Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 447–459 | Cite as

General system theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all

  • David Chen
  • Walter Stroup
Article

Abstract

In this paper we suggest using general system theory (GST) as a unifying theoretical framework for “science and technology education for all.” Five reasons are articulated: the multidisciplinary nature of systems theory, the ability to engage complexity, the capacity to describe system dynamics and change, the ability to represent the relationship between the micro-level and macro-level of analysis, and the ability to bring together the natural and human worlds. The historical origins of system ideas are described, and the major concepts of system theory are mapped; including the mathematical, technological, and philosophical constructs. The various efforts to implement system thinking in educational contexts are reviewed, and three kinds of learning environments are defined: expert presentation, simulation, and real-world. A broad research agenda for exploring and drawing-out the educational implications of system thinking and learning is outlined. The study of both real-world and simulated learning environments is advocated.

Key words

Science education for all general system theory system thinking learning technology complexity simulation real world 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968).General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications George Braziller, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1975),Perspectives on General System Theory George Braziller, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Blauberg, I. V., Sadovsky, V. N., and Yudin, E. G. (1977).Systems Theory: Philosophical and Methodological Problems Progress Publishers, Moscow.Google Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. (1960).The Process of Education Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. (1991).Literacy: An Overview by Fourteen Experts Hill and Wang, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bybee, R. (1984). Global problems and science education policy. In Bybee, R., et al. (Eds.),Redesigning Science and Technology Education — 1984 NSTA Yearbook National Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. (1987). Science education and the science-technology-society (S-T-S) theme.Science Education 71(5): 667–683.Google Scholar
  8. Carceles, G. (1990). World literacy prospects at the turn of the century: Is the objective of literacy for all by the year 2000 statistically plausible?Comparative Education Review 34(1): 4–41.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, S. (1985a). Are children fundamentally different kinds of thinkers and learners than adults? In Chipman, E. A. S. (Ed.),Thinking and Learning Skills, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  10. Carey, S. (1985).Conceptual Change in Childhood Bradford Books/M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education.American Psychologist 41: 1123–1130.Google Scholar
  12. De Corte, E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (1987).Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press,Google Scholar
  13. Defay, R. (1929). Introduction à la thermodynamique des systèmes ouvertes.Acadèmie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin Classe de Sciences, 53 Serie.Google Scholar
  14. Forrester, J. W. (1961).Industrial Dynamics Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  15. Forrester, J. W. (1968).Principles of Systems Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Forrester, J. W. (1973).World Dynamics Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  17. Forrester, J. W. (1975).Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Forrester, J. W. (1991). System dynamics — adding structure and relevance to pre-college education. In Manning, K. R. (Ed.),Shaping the Future M.I.T Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  19. Garigliano, L. J. (1975). SCIS: Children's understanding of the systems concept.School Science and Mathematics 75: 245–250.Google Scholar
  20. Glaser, R. (1987). Learning theory and theories of knowledge. In Lodewijks, H., De Corte, L. E., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (Eds.),Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press, pp. 397–414.Google Scholar
  21. Goody, J. (1977).The Domestication of the Savage Mind Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Halloun, I. A., and Hestenes, D. (1985). Initial knowledge state of college physics students.American Journal of Physics 53(11): 1043–1055.Google Scholar
  23. Havelock, E. A. (1976).Origins of Western Literacy The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, D. M., and Hill, R., Michael G. (1985). An investigation of the system concept.School Science and Mathematics 85(3): 233–239.Google Scholar
  25. Hopkins, R. H., Campbell, K. B., and Peterson, N. S. (1987). Representations of perceived relations among the properties and variables of a complex system.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics smc-17(1) 52–60.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt, A. N. R., and Hunt, C. R. (1986). Children's strategies for discovering cause-effect relationships.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23(5): 451–464.Google Scholar
  27. Laszlo, E. (1972).Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Laszlo, E. (1986).Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought Gordon and Breach, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Lawrence, J. E. S. (1992). Literacy and human resources development: An integrated approach.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 520: 42–53.Google Scholar
  30. Lotka, A. J. (1920, 1956).Elements of Mathematical Biology Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Mandinach, E. B., and Thorpe, E. T. (1987).The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation Project: Technical Report. Part 1, Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Nichols House, Appian Way, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.Google Scholar
  32. Mandinach, E. B., and Thorpe, M. E. (1988).The Systems Thinking and Curriculum Innovation Project: Technical Report. Part 2, Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Nichols House, Appian Way, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.Google Scholar
