Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Eileen Riley <rileye1@massed.net>
Subject: <öööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööööö<teresa@northwest.com>
>Subject: Mental Models
>
>I am going to give an example of conflicting mental models operating
>simultaneously. I am a part-time staffing coordinator at a hospital. This
>means I am responsible for making sure that there are enough nurses to work
>in all of the units based on patient census, nurses prescheduled,
>availability of nurses not prescheduled, outside agency nurses available,
>required skills, the nursing union contract, etc. So, needless to say this
>is a big job, especially on weekends all by myself in the nursing
>administration office.
>My mental model as I do my work is to staff all of the units adequately
>keeping ratios of nurses to patients and safety in mind. I staff the units
>with the entire pool of nurses I have to work with, usually making many
>phone calls to "beg" nurses to come in to work because there is a shortage
>of nurses.
>The mental model of the nurses on their units is for them to have the
>nurses they need so no one is overworked (or operating under unsafe
>ratios), they do not have to float to other units by their contract
>guidelines unless they are a designated float nurse, and they don't have to
>float to other units if there is a float nurse or resource fill in nurse
>assigned to their floor. So the problem comes about when their mental
>model is that they want to follow these criteria to a "t" while I am
>needing them to float to other units to meet the staffing needs of the
>entire hospital, basically the "big picture" and not the "I or me"
>syndrome. The more they whine and complain, then the less I do to appease
>them and the more I do to appease other units who don't whine and
>complain. Also the more they whine and complain, the more staffing
>coordinators quit their jobs and then there are many new trainees that tend
>to make more mistakes in the staffing and then the nurses get more upset
>and whine and complain more. It tends to become a reinforcing loop.

--------

Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000
From: Gordon Kubanek <chust@monisys.ca>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models = THE UNMETNIONABLES

> Subject: Re: Mental Models
>
>I LOVE THE LINE IN the new text "Systems Thinking and Modelling"* by
Cavana and Maani Chris Arygis (pg.13)(which is a great Intro book)
" Mental models are based on the beliefs, values and assumptions that we hold
and underlie our reasons for doing things the way we do."

They tell us that Chris Arygis calls these the
UNMENTIONABLES
I love that!
yours from Holland on the way to Bergen
Gordon Kubanek
*Kambiz E. Maani and Robert Y. Cavanna (2000)
"Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding Change and Complexity"
Prentice Hall, Auckland
ISBN 1 877258008
http://www.flyingpig.co.nz/books/
or
adrain.keane@pearsoned.co.nz

------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

> ...This is a great example of a mental model that could be transferred to
> education, if we were to use substitute teachers or classroom aides instead
> of nurses!! ....
I'm having trouble with the concept of "model" as it's being used in
some of
the dialog here. I thought its system-related meaning was "a simplified
representation of a more complex reality."
Marion
--
Article, May Kappan, "The Standards Juggernaut"
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Homepage
http://digital.net/~mbrady/
 
-------------

Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From: "RICHARD TURNOCK" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Never Cry Wolf

"Never Cry Wolf" by Farley Mowat
First published in 1963
Quote from paperback published in 1993, page 122
After a discussion of the breeding age of wolves, "*. Since an
overpopulation of wolves above the carrying capacity of the country to
maintain would mean a rapid decline in the numbers of prey animals - with
consequent starvation for the wolves themselves - they are forced to
practice what amounts to birth control through continence. Some adult
wolves may have to remain celibate for years before a territory becomes
available."
 
----------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: George Richardson <gpr@csc.albany.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

Marion wrote
> I'm having trouble with the concept of "model" as it's being used in
>some of the dialog here. I thought its system-related meaning was
>"a simplified representation of a more complex reality."
Yes, it would be nice to get a more shared meaning of words and
concepts like "model," "representation," and "system." (Maybe
"reality" too, but the first three are hard enough!) Marion's
characterization makes sense to me.
There's been a lot of discussion of the idea of a "mental model" in
the system dynamics literature. It ranges from some who say the term
is hopeless loose, diffuse, and obtuse and should be stricken from
our discourse, to people who argue that mental models are the stuff
that all dreams are made of. (A nicely scholarly start on a good
definition is contained in Doyle & Ford's "Mental Model Concepts for
System Dynamics Research," SDR 14,1 (1998).)
The term has a long history. Karl Deutsch, the great political
scientist and member of the group that founded the field of
cybernetics in the 1940s, said, with appropriate drama and fanfare,
"We have observed the men think in models." (I'm sure he meant women
too, but he was writing in the 40s.) The idea he was expressing is
still the crucial reason we use the term "mental model" today:
Deutsch was arguing against the perception that somehow "thinking" is
different from "modeling," that "thoughts" are superior to "models"
(or "models" are superior to "thoughts.") Forrester said explicitly
that "abstract" models could be captured in a written language or a
thought process, that mental images or verbal descriptions can form
models of organizations or their processes, that "the manager deals
continuously with these mental and verbal models of the corporation"
(Industrial Dynamics, p. 50).
Today, we're so used to tossing around the term "mental model" we
tend to forget there was a time when to use the term was to make a
claim that was startling to some -- that what goes on in our heads is
essentially of the same stuff as what we put on paper, or write in
equations, or build in the shop -- that all thinking is the
manipulation of mental models -- that neither mental nor formal
modeling is inherently superior on all dimensions. And, as Marion
points out, that all models inherently simplify. (John Sterman says
repeatedly, "All models are wrong!") Peter Senge's contribution to
all this is his insight that surfacing mental models (being aware of
one's own, being able to link with others') is empowering.
After puzzling over definitions for years, I've concluded that the
term or concept of "system" is tied to mental models. The question
is, are "systems" out there for us to find, or are they constructs we
impose on reality. I think it's the latter, and I have a great
source for the idea. In the 1740s, I believe, Adam Smith said, "A
system is an imaginary machine invented to connect together in the
fancy those different movements and effects which are already in
reality performed" (part of a nice, longer quote you can find in
Feedback Thought, p. 64). A system is "imaginary," invented "in the
fancy" (the mind), to explain or connect together aspects of the
realities we see. So by that view, a system is a mental model, some
mentally constructed organization we impose on some aspects of
reality.
So I think when we say we're studying "systems" we mean we're
studying models -- simplified representations -- of "complex reality"
(whatever that is), and we're imposing (I think that's exactly the
right word) some sort of order on that part of reality we're
interested in. We're giving it "systemicity" by mentally or formally
modeling it. To Adam Smith (and to me) a "system" is, initially, a
mental model. When we say we're "modeling a system," we're
suggesting that we're capturing or focusing on some part of something
we acknowledge to be more complex, but still an image our heads have
created from what's around us.
So I like Marion's characterization; it has a nice pedigree. (I
also like the topic, as you see...)
..George
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Chair, Dept. of Public Administration and Policy 518-442-5258
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy 518-442-5298
University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222 http://www.albany.edu/~gpr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: David Wheat <dwheat@wheatresources.com>
Reply-To: dwheat@wheatresources.com
Subject: Mental Models

