Systems Thinking: Unified Field Curriculum Theory
Running Head: Unified Field Curriculum Theory
Keywords: Engineering and Technological Literacy, Cognition, Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems thinking.
Zanj K. Avery
Utah State University
Abstract
The intent of this study is to speculate about the future of education and to present alternative approaches to the management of educational programs as it pertains to school wide instructional improvement. Moreover, this paper examines a growing educational issue that concerns enhancing the ability of students to compete in a global economy. To address this need, students need to become more technologically literate, while concurrently, developing the cognitive abilities and skills that aid in systems thinking (learning). The interdisciplinary nature of systems thinking is discussed as it relates to the interaction of core academic concepts and principles. Hence, educational leaders have begun to seek innovative methods for school wide instructional improvement while managing educational programs that unify seemingly unrelated branches of learning, such as, math, science, reading, writing, etc. In addition this paper explores how engineering and technology education can proffer solutions to increasing student interest in their core academic subjects while improving teacher efficacy and establishing a learning environment that provides greater thoroughness (rigor) and relevance for students.
Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems Thinking and the Quest for a Unified Field Theory of Education
Introduction
Academic subjects are fragmented into content areas that are interdependent in the real world. (Forrester, 1992) Core academic subjects, such as reading, writing, math, social studies, physics, etc., are divided into seemingly unrelated subjects as if there was no overlap between these content areas. Moreover, “students are expected to create a unity from the fragments of educational experiences, even though their teachers have seldom achieved that unity.” (Forrester, 1996). For this reason, momentum is growing amongst educators that seek a unified field theory of education that invariably connects all branches of learning (CED, 2003).
More and more Americans are beginning to realize that schools are failing to prepare students with the necessary skills to make a successful transition into the world of work, in addition to, meeting the requirements of staying globally competitive in an ever increasing world of rapid technological change (Friedman, 2005). The movement to connect all branches of learning may offer some solutions to this growing concern. This effort, in turn, requires students to become more technologically literate.
In 1998, President Clinton, addressed the issue of technological literacy by identifying the need for connecting “every classroom and library to the internet by the year 2000 and help students become more technologically literate.” (Clinton, 1998). Many educational leaders and teachers alike concur with Clinton’s focus on the level of technological literacy and seek to provide curriculum that meet the needs of this endeavor. As Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, and Vickers (1995) suggested, the study of technology needs to include a broad array of interactive learning opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with tools and resources that aid in the development of higher order cognitive skills and abilities. Developing these cognitive skills and abilities will greatly benefit students as they make the transition from school to career or as competitors in the global marketplace.
Pursuant to meeting the ever-increasing needs of a technologically-driven society, the main purpose of this study is to explore the concepts and principles of interdisciplinary learning strategies [i.e., systems thinking (learning)] that can aid educational leaders with transforming schools into centers of learning that can satisfy the growing demands of a technologically-driven society. The overall objective is to explore alternative approaches to the management of school systems, and to proffer ideas as it concerns a) instructional strategies and principles that will help encourage students to be more technologically literate, in addition to, b) cultivating a learning environment that provides greater relevance (real world connections) to students. Implications for engineering and technology educational leadership is also discussed as it concerns potential instructional vehicles that can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).
Background Literature
Glickman, Gordon and Gordon (2004) affirmed that school wide instructional improvement, according to effective schools research, is a fundamental component in the development of effective schools requiring the collaboration and participation of many disciplines; it should be a collective effort of faculty, school administrators, parents and students. “…when teachers accept common goals for students and therefore complement each other’s teaching, and when supervisors work with teachers in a manner consistent with the way teachers are expected to work with students, then-and only then-does the school reach its goals.” (Glickman, Gordon, & Gordon, 2004 pp. 9). This form of interdisciplinary education, which will be referred to as the Unified Field Theory of Education, would allow K-12 curriculums to be organized in a spiral fashion so that students repeatedly build upon what they have already learned. These implications are especially important to Engineering and Technology Education (ETE) because they can help increase awareness among general educators while strengthening ETE’s potential to serve as a unifier of seemingly non-interacting subject matter.
The Relationship Between Unified Field Theory and Systems Thinking (learning).
Unified field theory, also referred to as Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), is the long-sought after/age-old pursuit of connecting or linking all known phenomena in the universe. Such a theory seeks to explain the structure and behavior of all energy/matter in existence and would permit us to tap into the secrets of the natural universe. The discovery of a unified field theory would unite seemingly unrelated fields (an area influenced by some force, such as gravity or electricity) to produce a single all-inclusive set of equations (whatis.techtarget.com, 2000). The applications for a unified field theory in education would facilitate interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and, in effect, promote systems thinking.
