odelsor STELLA are introduced). Feed-back from these efforts providedinformation needed for revisions tobe implemented in the coming years.I. is likely that several iterations willbe necessary to determine the mosteffective instructional sequences.This means that the teachers willcontinue to tinker with theircurricula.
Achievement standards. The intro-duction of an innovation raises con-cern for its effect on academic stan-dards. Two types of standards maybe imperiled if new instructional acti-vities are introduced: performance onstandardized tests may be jeapordiz-ed; and currculwn objectives maynot be realized. Thus, the goals ofthe innovation may be perceived tobe in direct conflict with the pressureto maintain academic standards. Atradeoff underlies this apparent con-flict if the innovation is given a fairtest. It is likely, however, that theinnovation will require additional at-tention at the expense of some tradi-tionally valued materials.
Academic achievement is valuedhighly at BUHS, thus creatingpressure to maintain standards. Tradi-tional cumculm objectives have beendifficult to maintain due, in part, tothe innovation. Allocating time tonew material not directly related totraditional objectives caused conflictfor the systems teachers. Ccmmit-ment to the use of systems concepts
and methodology shortenedcoverage of some traditional topics.In the long run, evaluative informa-tion concerning the effects ofsystems thinking should provideevidence relative to the assessmentof the innovation's worth.
Dissemination
Dissemination can range fromformal presentations or publicationsto more informal, personal contacts.These vehicles serve different needs.At one level, dissemination can servean informational need, alerting othersto the existence and nature of theinnovation. At another, it can serveto solicit support or adoption byothers.
The BUHS teachers have engagedin a number of formal and informalactivities to share information aboutsystems thinking with other staffmembers in their school. Thesystems teachers presented theirproject to the staff and welcomedinquiries from interested teachers. Toencourage further dissemination, atraining session was offered tointerested students, faculty, andcommunity members.
Research Perspective
Several issues related to cur-riculum innovation arise from theresearch perspective. These includebalancing the research perspectivefrom that used by the practitioner,obtaining student participation,design issues le.g., units of analysis,treatment differences, the nature ofthe intervention), and burdenscreated by conducting the research.
Balancing Perspectives
The research perspective differsfrom that of the practitioner in anumber of ways. Practitionersdevelop and implement the cur-riculum, whereas researchers studythe process and effects of introduc-ing such innovations. These dif-ferences provide opportunities forcollaboration as each perspectivebrings information valuable to theefforts of the other. Without practi-tioners, there would be no innovationto study. Without researchers, theconsequences of innovation may notbe understood.
While researchers and practitionersrecognize the potential benefits ofcollaboration, the realities of conduc-ting research in school settingsimpose certain limitations and
50
3demands on both parties. To studyschool-based innovations, there mustbe a balance of the needs of bothpractitioners and researchers abalance which is not always easy tomaintain. Often research requires thecooperation and assistance of practi-tioners beyond their normal com-mitments. While researchers must besensitive not to exceed reasonablerequests, practitioners mustrecognize that to conduct validstudies, certain research require-ments must be met.
Student Pamcipation
If a formal study is to be con-ducted to examine the innovation'simpact, informed parental consent isrequired to protect the rights non-participating and participatingstudents. Efforts must be made toprotect non - participating studentsfrom negative consequences as aresult of their non-participation. AtBUHS, approximately 15% of thestudents have chosen not to par-tcipate in the study. The non-consenting students received thecurriculum innovation as a normalpart of their instruction, but theirwork was not exarrned as aresearch activity.
Design Issues
A second intervention issue is thecompatability between the researchdesign and realities of classrooms.Methodology and design must beflexible to conduct research in schoolsettings. That is, researchers mustrn...1.a compromises that will enablethe collection of informative data.Common problems that arise includeattrition, transfers. course changes,and other issues that alter the natureand composition of the sample andtreatment.
Units of analysis. At BUHS, weare fortunate to have relativelyequivalent treatment and controlgroups An equal number of classesin each subject are being taught astreatments and controls. However,the added confounding factor thatthere is only one systems teacher persubject makes it difficult todistinguish between teacher andtreatment effects. In the ideal designthere would be several teachers foreach subject. However, becauseschools rarely correspond to researchdesigns, we must account for theconfounding factor through appro-priate statistical procedures
Mandinach and Thorpe (coned)
Treatment differences Anotherpotential confounding problem is ifparts of the treatment become in-fused in the control classes. Ifassessment of an innovation's impactis to be made, there must be ameasurable separation between treat-ment and Control classes. Shouldteachers in the control classes adoptaspects of the innovation, there is noway to examine treatment dif-ferences. While this confound is acompliment to the innovativeteachers, it is a nightmare to theresearchers. Although infusion of theinnovation distinguishes treatmentfrom control, the Course content ofthe groups should be comparable.Because achievement is a primaryoutcome, it is cntcal that bothgroups receive equivalent subjectmatter instruction. It would be other-wise impossible to assess the innova-tion's impact if course content werenot held constant.
Nature of intervention. The natureof the intervention directly influencesthe design of research. Studentsmust receive sufficient exposure totrio new instructional materials if theinnovation is to affect achievementand learning. Thus, teachers mustdevelop and use sufficiently rich andnumerous modules of the new cur-riculum for effects to be realized.There is always a danger thatresearch will be conducted beforethe new instructional program canbe fully implemented. It is difficultand unfair for researchers to assessan innovation's impact when therehas not been a sufficientimplementation.
Research Burdens and Contnbutions
Research brings to a school cer-tain impositions that may interferewith instruction. The prime exampleis data collection. Research oftenrequires the administration of teststhat teachers would not normally useand observations that can upsetclassroom procedures. Trachers maybe asked to collect information,document procedures, and performother activities.outside the range ofnormal duties. All of the requestsplace additional burdens and respon-sibility on the teachers because ofthe research project.
With all of these inconveniences,there also are positive effects causedby the research. Perhaps the mostimportant asset is validity. Research
0 1
can provide evidence that the cur-riculum innovation has had positiveoutcomes in learning, teaching, andinstruction. It provides validation thatthe teachers' efforts have been suc-cessful and that the innovation wasworth doing. The researchers'presence also indicates the innova-tion's importance, and that theresults should be disseminated toothers who might want to implementthe Curriculum.
Moreover, research can provideevidence of generalizability as well aslocal validity. The ultimate goals ofan innovation are twofold. The cur-riculum must be effective for thosewho developed it and, more impor-tant, the curriculum can be imple-mented in other settings, thusestablishing its generalizability. This isthe ultimate compliment for innova-tive educators who strive con-tinuously to improve their teachingand develop more effective instruc-tional materials.
Footnote:1 Trim research is being conducted underme auspices of the Educational TechnologyCenter. Harvard Graduate School of Educeton and is supported by the Office ofEducational Research and Improvement. Anyopinions. fincangs, and conclusions Orrecommendations expressed in this docu-Agent are those of the author/ and do notnecessarily reflect the views of ETC, OERI,or ETS The authors wish to acknowledgeApple External Research. Charles Butter-field, Oavid Clarkson, Chris O'Brien, LarryRichardson. and the administration andstudents of Brattleboro Union High School.
References
Mandinach, E B . b Thorpe, M E. 09071,The systems Minium and curriculuminnovation motet Technology and Learn.mtg. n 121, 1, 1041
Rchmond, 13 119851, STELLA (Computerprogram, Lyme, NM Nigh PerformanceSystems. Inc