> Marion wrote
> I'm having trouble with the concept of "model" as it's being used in some
of the dialog here. I thought its system-related meaning was "a simplified
representation of a more complex reality."
> Then George wrote:
> " Marion's characterization makes sense to me....." and he added an eloquent
history lesson about mental models, during which I found myself nodding in all
the right places. However, when he posed the crucial question: "...are
"systems" out there for us to find, or are they constructs we impose on
reality?
[and answered] I think it's the latter...," I stumbled.
I thought Adam Smith (as quoted in George's book) was using the word
"system" in
the same sense that the term "mental model" is used in the system dynamics
community today; and, furthermore, that his reference to "reality" was
analogous
to our use of the term "system." Perhaps I'm confused, but I think we need
both
terms, and we need them to describe two different concepts.
Permit me to sketch my thinking on this so that George, Marion, and the rest of
you out there in cyberspace fancy can either put me on the right path or
reassure me that I'm not totally lost. Here's my chain of thought, stated in
positive fashion in a 10-point list, not to be dogmatic but in an attempt to be
clear to those of you who share an interest in this issue and might find
time to
respond.
1. We all have notions about how certain limited aspects of the real world
actually work.
2. The notions are our mental models.
3. The "limited aspects of the real world" to which the mental models refer
constitute the "system" as that term is used in ST/SD. Such a system is
presumed to exist ("be real"), although we have not confirmed its existence,
structure, or behavior.
4. In principle, the quality of a person's mental model of such a system
depends
on the model's congruence with that system. (See point #8 below.)
5. When we engage in ST diagramming or SD modeling, we are, in effect,
constructing some alternative models of the system under consideration.
6. As we go about that iterative process, we periodically compare our handiwork
with the initial models that existed in our heads.
7. Yes, all of the models are wrong--the one in my head initially, those I
deliberately construct, and the renovated one that resides in my mind even
after
a disciplined remodeling effort. Hopefully, however, the renovated version is
at least somewhat more congruent with the real world than was my initial
thinking on the subject. If so, "learning" has occurred.
8. The goal of education should be the improvement of our students' mental
models about those aspects of the real world that are important for them to
understand. The ideal assessment system would be one in which educators could
(a) accurately observe a student's progress in refining a mental model, (b)
accurately observe the real system being studied, (c) and compare the two in
light of the student's age, maturity, and other relevant factors.
Unfortunately,
it's extremely difficult to do "a" and impossible to do "b", which makes doing
"c" slightly problematic; nevertheless, it's a worthy goal.
9. I once read (and if the author is out there, forgive my failure to
credit you
properly) that the true "deliverable" in consulting work is a client's
renovated
mental model. I have found that to be a useful metaphor in my own consulting
work, and I think it applies equally well to education. Consultants and
teachers are in the business of helping clients and students upgrade their
mental models on important subjects.
10. If renovating mental models has as its purpose the improved understanding
of how a limited aspect of the real world works, then we need a separate and
distinct concept for that complex portion of the real world "being modeled"
implicitly or explicitly. To me, that concept is "system." Geographers
thinking about mental models and systems might conjure up the relationship
between a map and the terrain. Statisticians might prefer the analogy of a
survey sample and the population from which the sample was taken. Rarely do we
get around to seeing the actual lay of the land that we call terrain, and we
certainly cannot claim to have seen the universe from which a survey was taken.
Nevertheless, we can think of both as being "real," and the maps and surveys as
more or less accurate descriptions of those realities (although "always
wrong"). So it is with mental models and systems, at least for me.
Again, please take my 10-point list as a long-winded hypothesis. I look forward
to comments and clarifications. My thanks to Marion and George for getting the
ball rolling on this issue.
Dave
----------
David Wheat
President, Wheat Resources Inc.
Roanoke, Virginia
dwheat@wheatresources.com
http://www.wheatresources.com

-------------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: "Nickols, Fred" <FNickols@ets.org>
Subject: Mental Models
To: "'k-12sd'" k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

George Richardson presents us with a nicely written, lucid explication of
"mental models" (and more). All I can say in response is, "Nice post,
George!" I'm gonna save this one.