Just as the scientific definition of the Unified Field Theory (UFT) attempts to connect seemingly unrelated fields of energy/matter, the Unified Field Theory of Education (UFTE) would potentially unite seemingly unrelated branches of knowledge, teaching and learning. Systems thinking (learning) represents the string or thread that fastens or binds educational disciplines together. Systems thinking, as it concerns interdisciplinary learning, is an approach to education that organizes instructional content so that students better understand how parts of a system interact with one another to make a whole. According to the Wikipedia definition, “Systems thinking is a worldview based on the perspective of the systems sciences, which seeks to understand interconnectedness, complexity and wholeness of components of systems in specific relationship to each other.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking).
System thinkers oscillate between constructivist and reductionist views of cognition. The reductionist aspect of thinking enables one to understand the individual components of a system, and the constructivist aspect attempts to understand how these components interact with one another (Bertalanffy, 1968). The reasoning behind systems thinking (learning) is: what students learn in the classroom should prime them for real world encounters. In general, system thinkers address the basic structures of all systems in their environments (Forrester, 1997).
System dynamics, which is the basis of systems thinking (learning), is a discipline that studies how things change over time and has been under development at MIT since the 1950’s. It was once limited to the study of how the policies of corporations affect success and failures but has now transcended the confines of the corporate world and branched out into the educational domain (Forester, 1997).
In order to better understand the benefits of interdisciplinary education (or the unified field theory approach to education) it is informative to explore the cognitive underpinnings that contribute to successful learning. Hence the next section will discuss the implications that cognitive research has in relationship to education, more specifically, engineering and technology education, and how these areas can be used to promote or foster or cultivate an acceptable model for this numinous unified field theory (or interdisciplinary curriculum design).
Cognitive science in relation to engineering and technology education
The mental process by which knowledge is obtained is called cognitive learning. Cognitive learning involves intellectual activities such as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words. Cognitive science or the study of thinking and learning extend over across a wide variety of disciplines from developmental psychology to medicine. Engineering and technology education is no exception. Cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems. Cognitive researchers attempt to discover if everything that humans know, such as, history, scientific knowledge, religious and political beliefs are shaped by humans through their language and vocabulary or, are there some aspects of thought that are universal (Notess, 2001). For example, 1+1=2 is a statement that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias and has the same connotation for everyone. Literature reveals that researchers in very diverse fields have embraced cognitive theories for developing instructional principles and strategies for teaching. These theories can be quite informative to engineering and technology educators as they strive to augment the cognitive reasoning skills of their students, especially as it relates to the communication of core academic subjects.
“True teaching is not an accumulation of knowledge; it is an awaking of consciousness which goes through successive stages.” (Diop, 1974)
Per the constructivist view of learning, education is student-centered; students have to construct knowledge themselves; learning is an extensive progression of accumulating new information and adding it to what is already known. Moreover, the understanding of applied math and science concepts, in conjunction with engineering and technology related concepts, involves a multitude of mental processes, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, judgment and/or intuition. The development of these mental processes requires a system of learning/teaching that a) reminds students about what they already know, b) makes use of analogies and metaphors, c) makes distinctions between new and old information, d) establishes a purpose for what is to be learned, e) encourages students to generate thought provoking questions, and f) encourages teachers to design activities based on real world situations. These associations allow the learner to understand and appreciate the workings of nature and the universe.
Engineering and technology education integrates a multitude of subject areas such as history, science, math, language, writing, and creative design. Because many of the concepts and principles inherent within engineering and technology education, a plethora of seemingly unrelated subjects can be organized and delivered via engineering and technology education. Hence, engineering and technology education has the potential to provide an instructional vehicle that facilitates interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).
Constructivism and Cognition
Those who promote constructivism concur that cognitive structures that influence adaptive behavior is the result of an individual’s perception of stimuli from his/her environment, rather than the actual stimuli (Huitt, 2003). Bruner's constructivist theory is a general framework for instruction based upon the study of cognition. Child development research laid much of the groundwork for the theory (especially Piaget, 1972). The ideas outlined by Bruner (1960) originated from a conference focused on science and math learning. Bruner’s theory is exemplified in the context of mathematics and social science programs for young children (Bruner, 1973). Bruner’s (1966) position is that instructional strategies concentrate on the following four major components: a) Tendency or predisposition towards learning, b) The ways in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the learner, c) The most effective sequences in which to present material, and d) The nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information. (Bruner, 1966).
