Note: this query is forwarded to the "k-12sd" list with permission of
Ed McDonough
--------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:10:09 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: "Ed McDonough" <ed@sixredmarbles.com>
Subject: QUERY Eeducation policy and its impact on businesses (SD3947)
I am interested in creating a Vensim model (computer model simulation
application) that could be used to analyze and better understand the
impact of government's education policies, like President Bush's 'No
Child Left Behind' act, on the businesses that supply technology and
other tools to educators.
I would like to review/study any current models on public education and
technology.

Can anyone point me to potential resources?

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

Forward from the "system-dynamics"discussion list. The Moderator
---------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:09:41 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: GBHirsch@aol.com
Subject: REPlY Education policy and its impact on businesses (SD3948)

Edward-

I've been working on a series of models with others on the adoption of new
curricula and technology in schools. A paper on an earlier effort entitled
"Innovation in Schools: A Model to Help Structure the Discussion and Guide
the Search for Strategies" is available from the Creative Learning Exchange
(www.clexchange.org). (Search using Innovation as a keyword.) More recent
work has focused on the effect of various education reform efforts on the
adoption process and the ability to achieve change in schools. A paper that
describes this latest model and the insights it offers entitled "Can
Education Reform Get in the Way of Reforming Education?: A Simulator for
Exploring Reform Strategies" was presented by me at the CLE's 2002 ST/DM
Conference in Durham, NH and is available at the following link:
http://www.clexchange.org/ftp/conference/cle_2002/33_Hirsch.pdf I'm
currently working with colleagues to develop a learning environment based on
this model to help school administrators, board members, teachers, and the
community at large think through reform strategies and understand the
elements of effective strategies. I hope you find these papers helpful and
relevant to your query. Please contact me if you have other questions about
the work.

Gary Hirsch
GBHirsch@attbi.com

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

From: Robinsailg@aol.com
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 07:58:17 -0400
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu (k-12sd)
Subject: Re:model of effects of antibiotics on bacteria

I am trying to build a simple model that shows exponential growth of
bacteria and the effect of antibiotics on bacterial growth. I want
students to be able to see the effects of stopping your antibiotic
before the prescription runs out. If anyone has any resources about
this, I'd appreciate you sending them my way.

Robin Goldstein,
Harvard Public Schools

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

Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:53:24 +0200
From: Niall Palfreyman <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>
Organization: Fachhochschule Weihenstephan
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Goldstein: model of effects of antibiotics on bacteria

Robin Goldstein schrieb:
I am trying to build a simple model that shows exponential growth of
bacteria and the effect of antibiotics on bacterial growth...

Hi Robin,
I have a number of models which I use with beginning college students to
discuss various ramifications of exponential behaviour. These include a
model containing a 14x14 grid of locations which get probabilistically
filled with rabbits (exponential growth, but with a death factor
included) and a model containing a 14x14 grid of C14 atoms which decay
probabilistically to C12 (exponential decay). Both of these might be
useful to you. I guess sending them to the list is probably not a good
idea - shall I send them direct to you?
Also, a request: when you've gathered or constructed the model you're
looking for, could I have a copy please? It would also be very useful
for me.

Best wishes,
Niall.
 
--------------

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:24:15 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: a question about the limitations of SD

Hello all,

I'm teaching a class at Harvard's Graduate School of Education this year entitled: "Talking with Children about Complex Systems." The students are highly motivated and are interested in integrating system dynamics and systems thinking into various educational settings.
Several of the grad students have started to ask about the limitations of system dynamics/systems thinking. The spirit of this inquiry is positive. They feel that to effectively apply systems thinking in the classroom they need to have a full understanding of both how and how not to use it. They want to know, for example, when it is not appropriate to us ST/SD. For example, one student noted:
"...systems thinking and graphing has the potential to both over-simplify and confound issues in its attempt to present them graphically."
I've said that situations or challenge involving simple organization may not require ST/SD. For example, if I'm organizing my CD collection, I wouldn't use systems thinking.
I am very curious to hear what you all think. And I'm noticing how much I will miss hearing Barry Richmond's response to this question.

My class and I thank you, in advance, for your thoughts.
My best,
Linda

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

From: "Paul Newton" <PaulNewton@stewardshipmodeling.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:21:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: a question about the limitations of SD

Jac Vennix, in his 1996 book "Group Model Building: Facilitating Team
Learning Using System Dynamics' (Chichester, England. John Wiley and
Sons), contains a section entitled, "Initiation of a Project: The
Suitability of System Dynamics." Here, Vennix discusses four
"guidelines on when to use system dynamics and when not." This
section is excerpted and posted at www.StewardshipModeling.com. Click
on the "Suitable Problems" link on the left.
At the Creative Learning Exchange's 1998 Systems Thinking and Dynamic
Modeling in K-12 Education Conference at UNH in Durham, NH, George
Richardson spoke of a difference between using system dynamics in
education, versus using it in other contexts. In most contexts, we
use system dynamics to address "problem behavior." In K-12
education, we usually use system dynamics to study "interesting
behavior." Since Vennix uses the word "problem" in his prescriptions
for the suitability of system dynamics, we will need to make this
translation in applying his prescriptions to education applications
of system dynamics.
A humorous aside: Because I had recently been thinking a lot about
how to position the use of SD with K-12 teachers, I was very excited
by George Richardson's distinction between "problem" and
"interesting" behavior. I was so excited that, when I found myself
in a lunch line with Jay Forrester immediately following George's
talk, I gushed my excitement to him. Jay very dryly responded to my
excitement, "I think you ought to stick with problems."
At any rate, I think Vennix' prescriptions might be useful in
answering your question.