----------------

Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

>From Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
Subject: Mental Modelscsc.albany.edu>
> .....The question is, are "systems" out there for us to find, or are they
> constructs we
> impose on reality? I think it's the latter, and I have a great source
>for the
> idea. In the 1740s, I believe, Adam Smith said, "A system is an imaginary
> machine invented to connect together in the fancy those different
>movements and
> effects which are already in reality performed".....
George,
I go back and forth on this, and usually end up coming down,
tentatively, on
both sides.
The particular model with which I've been concerned for about 30 years is
the "macro" one we use to do the first "rough sorting" of our perceptions of
reality -- "who, what, when, where, why." My interest in these as formal
system
elements stems from my belief that, for purposes of general education, the
five,
with their vast supporting conceptual substructures, provide an organizing
system
for general knowledge that's so much better than the traditional disciplines
there's no comparing them..
I've reached this conclusion in part because, (a) unlike the disciplines,
the five are comprehensive and (b) they're systemically related. When
brought to
bear on an event, condition, happening, phenomena, etc., there are no
artificial,
arbitrary walls between them, so there's no theoretical limit to the potential
for exploring systemic relationships. This allows kids to create new knowledge
ad infinitum (at least "new" to them if not to humankind, although that can
happen). And, since the system is already implicitly known by everyone who
speaks a language (?) it has a claim to "naturalness" the traditional
disciplines
don't have.
By catching kids in adolescence, before they're programmed by formal
schooling to think that the disciplines are the only or the most logical way to
organize knowledge, they can be helped to make this comprehensive,
sophisticated
and useful system.explicit and put it to work. After a few weeks of
introspective model development, when kids are given a complex, unfamiliar
problem or situation and told to bring The Model to bear on it, they're
able (in
my opinion at least) to do phenomenal, often startling work.
Marion
--
Homepage: http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/

-------------

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From: "Stuart Kermes" <skermes@eastconn.org>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

David,
I have been reading a little pragmatist philosophy this summer and your
comments on the "reality" of "systems" triggered some connections that have
been lingering in my mind. Let me see if I can articulate something that
makes sense.
Dewey and others would argue that the question "is the model really real?"
isn't a valid question because it assumes a duality or separation between
thought and an objective real world 'out there' which we are trying to
apprehend. Using a lot of arguments related to the nature of language and
mind he would argue that there is no separation. The question that Dewey
would ask is 'how does the model help us (or not) produce the kind of
changes in the world that we are seeking?'
This question seems to be in line with the precept in modeling of defining
your purpose or goal before beginning the modeling process. The needs and
desires of the participants in the modeling process shape the development
and content of the model. I have only just started working through John
Sterman's latest book, but his emphasis on the importance of the modeling
process and the involvement of key stakeholders seems analogous to Dewey's
conception of truth with a little "t" being developed through a community
of inquirers.
Why does this matter? Because I think we will get farther and produce more
excitement and creativity in our students if our appeal about a models
validity is to how effective it is in producing some type of result rather
than with how well it corresponds to some objective "reality" out there.
If we seek correspondence we often have to appeal to some external
authority - and often one that may be working with an outdated or
ineffective mental model.
To often in classrooms we play the game of "guess the right answer." I
don't think that is what you are suggesting in your point #8, but I think
it is a real possibility if people use the old correspondence theory of
knowledge as they implement SD. The power of this approach to me lies in
the potential for students to move beyond the focus on getting the right
answer and move to a more empirical focus where they have to test their
ideas. The focus of the modeling enterprise as a shared activity open to
review by a community of learners seems to be all we need to avoid equating
mental model with subjective delusion.
So I guess I am agreeing with George on this one, though he may want to
disavow my reasons. For an easy read of the pragmatist critique of
Descartes and the correspondence theory, I recommend Richard Rorty's
Philosophy and Social Hope.
Stu
Stuart Kermes
Director, Planning and Program Development
EASTCONN
Hampton, CT.
>>> k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu> 08/18/00 02:48PM >>>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:20:22 -0400
From: David Wheat <dwheat@wheatresources.com>
Reply-To: dwheat@wheatresources.com
Subject: Mental Models
> Marion wrote
> I'm having trouble with the concept of "model" as it's being used in some
of the dialog here. I thought its system-related meaning was "a simplified
representation of a more complex reality."
> Then George wrote:
> " Marion's characterization makes sense to me....." and he added an eloquent
history lesson about mental models, during which I found myself nodding in all
the right places. However, when he posed the crucial question: "...are
"systems" out there for us to find, or are they constructs we impose on
reality?
[and answered] I think it's the latter...," I stumbled.
I thought Adam Smith (as quoted in George's book) was using the word
"system" in
the same sense that the term "mental model" is used in the system dynamics
community today; and, furthermore, that his reference to "reality" was
analogous
to our use of the term "system." Perhaps I'm confused, but I think we need
both
terms, and we need them to describe two different concepts.
Permit me to sketch my thinking on this so that George, Marion, and the rest of
you out there in cyberspace fancy can either put me on the right path or
reassure me that I'm not totally lost. Here's my chain of thought, stated in
positive fashion in a 10-point list, not to be dogmatic but in an attempt to be
clear to those of you who share an interest in this issue and might find
time to
respond.
1. We all have notions about how certain limited aspects of the real world
actually work.
2. The notions are our mental models.
3. The "limited aspects of the real world" to which the mental models refer
constitute the "system" as that term is used in ST/SD. Such a system is
presumed to exist ("be real"), although we have not confirmed its existence,
structure, or behavior.
4. In principle, the quality of a person's mental model of such a system
depends
on the model's congruence with that system. (See point #8 below.)
5. When we engage in ST diagramming or SD modeling, we are, in effect,
constructing some alternative models of the system under consideration.
6. As we go about that iterative process, we periodically compare our handiwork
with the initial models that existed in our heads.
7. Yes, all of the models are wrong--the one in my head initially, those I
deliberately construct, and the renovated one that resides in my mind even
after
a disciplined remodeling effort. Hopefully, however, the renovated version is
at least somewhat more congruent with the real world than was my initial
thinking on the subject. If so, "learning" has occurred.
8. The goal of education should be the improvement of our students' mental
models about those aspects of the real world that are important for them to
understand. The ideal assessment system would be one in which educators could
(a) accurately observe a student's progress in refining a mental model, (b)
accurately observe the real system being studied, (c) and compare the two in
light of the student's age, maturity, and other relevant factors.
Unfortunately,
it's extremely difficult to do "a" and impossible to do "b", which makes doing
"c" slightly problematic; nevertheless, it's a worthy goal.
9. I once read (and if the author is out there, forgive my failure to
credit you
properly) that the true "deliverable" in consulting work is a client's
renovated
mental model. I have found that to be a useful metaphor in my own consulting
work, and I think it applies equally well to education. Consultants and
teachers are in the business of helping clients and students upgrade their
mental models on important subjects.
10. If renovating mental models has as its purpose the improved understanding
of how a limited aspect of the real world works, then we need a separate and
distinct concept for that complex portion of the real world "being modeled"
implicitly or explicitly. To me, that concept is "system." Geographers
thinking about mental models and systems might conjure up the relationship
between a map and the terrain. Statisticians might prefer the analogy of a
survey sample and the population from which the sample was taken. Rarely do we
get around to seeing the actual lay of the land that we call terrain, and we
certainly cannot claim to have seen the universe from which a survey was taken.
Nevertheless, we can think of both as being "real," and the maps and surveys as
more or less accurate descriptions of those realities (although "always
wrong"). So it is with mental models and systems, at least for me.
Again, please take my 10-point list as a long-winded hypothesis. I look forward
to comments and clarifications. My thanks to Marion and George for getting the
ball rolling on this issue.
Dave
----------
David Wheat
President, Wheat Resources Inc.
Roanoke, Virginia
dwheat@wheatresources.com
http://www.wheatresources.com