More recently, Bruner (1986, 1990) has extended his theoretical framework to include the social and cultural viewpoints of education per the following: a) Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness), b) Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization), c) Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information given), d) Knowledge about one's own cognitive system, in other words, thinking about one's own thinking, is an essential skill for learning to learn, and e) Includes thoughts about (1) what we know or don't know and (2) regulating how we go about learning. (Bruner 1986, 1990)
A major premise in the theoretical framework of Bruner is that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner chooses and transforms information, forms hypotheses, and makes judgments, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Mental models are pertinent for engineering and technology educators because they help to form mental images or representations of physical systems and objects (Johnson and Thomas, 1994). Cognitive structure, more specifically schemata, and mental models, imparts significance and organization to experiences and allows the individual to expand beyond the information given.
As research advances in this field, evidence is surmounting that indicates the mental models that influence decisions and behavior can vary depending on the situation, environment, and/or the context of learning. This, in turn, increases the difficulty of making generalizations regarding outcomes that transverse the differences between task and knowledge domains (Doyle, 1997). Doyle (1997) recommends that the evaluation of systems thinking interventions should assess both behavioral and cognitive changes until we know more about the structure, substance, and the role of mental representations of systems as they relate to a specific research setting.
The limitations in student understanding of math, science, reading, and writing impede the development of higher order reasoning skills. If educators are to devise curriculums that are effective in the development of proficient thinkers, then cognitive research as it pertains to interdisciplinary education, more specifically, systems thinking (learning) is both exigent and momentous.
Discussion
Implications for ETE
Let us reconsider Bruner’s general framework for instruction based upon cognitive research. Bruner’s framework sheds light on a person’s predisposition towards learning, wherein the initial interest of the learner plays a major role in the education process. In other words, the learner has to be somewhat interested in what is being taught in order to develop his/her higher-order cognitive abilities. Otherwise, the learner loses interest quickly. From this, educators must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing to learn, as well as, structuring information so that it can be easily grasped by the student. Hence, students have to build knowledge themselves while accumulating new information and adding this new information to what is already known. ETE, as it relates to interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning), provides real world connections plus a relevant reference frame for a multitude of content areas, especially as it concerns core academic subjects, such as, math and science education. This type of pedagogy also facilitates “deep thinking”, and, in turn, encourages students to generate questions, explanations, and summaries regarding a multitude of academic concepts and principles.
Although cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems, forming connections between thinking and behavior can be misleading. Apparently, this presents a major dilemma when taking into account an individual’s personal knowledge, intellectual skills, attitudes, etc (Doyle, 1997). Hence, variables, such as learning contexts, situational variables, emotions, and learning outcomes, are important factors in producing explicit, adaptive behavior. According to Doyle (1997), these variables (i.e., attitudes, mental models, scripts, and schemas) are obviously linked to behavior, but the association is often multifaceted and contrary to what common sense would have us believe.
Final Note
Engineering has added a great deal to the quality of life that we take pleasure in today, and the prospects for the future are likely to be even better (National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, 2004). A major issue for engineering and technology educators is making certain that students are provided with rigorous instruction that facilitates continued success as they progress along their academic path. We live in a world that is technologically driven and requires people to possess skills beyond just basic reading, writing, and math. These issues are forcing educators to rethink the way in which they instruct their students (Technology for All Americans Project, 1996).
Since engineering and technology influences almost every facet of our daily lives, it is important that citizens become somewhat technologically literate and have an elementary understanding of how the world functions around them, plus how to exist therein. Moreover, a good comprehension of systems thinking has great potential in facilitating teaching and student understanding of abstract academic concepts and principles, in effect, helping students to assimilate engineering and technology concepts more quickly plus would better prepare them for more advanced topics. If our schools systems, as it concerns interdisciplinary curriculums that employ systems thinking (learning), are to address the demands of the global marketplace, plus serve as a vehicle for fostering engineering/technological literacy, then it is critical that instructional leaders, educators and engineering/technology educators develop effective delivery systems so that students gain exposure to the world of applied learning. Moreover, classes devoted to systems thinking principles and practices, especially as it concerns engineering and technology education, should focus on helping students apply academics to real world situations.
Addendum: Future Objectives
Future objectives will involve using the knowledge obtained from this study to identify ways in which the professional development of teachers can be enhance by employing the engineering design process to deliver content from areas such as science, technology, art, writing, reading and math concepts and principles. The methodology of this approach is as follows: Teachers from a variety of disciplines including math, science, and technology education will participate in a professional development workshop involving the following three phases:
The first phase will involve laying the groundwork to prepare teachers to infuse engineering design into their respective programs using math, science (especially physics), and engineering design principles.