Paul Newton
paulnewton@StewardshipModelng.com
Paul Newton
920-469-9663 (Green Bay, WI)
PaulNewton@StewardshipModeling.com

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

Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:45:07 -0800
From: "Richard Turnock" <Richard_Turnock@pgn.com>
To: <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: a question about the limitations of SD

Don't use causal loops with K-12 students along with teaching
dynamic modeling. Adults with some instruction might be able to hold
the concept separate from dynamic modeling. K-12 students haven't
developed strategic thinking skills to know when or how to use causal
loops.

Richard

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:45:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Booth-Sweeney: a question about the limitations of SD
From: George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
 
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 10:08 AM, k-12sd wrote:
Several of the grad students have started to ask about the
limitations of system dynamics/systems thinking.
It's an important question that all of us should have reflected upon
(and continue to think about, I suppose). The obvious initial
limitation is that systems thinking and system dynamics focus on
DYNAMIC problems and phenomena. As Linda says, they don't help with
static organizational tasks like filing your CDs.
There's a second "characteristic," I'd suggest -- I don't see it as a
"limitation" as such but it does reduce the universe of dynamic
problems we'd address with ST/SD. We do our best with our tools when
the dynamics we're interested in have a significant or interesting
ENDOGENOUS component -- the "system as cause" notion. Dynamic
phenomena that are generated entirely by external forces, with no
internal systemic tendencies to contribute (reinforce, counteract) to
the dynamics, are not interesting to a systems thinker. Fortunately,
this may be a pretty small subset of the problems and dynamic
phenomena out there, if we think hard enough.
A third concern that might lead one to suggest "limits" (but again
it's more of a preference than a limitation) is the thought that for
some dynamic problems there might be better thinking tools. For
example, the simulation world is excited about "agent-based"
simulations, which track the behavior of individual "agents" in a
complex system. Some of these agent-based simulators have generated
insights that would have been difficult or impossible to tease out of
an aggregate, continuous model of the sort that system dynamics folk
build and think with. Another example might be some optimization
problems, which could be dealt with better with other tools (linear
programing, calculus, ..., but probably not impossible to approach
with system dynamics tools).
But beyond these three concerns, I do not see limitations to the
kinds of problems one can fruitfully address with system dynamics.
It is true that qualitative systems thinking has limits in the AMOUNT
of COMPLEXITY one can deal with supported only by mental simulation
-- humans just can't deduce reliably from circular causal structures
once they get beyond the simple. (If we could, then nobody would
remember Forrester for his system dynamics work; we'd just draw
pictures and think wise thoughts and never need the computer to
verify them.)
We need to respond carefully to the student who said "...systems
thinking and graphing has the potential to both over-simplify and
confound issues in its attempt to present them graphically." I think
that's a true statement if we limit ourselves to the qualitative
tools of mapping and graphing. We're limited in our cognitive
capacities to store, recall, manipulate, and test all the details of
our more extensive mental models.
But if we allow ourselves to use modeling and simulation to help,
then we can address dynamic problems of much greater complexity than
humans can handle any other way. A formal model (1) deduces with
complete reliability the implications of its assumed causal
structure; (2) never forgets any part of the system while it focuses
on other parts; (3) can be experimented with in a laboratory-like
way, enabling reliable "what-if" logical experiments; and (4) can be
altered (without arguing back!) if we decide its structure needs to
be changed to reflect reality better. These are talents that humans
lack. They're just the things we need to address our most complex,
most important problems.
Humans, of course, have lots of talents that simulation models lack.
Humans are creative; system dynamics models, by themselves, are not
(although they can help us be creative). Humans can change their
minds quickly, shifting from one part of an analysis to another with
lightening-like speed; models are pretty slow to "change their
minds" -- they don't do it themselves and it takes some time to draw
the new structures and write the new equations. And let's not forget
that humans have values, decide what's worth thinking about, and in
the best of worlds, hug each other. Lots of talents. We just don't
happen to think really well, without computer help, when things get
messy.
I would say to your students that the limitations of systems thinking
and system dynamics they should worry about the most are the
limitations they themselves place upon them. The tools and habits of
thought themselves have very few limitations.