----------------

Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

> From: David Wheat <dwheat@wheatresources.com>
>
> 10. If renovating mental models has as its purpose the improved
>understanding
> of how a limited aspect of the real world works, then we need a separate and
> distinct concept for that complex portion of the real world "being
>modeled"......
Dave,
I'm pretty much with you through the first nine points. It's my
different
take on #10 that pushes me to write books, journal articles, newspaper columns,
etc.
If I repeat earlier posts, please forgive. My perspective is so
unorthodox, so far outside the present (please excuse the jargon) paradigm,
that it
rarely registers for the first dozen or so exposures.
You followed #10 with examples:
> Geographers thinking about mental models and systems might conjure up the
> relationship between a map and the terrain. Statisticians might prefer the
> analogy of a survey sample and the population from which the sample was
> taken.....
I've a collection of quotes from Harlan Cleveland, Neil Postman, John
Goodlad,
Mark Curtis, Daniel Tanner and many other respected scholars echoing in various
words these from James C. Coomer:
"Our educational systems....are now primarily designed to teach people
specialized knowledge--to enable students to divide and dissect knowledge.
At the
heart of this pattern of treaching is....a view of the world that is quite
simply
false."
Conventional wisdom has it that "the real world" as we experience it
is too
complex to be intellectually manageable, and must therefore be sliced and diced
into small chunks. This is the assumption that underlies the academic
disciplines
and structures our educational institutions.
I accept the absolute necessity of specialized study. However, I'm
convinced that academia's failure to display the whole of which those
specialized
studies are parts is having disastrous consequences. No, make that
DISASTROUS. To
quote Buckminster Fuller: "American education has evolved in such a way it
will be
the undoing of the society."
For more than a century, the education establishment has attempted to
display the whole to which the scholars refer via interdisciplinarity.
Dead end
road. It can't be done. The disciplines were never part of a coherent
whole, they
can't be force-fitted to create such a whole, and if they could, the result
would
be intellectually unmanageable.
I maintain that we're looking in the wrong place for the whole of
which our
specialized studies are parts. It isn't "out there," but "in here." I say
we're
hard-wired to be synthesizers, that human language constantly displays this
synthesis, and that we've thus far failed to see it for the same reason that
gravity wasn't "discovered" until 1666. It's just too close, too familiar. ("A
fish would be the last to discover water.")
Our "natural" integrating system's major elements, I continue to
maintain,
are "who, what, when, where, and why" WITH their supporting conceptual
substructures.
The familiarity of these categories, the perception that they're too
simple
to be particularly significant, and their failure to mesh with the way
we've been
programmed to think by our own discipline-based personal histories, work
against
their being taken seriously (except, I should in fairness add, by the
journal and
book editors who run my stuff).
If we'd recognize our implicitly known system for organizing and
integrating
knowledge, and if we'd make it an integral part of the curriculum alongside our
myriad specialized studies, I guarantee that students would be able to move to
levels of performance we presently don't even dream about.
Marion
--
Article, May Kappan, "The Standards Juggernaut"
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Homepage
http://digital.net/~mbrady/