  33. McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., and Green, B. (1980), Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects.Science 210: 1039–1141.Google Scholar
  34. Meadows, D. L., and Meadows, D. H. (1973).Toward Global Equilibrium: Collected Papers. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  35. Meadows, D. H.,et al. (1972).The Limits to Growth Universe Books, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Meadows, D. L., Behrens, W. W., Meadows, D. H., Naill, R. F., Randers, J., and Zahn, E. K. O. (1974).Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  37. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., and Randers, J. (1992).Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future Chelsea Green Publishing, Post Mills, Vermont.Google Scholar
  38. Mettes, C. T. C. W. (1987). Factual and procedural knowledge: Learning to solve science problems. In Lodewijks, H., De Corte, L. E., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (Eds.),Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press, 285–295.Google Scholar
  39. Mintz, R. (1987). Computer simulation as an instructional tool for the teaching of ecological system. Doctoral thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  40. Mioduser, D., Venezky, R. L., and Gong, B. (1992).Evolving Models of Simple Control Systems Division of Cognitive and Instructional Science, Educational Testing Service, Rosedale Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08541.Google Scholar
  41. Pugh, A. L. (1986).Professional DYNAMO Plus Reference Manual Pugh-Roberts Associates, 5 Lee St., Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  42. Resnick, L. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception.Science 220: 477–478.Google Scholar
  43. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Instruction and the cultivation of thinking. In De Corte, L. E., Lodewijks, H., Parmentier, R., and Span, P. (Eds.),Learning and Instruction: European Research in an International Context, Pergamon Press/Leuven University Press, pp. 415–442.Google Scholar
  44. Resnick, M. (1992).Beyond the Centralized Mindset: Explorations in Massively-Parallel Microworlds Dissertation submitted at Media Lab of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  45. Richardson, G. P. (1991).Feedback Taught in Social Science and System Theory University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  46. Richardson, G. P., and Pugh, A. L. (1981).Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO. Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  47. Richmond, B., and Peterson, S. (1984, 1990). STELLA. High Performance Systems, Inc., Hanover, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  48. Riley, D. (1990). Learning about systems by making models.Computers in Education 15(1–3): 255–263.Google Scholar
  49. Roberts, N. (1975). A dynamic feedback approach to elementary social studies: A prototype gaming unit. PhD. Boston University (available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan).Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, N. (1978). Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: An elementary view.Management Science 24(8): 836–843.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, N., Andersen, D. F., Deal, R. M., Garet, M. S., and Shaffer, W. A. (1983).Introduction to Computer Simulation: A System Dynamics Modeling Approach, Addison-Wesley, xxx.Google Scholar
  52. Rudnitsky, A. N., and Hunt, C. R. (1986). Children's strategies for discovering cause-effect relationship.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23(5): 451–464.Google Scholar
  53. Schrödinger, E. (1944, 1967).What is Life? Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  54. Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations.Sloan Management Review 32(1): 7–23.Google Scholar
  55. Senge, P. M. (1990).The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization Doubleday Currency, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Senge, P., and Colleen, L.-K. (1991). Recapturing the spirit of learning through a systems approach.The School Administrator November: 8–13.Google Scholar
  57. Shannon, C. E., and Weaver, (1949).The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, xxx.Google Scholar
  58. Steed, M. (1992). STELLA, A simulation construction kit: Cognitive process and educational implications.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 11: 39–52.Google Scholar
  59. Street, B. V. (1984).Literacy in Theory and Practice Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Stuessy, C. L. (1988). Path analysis: A model for the development of scientific reasoning abilities in adolescents.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(1): 41–53.Google Scholar
  61. Venezky, R. L. (1992a). Catching up and filling in: Literacy learning after high school (in press).Google Scholar
  62. Venezky, R. L. (1992b).Matching Literacy Testing with Social Policy: What are the Alternatives? National Center on Adult Literacy, University of Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  63. Venezky, R., and David, M. (1991). Science and technology for the twenty-first century.Trade Secrets, University of Delaware 11(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  64. Venezky, R. L., Kaestle, C. F., and Sum, A. M. (1987). The Subtle Danger:Reflections on the Literacy Abilities of America's Young Adults (16-CAEP-01), Center for the Assessment of Educational Progress, Educational Testing Service, 54–57.Google Scholar
  65. Vinals, M. (1985). A critical analysis of the concepts of cognitive style: Benefits for educational practitioners. Qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  66. Wagner, D. A. (1992). World literacy: Research and policy in the EFA decade. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 520: 12–26Google Scholar
  67. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Ed.),Constructionism Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., pp. 193–203.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, W. (1992a).SimCity Maxis, Orinda, California.Google Scholar
  69. Wright, W. (1992b).SimEarth Maxis, Orinda, California.Google Scholar
  70. Yager, R. E. (1988). A new focus for school science: S/T/S.School Science and Mathematics 88: 181–190.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Chen
    • 1
  • Walter Stroup
    • 1
  1. 1.The Wright Center for Science Education, Science and Technology Center, 4 Colby StreetTufts UniversityMedford

Personalised recommendations