...George
*George P. Richardson
*Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
*University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
*gpr@albany.edu *518-442-3859 *http://www.albany.edu/~gpr

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

To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Turnock: a question about the limitations of SD

Don't use causal loops with K-12 students along with teaching
dynamic modeling. Adults with some instruction might be able to hold
the concept separate from dynamic modeling. K-12 students haven't
developed strategic thinking skills to know when or how to use causal
loops.
Richard-

I have to disagree with you here somewhat. This Thursday, I will be
using causal
loops with 10th-graders to set the stage for some simple group modeling on
Friday. As part of a year-long focus on making choices, we will examine the
roles of leaders and of individual crowd members in mob dynamics, using Julius
Ceasar Act II, Scene iii.
We'll use BOTG and causal loops to illustrate the simple reinforcing
relationship between "overall crowd anger" and "talking amongst themselves".
Then we'll tie in a balancing loop with a variable called something like
"influence of calming leader" (or whatever synonymous variable the kids give
me). Then, for contrast, we'll re-draw the main self-reinforcing loop
of overall
crowd anger and talking amongst themselves, and tie in "influence of 'angering'
leader", which makes it a double reinforcing loop.
So they get some basic causal relationships down with CLDs. Then on Friday,
we'll dig into more operational dynamics using a projected, one-stock model of
Crowd Anger. This will allow us to explore in more detail factors that might
vary from crowd to crowd, such as "crowd volatility"...and so on.
Please bear in mind that I am not trying to teach them to model, but rather to
use a group model building experience to stimulate student thought and
facilitate conversation. I agree that in teaching them to actually model on
their own, it might be confusing to keep hopping back and forth
between stocks &
flows and causal loops (is that what you meant by "Don't use causal loops with
K-12 students along with teaching dynamic modeling"?). But on the other hand, I
have observed respected modelers checking the feedback logic of their models
with causal loops....! :-)
These are challenging calls to make. Where I am right now with it is: different
tools work for different purposes with different audiences. If they engage
people and increase the degree to which their daily mental models are systemic,
then it worked. We can't always accurately predict which tools will
work best in
a particular situation, but we all seem to be getting much better at this with
time and practice.

Steve Kipp

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

Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:05:52 -0500
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu> (by way of Nan Lux)
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <linda_booth_sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Turnock: a question about the limitations of SD

Hi Richard,
Thanks very much for your thoughts.
One of the main concerns expressed by my students has been around how
to use ST/SD (or not) when their are a myriad of cultural and
political dynamics at play.
Here's an example from one of my students:
"We reached a consensus that systems thinking and graphing has the
potential to both over-simplify and confound issues in its attempt to
present them graphically. While these seem contradictory, we felt
that we have seen examples of these issues within the context of the
class. For example, the War on Drugs potentially could create a
systems map to fill a room with various actors and their motivations,
presenting the issue in a manner that does not illustrate key
cultural and political assumptions of the actors. While the
expansiveness of the mapping would certainly be confounding to
someone trying to understand the issue for the first time, it would
also be overly simplistic by not identifying the motivations and
assumptions that are relevant to the system, define the issue, and
shape the relationships amongst the actors.. . . Also, while stock
and flow mapping seems to play a significant role on some levels of
analysis, it appears to not be appropriate on others...I have felt
that the readings have been excellent at giving descriptions of the
potential benefits of system dynamics and systems thinking. Yet, they
have left me with the concern that the authors. . .are not addressing
the limitations and are often suggesting unlimited applications of
systems thinking."
If we get a discussion going around this topic, I'd be happy to
follow Tim Joy's lead and send a synthesis of the main points to the
list.

my best,
Linda
***************************************
Linda Booth Sweeney
Harvard Graduate School of Education
e-mail: Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu
tel: 617-354-1390
fax: 617-812-8935

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

From: "Scott C Guthrie" <sgu3@attbi.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: a question about the limitations of SD
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:21:48 -0800

Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:59:14 -0500
From: Steve Kipp <skipp@glynn.k12.ga.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Richardson: a question about the limitations of SD

George-
Thanks for your (as always) clear and thorough thoughts in response to Linda's
question.
I'd like to add to your #3, that there are sometimes better thinking tools
available. The determination of the best thinking tool depends not only on the
nature of the problem at hand and the set of available tools, but also on the
capabilities and prior knowledge of the audience, and the amount of time
available. A conversation may be started with people new to Systems
with a BOTG.
Simple feedback relationships may be explored further with causal loops. Right
there, we've elevated the conversation far above many peoples' common patterns
of thought! But if you really want to know "what's going on here",
simulation is
the best...
So I do agree to some extent with Linda's students, having personally
experienced both oversimplification and undue confounding in my ST/SD work with
k-12 students. And I also agree with your last point, "that the limitations of
systems thinking and system dynamics they should worry about the most are the
limitations they themselves place upon them", because in most cases the problem
wasn't with the tool itself, but in my own limitations with selection or use of
the tool!

Steve Kipp
--------------
End of October, 2002