----------------------

From: pleighton@edc.org
Subject: Menal Models
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000

I have been subscribing to this conversation for some time, but have not
yet contributed. I cannot resist applying what George has presented to
some education issues. Specifically, to the classroom reality of how to
teach students to transfer knowledge from situation to situation, in a
creative, flexible, problem solving process focused on a wide variety of
questions. One by-product of such ability would be high performance on
just about any standards-based assessment.
One class of the mental models of which George speaks are unitary, generic
concepts whose defining attribute is their ability to "travel" from
question to question, context to context, topic to topic, providing insight
from its particular perspective, as a conceptual lens. So, in science, the
concept of composition (what something is made out of) is widely applicable
to a whole raft of different situations and questions. It travels well.
In social studies, the concept of, for example, conflict, provides many
insights at many different scales to many different occurances throughout
history. Each of the domains of knowledge seems to generate its own set of
concepts, mostly unique but with telling overlaps and repetitions. Such
concepts need to be carefully defined, for it is the definition that
connects it to assessment. Simply, you cannot assess what you cannot
define. The assessment measures the degree to which a student is able to
apply the concept to a wide variety of contexts and questions, as well as
the sophistication of the application process. With the imposed rigor of
having to define everything, the concept of "system" would need to be
defined, as it clearly is an idea that travels well and would be useful and
insightful in many different situations. The approach would be to identify
those essential attributes of the concept of "system" that allow it to
travel, that are the threshold, or minimum, set of of "legs" that it needs
to move intellectually. One solution to this problem is to say that, at
its minimum, essential level, "system" is the same concept as thing,
entity, or object, i.e. Piaget's object concept. It is a delineation of a
set of things to which a single identity, embodied in a name (the verbal
mental model), is given. The delineation is a mental line that is drawn
around the set of entities by the person, and can be applied at any scale.
I would tell my students, "Draw a line around it and give it a name."
Entities are described with properties, propertyy itself being a concept of
primary importance. The language of science is in many ways the syntax of
dividing the perceived natural universe into entities that are
differentiated and indetified according to their distinguishing properties.
The ability to consciously apply this concept in all manner of problem
situations is often highly productive and even entertaining. In an ideal
curriculum, a student progresses through learning by first acquiring a
minimum understanding of a concept, the mental model, in that it can be
applied in a variety of situations, even if those situations are
contextually familiar and transparent. All concepts are connected to other
concepts through their essential criterial attributes as well as through a
myriad of connections to almost any other concept: Can you think of a
propositional statement (a verbal model) that combines conflict,
composition, and system? Probably so. A student's understanding of a
concept grows more subtle, complex, and abstract as more and more
intellectual connections are established to other concepts. It is actually
impossible to learn a bona fide concept without back-loading understanding
of previously learned concepts. The further afield a student goes, to
unfamiliar contexts and subtle, complex phenomena, the more the student
experiences the concept's capabilities, maneuverability, and enjoyability.
Each concept is itself unitary, and moveable, but also exists within a
conceptual framework of inter-relationships that largely give it
definition. All frameworks are organized, and such an organizational
premise can be described by the attributes used for comparing and
sequencing its elements. For concepts that are useful for flexible,
inquiry-based problem solving and critical thinking, three attributes can
be used to create a framework of concepts: generality, complexity, and
abstractness. Such a conceptual structure mirrors much of developmental
pschology, in which children's intellectual growth can often be
characterized as proceeding from the obvious to the subtle (generality),
from the simple to the complex, and from the concrete to the abstract. The
mental model exists at several scales, and one of the skills that we wish
to teach students is how to overtly navigate within an explicit structure.
Although the vast majority of people might share a common understanding of
a common set of concepts, definable by their essential criterial
attributes, each person's "complete" understanding a each concept is
unique, in that that person's unique life history has created a web of
conceptual inter-connections that is uniquely balanced and configured, just
as each person's face is unique even while all faces share a common set of
minimum criterial attributes by which it is perceived as a face.
So what is needed is the unpacking of the various domains into their
conceptual structures. Then we know what it is we are trying to teach.
.. All in a day's work...
PATRICK LEIGHTON, Ed.D.
Center for Science Education
Education Development Center
55, Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
(617) 618 2812 FAX: (617) 630 8439
pleighton@edc.org
 
------------

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Gustavo Moreira <gustavos@nacional.br>
Subject: Questions

1. What is the difference between qualitative, quantitative and
semi-quantitative models?
2. What is the difference between expressive and exploratory tasks?
Does anyone know where i can find on the web some papers about these
subjects?????
Thanks......
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Moreira
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diretor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faculdade / Colégio Nacional (O Primeiro na Internet)
(http://www.nacional.br)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rua Clarimundo de Melo, 1.195 - Quintino
Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil
Tel: (5521) 596-8543 / (5521) 269-1378
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bringing The Future Next to You
-----------------------------------------------------------
IBEST / TOP BRASIL
NÓS PARTICIPAMOS
---------------

