Instructional Representations as Tools to Teach Systems Thinking

  • Tammy Lee
  • Gail JonesEmail author
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 11)


Emphasis on learning about systems in science education has long been part of national and state curricula, but the focus on implementing a “systems thinking” approach in science classrooms has grown in importance. Systems thinking involves helping students understand the complexity of systems by recognizing the interactions and interrelationships between system components and processes. Evidence from research has shown that effective systems thinking instruction requires teachers to explicitly use models and representations. The selection, interpretation, explanation and use of effective representations are dependent on classroom teachers for developing systems thinking and representational competence. This chapter examines representational competence in the context of lessons that teach systems thinking. Drawing on prior research, theoretical perspectives about systems thinking and the use of representations as instructional tools are discussed. A developed rubric is presented for examining teachers’ pedagogical perspectives when selecting representations for teaching about a complex system.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2004). Learning about Earth as a system: A new approach of designing environmental curricula. Retrieved from
  4. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skill in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird Education Network. (2010). Flying WILD activity teaches how oil in water effects birds. [online image] Council for Environmental Education, Retrieved from
  7. Booth Sweeney, L. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Retrieved from Scholar
  8. Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23, 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorner, D. (1980). The logic of failure. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  10. Draper, F. (1993). A proposed sequence for development system thinking in a grades 4–12 curriculum. System Dynamic Review, 9, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emery, R. E. (1992). Parenting in context: Systemic thinking about parental conflict and its influence on children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 909–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Essex Report. (2001). The future of system dynamics and learner-centered learning in K-12 education. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Society Conference, Essex, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 655–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faughman, J. G., & Elson, R. (1998). Information technology and the clinical curriculum: Some predictions and their implication for the class of 2003. Academic Medicine, 73, 766–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fordyce, D. (1988). The development of systems thinking in engineering education: An interdisciplinary model. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forrester, J. (2007). System dynamics-a personal view of the first fifty years. System Dynamics Review, 23, 245–358.Google Scholar
  17. Frank, M. (2000). Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking. Systems Engineering, 3, 63–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Golan, R., & Reiser, B. (2004). Investigating students’ reasoning about the complexity manifested in molecular genetics phenomena. Proceedings from American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 465–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graczyk, S. L. (1993). Get with the system: General systems theory for business officials. School Business Affairs, 59, 16–20.Google Scholar
  21. Grotzer, T., & Bell-Basca B. (2003a). Helping students to grasp the underlying causal structures when learning about ecosystems: how does it impact understanding? Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  22. Grotzer, T. A., & Bell-Basca, B. (2003b). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(2), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hannon, B., & Ruth, M. (2000). Dynamic modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. A. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish, swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of The Learning Science, 16, 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Science, 15, 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, D.H. (1999a). Introduction to system thinking. In: System thinking tools and applications. ASA: Pegasus Communications.Google Scholar
  31. Kim, J. (1999b). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 96(2–3), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klahr, D., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Studies of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualizations in science education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 105–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456–459. Scholar
  37. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R., Bass, K. M., Fredrick, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Science, 3, 313–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: Rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  39. Lee, T., & Jones, M. G. (2017). Elementary Teachers’ Selection and Use of Visual Models. Journal of Science Education and Technology., 27(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  40. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Arlington: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, J. P. (1998). Mastering Project Management: Applying advanced concepts of systems thinking, control, and evaluation, resource allocation. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mandinach, E. B. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, B. L., Mintzes, J. J., & Clavijo, I. E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mason, C. L. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moreno, R. (2006). Learning with high tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 63–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brian, mind, experience and school. In J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, R. R. Cocking, & S. Donovan (Eds.), Committee on developments in the science of learning and committee on learning research and educational practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and Core ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nitz, S., Ainsworth, S., Nerdel, C., & Prechtl, H. (2014). Do students perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge? Learning and Instruction, 31, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ossimitz, G. (2000). Teaching system dynamics and systems thinking in Austria and Germany. Proceedings from the 18th International Conference of System Dynamics Society, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
  55. Penner, D. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  57. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 705–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth, W. M. (1994). Students’ views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipator research project. Science Education, 78, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roth, W. M. (1995). Affordances of computers in teacher-student interactions: The case of interactive PhysicsTM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Senge, P. M. (1990). Fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  62. Sheehy, N. P., Wylie, J. W., McGuinness, C., & Orchard, G. (2000). How children solve environmental problems: Using computer simulations to investigate system thinking. Environmental Education Research, 6, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Steed, M. (1992). Stella, a simulation construction kit: Cognitive processes and educational implications. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science, 11, 39–52.Google Scholar
  64. Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1137–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C. Y. (Eds.). (2013). Multiple representations in biological education, models and modeling in science education 7. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. U.S. Geological Survey. (2014). The Water Cycle [digital image]. Retrieved from
  68. Ullmer, E. J. (1986). Work design in organizations: Comparing the organizational elements models and the ideal system approach. Educational Technology, 26, 543–568.Google Scholar
  69. Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modeling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L. (2007). The literacy component of mathematical and scientific literacy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations