August 1998
This is a monitored email discussion group for anyone interested in using system dynamics in K-12 education. To join, email your request to: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998
To: k-12sd-@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Reba <ahmad@mwt.net> (by way of K-12SD Discussion List <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>)
Subject: Re: Target setting (in schools and elsewhere)
I recall from some NLP training I've had, a statement which made a lot of
sense to me, but which is difficult to implement for most of us. The
statement is:
The meaning of your communication is the response you get.
Most of us want to put the responsibility for communication on the
receiver, rather than on the giver. Think about all the *imperative* info
you've received in your life and how, when you didn't respond the way the
giver of the info thought appropriate, it was indicated that you were dense
or resistant to what was being said.
In systems thinking the idea of starting where the system is in order to
facilitate change, presupposes that you have some fairly accurate internal
mental model of that system and how it is processing information.
This seems to apply to students, teachers, all of us, in fact. If the
information imparted is structured in such a way that we can receive it
through our own filtering systems without it being rejected outright, it
can be much more effective. This is why investigative learning, learner
directed learning, self-directed work teams, etc., can be so much more
powerful vehicles for learning than the traditional *lecture by the teacher
then regurgitate what you were taught* type of schooling. The imparter of
the information acts as a guide or facilitator. The student, (read teacher,
worker, whoever), is in active discovery/learning mode, rather than passive
receiver mode.
If the teachers, in this instance, participate in investigating and
formulating the target-setting, they won't have to be mandated from above.
But it takes a certain type of facilitation to accomplish this.
I think it was Lao-Tzu who said of leadership something like, (I forget the
exact wording): When there is good leader people will say, "We did this
ourselves." A good leader does not need to take public credit. His/her
rewards are intrinsic and he/she can be nearly invisible to those in
discover/learner mode.
Reba
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998
To: Ed Gallaher <gallaher@teleport.com>, k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu>
Subject: Good Variables?
8/3/98 Ed Gallaher wrote:
>4. Defining "good" variables. This is a big one. But I must repeat that
>this has little or nothing to do with the age of the novice system
>dynamicist. Both at the K-12 meeting and the International SD meeting it
>was repeatedly pointed out the beginning and intermediate modelers
>inevitably make this mistake.
>
There are several things to say here - first, experienced modelers share
an ideology, that beginners/intermediates do not, and that can be
summarized by Per Bak in 'how nature works': ..."real world behavior,
representing real measurable quantities, could be predicted from simple
model calculations." p44. Bak explains that one goal scientists have is
to create simple, rather than complex models - Occam's razor. Scientists
have an understanding of the modeling process as they begin. Similarly,
Lorraine Grosslight argues that students need to understand about the
process of modeling - that it is not enough just to do modeling, in order
to learn from modeling. Well, sure, at some developmental stage, this
objective is reasonable. But Nancy Roberts and I make a case that
students can also gain a great deal from engaging in modeling with folks
who are more expert in modeling, without necessarily knowing all about
modeling.
All references appear at the bottom of this message.
Baks account of modeling physical systems, distributed across scientists
and institutions, includes physical models - those made with things like
solid objects - made with rice or sand and often with different
experimental configurations. In building these models, the scientists
certainly do try to make the situation as simple or as controlled as
possible. As they seek to understand the behavior of the model, to
understand the underlying dynamics, however, they come to understand what
are the variables in some more theoretical sense (in hindsight) than just
what are the experimental variables that they can modify.
And these are scientists who have spent a lot of time acquiring and
developing a theoretical framework that helps them model some phenomena!
Their level of background knowledge can be contrasted with what our
students start. The goal, that many of us have, is to use modeling as a
way to help students come to understand what Peter Hewson terms
'Preordained Science' i.e science as it is known and shared in our
present culture. If scientists themselves have difficulty determining
what are 'good variables' in their authentic modeling practices, even as
they are supported by the products of many generations of scientific
endeavor, how can we expect students new to modeling and new to the
content to define 'good variables'?
What are 'good variables', in authentic modeling situations like Bak
describe, emerge after the modeling is done, which is the same outcome as
what I expect from students. One difference I have mentioned is that
scientists believe in occams razor as a criteria for pruning models. In
contrast is some research by Grosslight, which indicates that many naive
students think about the purpose of models as to 'show something off'
rather than to explain or understand something. For example, a better
(physical) model of an airplane will have more detail than an inferior
one. So I do not expect students to define 'good variables' at first.
And I do expect them to create complex models. These are opportunities to
engage the students in thinking about what makes good models, what are the
'good variables' which are so obvious once you finally understand the
content! Hindsight may be 20-20 although sometimes it seems more like
50-50.
It occurs that as we think about what might be developmentally appropriate
for students, it is important that we distinguish 'modeling' from
'systems thinking' since the former can be extended across a wider range
of content than 'dynamic systems' and the latter can be treated, even if
only partially, without modeling. Lets include what are the tools, such
as model-it or stella in the picture, since we know that students can do
more with these modeling tools, and can do different things with different
modeling tools, and understand different things. For example, what are
variables in a Stella model of a predator-prey situation like bunnies
eating grass are very different from what are variables in a Star-logo
model of the same thing! Lets also include what are the social
conditions , what Sarason calls "settings" that enable students to be able
to make models in the first place.
In hindsight, experts know that 'Flow' and 'stock' are categories of
variables, which are yet at another level of abstraction higher than the
variables the students are trying to create in their models. Physicists
and mathematicians immediately recognize that stock and flows have first
order differential relations - perhaps at still another higher level of
abstraction. At what level students come to understand these categories
will depend upon the tools, settings, and the ontogenetic developmental
path of the students. I'm interested in understanding how these three
things, and others, can constitute systems of activity that optimize
student learning. I'm still trying to figure out what are the 'good
variables.'
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., Smith, C. L., [1991]. Understanding
Models and Their Use in Science: Conceptions of Middle and High School
Students and Experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 9,
799-82.
Barowy, W. and Roberts, N "Modeling as Inquiry Activity in School Science:
What's the Point? To Appear in Computer Simulation and Modeling in
Science Education Springer-Verlag New York
Sarason, S. B., (1972) The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies,
Jossey-Bass Inc., London.
Sarason, S. B., (1996) Revisiting "The Culture of The School and The
Problem of Change", Teachers College Press, New York.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998
To: k-12sd-@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: "Janice C. Kowalczyk" <kowalcjn@ride.ri.net> (by way of K-12sd Discussion List <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>)
Subject: Re: Lost Message #7
Linda, I would be interested in your list when you are finished with
it....as I am interested in this whole idea of modelig in the classroom.
Thanks
Janice Kowalczyk
Educational Math Specialist, Rutgers University
"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as
insolvable problems"
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998
To: k-12sd-@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Jean-Louis Cordonnier <jlcord@wanadoo.fr> (by way of K-12sd Discussion List <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>)
Subject: Re: Computer Programs for Exploring Complex Causality
I have a software called "sim earth", rather old but intersting.
I dont know if it it is still awailable.
Contact MAXIS
6 central street
Manchester M2 5NS
tel 061 832 6633
fax 061 834 0650
Jean-Louis Cordonnier
36, rue Lavisse
66000 PERPIGNAN
FRANCE
jlcord@wanadoo.fr
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998
To: k-12sd-@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: vanessa colella <vanessa@media.mit.edu> (by way of K-12sd Discussion List <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>)
Subject: Re: participatory simulations
Hi,
I was excited to hear about more work in helping children build
understanding through participation in dynamic systems... Those of you
interested in Participatory Simulations may also want to see:
http://www.media.mit.edu/~vanessa/part-sims/index.html
ciao
Vanessa
End of August