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: A Small Obstacle

> From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
I'd like to suggest that, as the "Standards" movement gains momentum, the
tendency to "teach to the test" increases, and that it doesn't take much of a
look at the actual standards imposed in most states to know that those
tests are
unlikely to include any question that can't be answered with a bubble in a
little
circle.
Here's my column that appeared in this morning's Orlando Sentinel:
Marion
____________
Strange. Every aspiring politician who talks about education
reform pushes higher standards, testing, and accountability. Every
thoughtful educator I know points to that same reform push as reason
enough to abandon the profession.
Actually, not so strange. The politicians think the system is
sound, that it's the people ˜ the kids, the parents, the teachers, the
administrators, the education professors ˜ who need to shape up. The
thoughtful educators think the people are, well, what they are, that
it's the system that needs shaping up.
There is, of course, truth on both sides. There really are people
problems. For many kids, getting an education isn't a very high
priority. Too many parents aren't paying attention. There are plenty
of teachers who should never have entered the profession. Many school
administrators are more interested in tranquillity than in quality.
Some education professors vastly underestimate how hard it is to make
good teachers out of students who've spent many years watching poor
teachers teach.
And there really are system problems. Serious system problems.
The curriculum hasn't changed significantly since the 19th century, when
assimilating immigrants was the main challenge. Even within single
states, there are great disparities in the quality of facilities and
equipment and available instructional resources. Schools tend to be
things apart, largely isolated from the life and work of the communities
in which they're located. Students spend most of their time in activity
at odds with youthfulness ˜ sitting passively, exercising only their
short-term memories in an attempt to remember third- and fourth-hand,
largely useless information.
Almost certainly the most serious system problem of all is the
absence of respected, visionary leadership. The major decisions about
the shape and direction of education are made by amateurs ˜ the lawyers,
doctors, developers and so on who dominate state legislatures. Goals
2000: Standards and Measures, the most important single "reform" action
in decades, was assembled in 1990 at a Washington area conference to
which educators weren't invited.
The politicians are in charge. And convinced as they are that
there's nothing wrong with the system, their primary strategy is simply
to tighten the screws on the people.
And not even all the people. Just, mostly, the kids and the teachers.
A few weeks ago, I got an e-mail post from a teacher in the state
of Washington, a PhD, one of the best middle school teachers I've ever
watched in action. She told me she had resigned, that she couldn't live
with the consequences of the Standards movement shaped by her state's
legislature.
A few days ago, I got an e-mail from a teacher on Florida's west
coast, a woman of such caliber she's an evaluator of teachers applying
for National Board certification. She's currently engaged in viewing
15-minute videos submitted by candidates. Here, in part, is what she
wrote me:
"I know that for the many, many excellent teachers I have had the
privilege of viewing, the standards movement is harmful to their efforts
and robs them of the tools, opportunities and authority they need to
succeed in the classroom. Perhaps for the less well-prepared, the
standards movement may be as helpful to them as any other assistance.
Surely something must be done, but what of the excellent teachers? They
seem to build a synergistic, transformational environment where
community and solitude coexist and where multiple viewpoints are the
tools used to turn knowing into understanding. No FCAT test can
indicate the benefits of these learning environments. . . . I am certain
that the standards movement has weakened my ability to address the
specialized needs of my students....
"Can it be that this is what our citizenry really want our
children to gain from their school years? To bubble in an answer, write
a short reply, draw a diagram and produce nearly the same response as
their peers?"
Those who haven't thought deeply about the matter jump to the
conclusion that educators opposed to standardized testing and
accountability are either incompetent or irresponsible and want to avoid
exposure. The two teachers I've mentioned, and the dozens of others who
contacted me after I published a journal article attacking the standards
movement, are neither. They know that a system preoccupied with the
achievement of minimum standards rather than maximum performance can't
possibly rise above mediocrity.
Because no profession is inherently more difficult than teaching,
no profession equals teaching's potential for providing personal
satisfaction. If the simplistic, mechanistic standards and
accountability movement continues, say goodbye to those who've kept
alive the little spark of life left in the institution.
--
Article, May Kappan, "The Standards Juggernaut"
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Homepage
http://digital.net/~mbrady/

---------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Mental Models

From: Marion Brady, <mbrady@digital.net>
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 17:17:50 -0400
> From: "Stuart Kermes" <skermes@eastconn.org>
> To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
> Subject: Mental Models
> ..... I think we will get farther and produce more excitement and
>creativity in
> our students if our appeal about a models validity is to how effective it
>is in
> producing some type of result.....
As most of you know if you read my stuff, my primary general education
concern is helping kids surface the "macro" or "master" mental model of reality
they use for organizing information. It's this model, applied to content
appropriate for the course, that I expected them to use for the final exam.
I give the same question at the beginning and at the end of the term.
During the term, no class activity and no assignment touches on it. Both
times,
students come to it "cold" and without prior warning.
Here are questions I've used:
____________________________________
In a series of brief, numbered paragraphs, identify as many factors as you
can which might affect, negatively or positively, the sense of community in the
neighborhood where you live.
There is considerable evidence that average Americans have more of a
tendency than the members of some other societies to grow up with feelings
of low
self-esteem.
Assume this is true, and generate as many different explanatory
hypotheses
as you can.
In a series of brief, numbered paragraphs, generate as many hypotheses as
you can concerning the probable or possible effects of the increase in the
average age of the local population by almost 15% over the last decade.
_______________________________
Despite the fact that no assignment, no class discussion, no activity has
touched on the question or any matter parallel to it, I expect (and get)
spectacular improvement in responses. They don't "know" any more at the
end of the
term than at the beginning, but they "know what they know."
Marion
--
Article, May Kappan, "The Standards Juggernaut"
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Homepage
http://digital.net/~mbrady/

--------------

Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Reply to Questions

Perhaps the material below will be useful.
 
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:22:52 -0300
>To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
>From: Gustavo Moreira <gustavos@nacional.br>
>Subject: Questions
> 1. What is the difference between qualitative, quantitative and
>semi-quantitative models?
> 2. What is the difference between expressive and exploratory tasks?
>
> Does anyone know where i can find on the web some papers about these
>subjects?????
===============================================
Information on System Dynamics
Jay W. Forrester
August 25, 1999
System Dynamics Bibliography:
To order the system dynamics bibliography of over 4100 entries,
specify IBM type PC, or Macintosh
Send $35 in US$ drawn on a US bank to:
System Dynamics Society
Roberta Spencer, Executive Director
Milne 300--Rockefeller College
State University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222 USA
tel: 1-518-442-3865†
fax: 518-442-3398
email: System.Dynamics@albany.edu
Three formats are available:
1. For Endnote, a very effective bibliography software available for either
Macintosh or PC from:
Niles & Associates, Inc
800 Jones St.
Berkeley, CA 94710 USA
Tel: 510-559-8592
Fax: 510-559-8683
Internet: nilesinc@well.sf.ca.us
I use Endnote and recommend it and use it to search for the references.
2. An exported version with field delimiters that presumably can be loaded
into some other kind of database.
3. A listing that one can look at in a word processor and do some simple
finding operations.
The bibliography can also be downloaded from:
http://www.vensim.com/sdmail/sdbib.html
-----------------------------------------------
The publications list of the System Dynamics Group at MIT is available on
the web as an Adobe Acrobat document from:
FTP://Sysdyn.MIT.edu/Ftp/sdep/papers/D-3059-43.pdf
---------------------------------------
Membership in the System Dynamics Society and subscription to the System
Dynamics Review
are US$90 per year for regular members
and US$45 for students.
Send application to:
Sarah Stevens
Journals Administration Department
John Wiley & Sons Ltd
1 Oldlands Way
Bognor Regis
West Sussex PO22 9SA
United Kingdom
or
Subscription Department C
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
605 Third Avenue, New York,
NY 10158-0012, USA
or
contact the Society office
 
To contact the office of the System Dynamics Society and to order copies of
the "Beer Game" group simulation exercise:
tel: 1-518-442-3865
fax: 518-442-3398
email: System.Dynamics@albany.edu
 
-------------------------------------
There is a system dynamics discussion group on the Internet.
To join, send email to: majordomo@world.std.com
In the body of the message, enter the following two lines:
Subscribe system-dynamics
End
------------------------------------
The next annual international conference of the System Dynamics Society
will be in Norway, August 6-10, 2000. Write to the System Dyanmics
Society,
System Dynamics Society
Roberta Spencer, Executive Director
Milne 300--Rockefeller College
State University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222 USA
tel: 1-518-442-3865†
fax: 518-442-3398
email: System.Dynamics@albany.edu
----------------------------------------
The publisher for books in the following block has changed from
Productivity Press to Pegasus Communications.
Pegasus Communications, Inc.
One Moody Street
Waltham, MA 02453-5339
Within the U.S
tel:1-800-272-0945
fax: 1-800-701-7083
Outside the U.S.
tel: 781-398-9700
fax: 781-894-7175
Web page: www.pegasuscom.com
Alfeld, Louis Edward, and Alan K. Graham. 1976. Introduction to Urban
Dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications. 333 pp.
Forrester, Jay W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus
Communications. 464 pp.
Forrester, Jay W. 1968. Principles of Systems. (2nd ed.). Waltham, MA:
Pegasus Communications. 391 pp.
Forrester, Jay W. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Waltham, MA: Pegasus
Communications. 285 pp.
Forrester, Jay W. 1971. World Dynamics. (1973 second ed.). Waltham, MA:
Pegasus Communications. 144 pp. Second edition has an added chapter on
physical vs. social limits.
Forrester, Jay W. 1975. Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester. Waltham, MA:
Pegasus Communications. 284 pp
---------------
From: "mkkeogh" <mkkeogh@net-tech.com.au>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: A Small Obstacle
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
Marion wrote:
"The major decisions about the shape and direction of education are made by
amateurs ˜ the lawyers, doctors, developers and so on who dominate state
legislatures."
Inside the reality of the classroom such directions seem to pale when
teachers create their own 'curriculum decision-making space' as they
interact in the emotional/social(etc) situation of their environment.
Teachers reside in a dynamic system that grows beyond the boundaries we
create to describe them, and reside in the boundaries we enact in hindsight,
dependan on whatever paradigm we seek to employ, and whether
we agree to enact the power of any particular participant in our descriptor.
Marion is right, the removal of the classroom expert does inflict terrible
consequences, and the removal of adequate graduates in the teaching service
is also devstating. Our descriptors of classroom practice that currently
ignore the teacher, will need to accommodate the teacher that has gained
employment due to the current teacher shortage. Brutal as it
may sound (or read), such as is it, it is a real consideration for those of
us seeking to employ teachers, and to maintain 'standards' in the face of
the 'marketisation of education', where such considerations are ignored and
re-assessed in the light of positive perceptions.
Martin Keogh
Principal
St. Joseph's School
Orbost
Australia

----------------

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: I.Stevenson@ioe.ac.uk (Ian Stevenson)
Subject: Questions

Dear Gustavo,
Don't know about the web but the answer to these and many other interesting
questions can be found in:
"Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer-based Modelling in the Curriculum"
edited by Mellar, H., Boohan, R., Bliss, J., Ogborn, J., Tompsett, C.,
(Eds) (1994) London, Falmer Press. ISBN: 0-7507- 0312-1.
I can e-mail you some more information, if that is any help?
All the best
--Ian
______________________________________________________________
Dr Ian Stevenson Tel: +44 (020) 7612 6676
Mathematical Sciences Group Fax: +44 (020) 7612 6686
Institute of Education Office:+44 (020) 7612 6651/4
20 Bedford Way e-mail:I.Stevenson@ioe.ac.uk
London http://www.ioe.ac.uk/ms/
WC1H OAL
______________________________________________________________
----------

From: "Paul Preuss" <ppreuss@borg.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: A Small Obstacle
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000

I can't help but respond to the comments by Marion and Martin. Perhaps,
just perhaps, the reason that professional educators are often being
excluded from the many recent decisions regarding education is that we have
been there all along and have done little to change the system. Instead we
have perpetuated it. I think generally , as a profession, we have
stonewalled our problems and have easily pointed the finger of blame in
other directions rather than looking at how we can improve our system. The
purpose of unions, (both administrative and teacher) are to protect their
members - not to improve the system for students. I could go on but you
get my drift. I have been a public school educator and administrator for 36
years and the most frequent cause for change in schools during this tenure
has come from somewhere outside.
In New York State, USA, for example, three of the states 28 standards for
students involve some sort of "systems" understanding - yet the schools
themselves are not really "systems" but fragmented parts and the majority of
educators within them rarely think in terms of systems - although recently,
thank goodness, this is beginning to change - again with outside influence.
Sorry.
Paul Preuss

---------------

From: niall.palfreyman@assyst-intl.com
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:34:27 +0100
Subject: Partial derivatives

Hi,
I have a question regarding the modelling of partial differential equations. I
want to set up an educational series of models drawn from biological and social
systems, and they often involve partial spatial derivatives as, for example in
the reaction-diffusion equations of pattern-formation, the heat equation of
physics or the spread of epidemics. I tried modelling these by creating a large
spatial array of stocks in Stella, but the awkwardness of manipulating these in
Stella makes it difficult to deal with arrays bigger than about 10x10 cells.
Another possibility might be Swarm, Starlogo or one of the embedded agent
languages, but they still have a fairly inflexible discretisation of the space
within which the equations act.
Does anyone have any experience of modelling nonlinear partial differential
equations using Stella or some other equally visually friendly tool? I'd
welcome
any and all responses as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Niall.
 
-------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: A Small Obstacle

> From: "Paul Preuss" <ppreuss@borg.com>
> I can't help but respond to the comments by Marion and Martin. Perhaps,
> just perhaps, the reason that professional educators are often being
> excluded from the many recent decisions regarding education is that we have
> been there all along and have done little to change the system.
Absolutely. Those who now sit in positions of power are those who sat in
our classrooms and concluded that the whole process was so simple and
straightforward their exposure to it made them expert.
Teaching, they came to believe, was mostly a matter of telling, and
learning
was mostly a matter of remembering. Nothing complicated about that.
> Instead we have perpetuated it. I think generally , as a profession, we
>have
> stonewalled our problems and have easily pointed the finger of blame in
> other directions rather than looking at how we can improve our system. The
> purpose of unions, (both administrative and teacher) are to protect their
> members - not to improve the system for students. I could go on but you
> get my drift. I have been a public school educator and administrator for 36
> years and the most frequent cause for change in schools during this tenure
> has come from somewhere outside.
Yes, although even that change has been minimal -- pretty much the old
story
of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
My own view is that the basic problem is so fundamental -- the failure of
the education establishment to make the transition to the scientific era in the
17th century -- that there's no accepted theoretical base for reform. We're
still operating on the basis of the backward oriented, Classical assumption
that
educating means transmitting expert opinion from one generation to the next.
> In New York State, USA, for example, three of the states 28 standards for
> students involve some sort of "systems" understanding - yet the schools
> themselves are not really "systems" but fragmented parts and the majority of
> educators within them rarely think in terms of systems - although recently,
> thank goodness, this is beginning to change - again with outside influence.
I'd be more optimistic if the impetus came from inside. I see middle
school
level team teachers as having enormous unrealized potential, and that's where I
push hardest. The problem is the extent to which they're steeped in the
assumption that the traditional disciplines are the only way to organize
knowledge. This allows them to explore disciplinary intersections and
parallels,
but blocks them from investigating the kinds of systemic relationships that are
possible when all knowledge is seen as part of a single, mutually supportive,
integrated whole.
Marion
--
Article, May Kappan, "The Standards Juggernaut"
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Homepage
http://digital.net/~mbrady/

---------------
End of August 2000