The second phase involves the use of an engineering design project model called “Elements of Design” that illustrates methods that can be used to develop interdisciplinary curriculum programs. The existing activity can be used as is or teachers can develop their own design activities based upon the underlying model of “Elements of Design”
The third phase will involve a follow up study to assess the efficacy of the extant or underlying model of design. This will inform future studies as it pertains to the design of professional development workshops plus identify areas that need improvement. Data will be collected from participants regarding the quality and outcomes of the professional development. The participants also will develop a portfolio of resource materials collected in a project binder.
Significance of the workshop for instructional leaders is to better understand models for professional development that foster self-efficacy and collegiality among faculty, in addition to, providing teachers with an underlying model that enhances teaching and facilitates student learning as it concerns interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning) programs.
Desired outcomes of this professional development workshop include:
Establishment of a common culture and unification of goals amongst pedagogical disciplines.
Reduce seclusion or isolation of teachers.
Encourage discussion and sharing amongst teachers as it pertains to interdisciplinary learning and the reality of what is occurring in individual classrooms.
Design effective professional development workshops that improve teaching and learning for teachers and students.
Foster constructive staff relationships.
Upon returning to the classroom, teachers' feel that they are able to better engage the interests of students by organizing educational topics, such as math, science, reading and writing, in a manner that: a) provides relevant reference frames and b) connects to real world situations.
References
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968). General System Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications New York: George Braziller
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Committee on Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the Future: Changing the
Culture of Math And Science Education to Ensure A Competitive Workforce. Retrieved on October 29, 2005, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_scientists.pdf.
Diop, A.C. (1974). The African origins of civilization; myth or reality (Cook, M, Trans.)
New York: Westport (Original work published 1967).
Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics
Review, 13(3): 253-265.
Feil, Adam J. (2002). Talking Physics: How the Ability to Communicate
PhysicsConcepts Affects Learning. Retrieved November 21, 2005, from http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/research/PER/Adam/adam_thesis.pdf#search='limitations%20in%20student%20understanding%20physics'
Forrester, Jay W. (1992). System Dynamics and Learner Centered Learning in
Kindergarten through 12th Grade Education. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4337.pdf
Forrester, Jay W. (1996). System Dynamics and K-12 Teachers. Retrieved November 11,
2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/D-4665-4.pdf
Hacker, Douglas J (1998) Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations
Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm
Huitt, W. (2003). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:
Valdosta State University. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/metacogn.html.
Johnson, Scott D., Thomas, Ruth, G. (1994). Implication of Cognitive Science for
Instructional Design in Technology Education. The Journal of Technology Studies, pg. 34.
McGee, Bruce G. (1997). Multimedia - Effectiveness in the Learning Environment:
A Review of Literature. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from,
National Academy of Engineering, (2004). The Engineer of 2020, Washington, D.C.: The
National Academy of Science.
Nash, Patrick L. (2005). A Message From The Chair. Retrieved November 15, 2005,
from, http://physics.utsa.edu/about%20us.htm.
Notess, Charles (2001). Glossary. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from
www.greeleynet.com/~cnotess/gloss.htm.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Definition for “Unified Field Theory” retrieved from (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci554508,00.html on April 2, 2006
Technology for All Americans Project. (2003). Promoting Technological Literacy for All Students. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from www.iteawww.org/TAA/TAA.html
Keywords: Engineering and Technological Literacy, Cognition, Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems thinking.
Zanj K. Avery
Utah State University
Abstract
The intent of this study is to speculate about the future of education and to present alternative approaches to the management of educational programs as it pertains to school wide instructional improvement. Moreover, this paper examines a growing educational issue that concerns enhancing the ability of students to compete in a global economy. To address this need, students need to become more technologically literate, while concurrently, developing the cognitive abilities and skills that aid in systems thinking (learning). The interdisciplinary nature of systems thinking is discussed as it relates to the interaction of core academic concepts and principles. Hence, educational leaders have begun to seek innovative methods for school wide instructional improvement while managing educational programs that unify seemingly unrelated branches of learning, such as, math, science, reading, writing, etc. In addition this paper explores how engineering and technology education can proffer solutions to increasing student interest in their core academic subjects while improving teacher efficacy and establishing a learning environment that provides greater thoroughness (rigor) and relevance for students.
Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems Thinking and the Quest for a Unified Field Theory of Education
Introduction
Academic subjects are fragmented into content areas that are interdependent in the real world. (Forrester, 1992) Core academic subjects, such as reading, writing, math, social studies, physics, etc., are divided into seemingly unrelated subjects as if there was no overlap between these content areas. Moreover, “students are expected to create a unity from the fragments of educational experiences, even though their teachers have seldom achieved that unity.” (Forrester, 1996). For this reason, momentum is growing amongst educators that seek a unified field theory of education that invariably connects all branches of learning (CED, 2003).
More and more Americans are beginning to realize that schools are failing to prepare students with the necessary skills to make a successful transition into the world of work, in addition to, meeting the requirements of staying globally competitive in an ever increasing world of rapid technological change (Friedman, 2005). The movement to connect all branches of learning may offer some solutions to this growing concern. This effort, in turn, requires students to become more technologically literate.
In 1998, President Clinton, addressed the issue of technological literacy by identifying the need for connecting “every classroom and library to the internet by the year 2000 and help students become more technologically literate.” (Clinton, 1998). Many educational leaders and teachers alike concur with Clinton’s focus on the level of technological literacy and seek to provide curriculum that meet the needs of this endeavor. As Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, and Vickers (1995) suggested, the study of technology needs to include a broad array of interactive learning opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with tools and resources that aid in the development of higher order cognitive skills and abilities. Developing these cognitive skills and abilities will greatly benefit students as they make the transition from school to career or as competitors in the global marketplace.
Pursuant to meeting the ever-increasing needs of a technologically-driven society, the main purpose of this study is to explore the concepts and principles of interdisciplinary learning strategies [i.e., systems thinking (learning)] that can aid educational leaders with transforming schools into centers of learning that can satisfy the growing demands of a technologically-driven society. The overall objective is to explore alternative approaches to the management of school systems, and to proffer ideas as it concerns a) instructional strategies and principles that will help encourage students to be more technologically literate, in addition to, b) cultivating a learning environment that provides greater relevance (real world connections) to students. Implications for engineering and technology educational leadership is also discussed as it concerns potential instructional vehicles that can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).
Background Literature
Glickman, Gordon and Gordon (2004) affirmed that school wide instructional improvement, according to effective schools research, is a fundamental component in the development of effective schools requiring the collaboration and participation of many disciplines; it should be a collective effort of faculty, school administrators, parents and students. “…when teachers accept common goals for students and therefore complement each other’s teaching, and when supervisors work with teachers in a manner consistent with the way teachers are expected to work with students, then-and only then-does the school reach its goals.” (Glickman, Gordon, & Gordon, 2004 pp. 9). This form of interdisciplinary education, which will be referred to as the Unified Field Theory of Education, would allow K-12 curriculums to be organized in a spiral fashion so that students repeatedly build upon what they have already learned. These implications are especially important to Engineering and Technology Education (ETE) because they can help increase awareness among general educators while strengthening ETE’s potential to serve as a unifier of seemingly non-interacting subject matter.
The Relationship Between Unified Field Theory and Systems Thinking (learning).
Unified field theory, also referred to as Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), is the long-sought after/age-old pursuit of connecting or linking all known phenomena in the universe. Such a theory seeks to explain the structure and behavior of all energy/matter in existence and would permit us to tap into the secrets of the natural universe. The discovery of a unified field theory would unite seemingly unrelated fields (an area influenced by some force, such as gravity or electricity) to produce a single all-inclusive set of equations (whatis.techtarget.com, 2000). The applications for a unified field theory in education would facilitate interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and, in effect, promote systems thinking.
Just as the scientific definition of the Unified Field Theory (UFT) attempts to connect seemingly unrelated fields of energy/matter, the Unified Field Theory of Education (UFTE) would potentially unite seemingly unrelated branches of knowledge, teaching and learning. Systems thinking (learning) represents the string or thread that fastens or binds educational disciplines together. Systems thinking, as it concerns interdisciplinary learning, is an approach to education that organizes instructional content so that students better understand how parts of a system interact with one another to make a whole. According to the Wikipedia definition, “Systems thinking is a worldview based on the perspective of the systems sciences, which seeks to understand interconnectedness, complexity and wholeness of components of systems in specific relationship to each other.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking).
System thinkers oscillate between constructivist and reductionist views of cognition. The reductionist aspect of thinking enables one to understand the individual components of a system, and the constructivist aspect attempts to understand how these components interact with one another (Bertalanffy, 1968). The reasoning behind systems thinking (learning) is: what students learn in the classroom should prime them for real world encounters. In general, system thinkers address the basic structures of all systems in their environments (Forrester, 1997).
System dynamics, which is the basis of systems thinking (learning), is a discipline that studies how things change over time and has been under development at MIT since the 1950’s. It was once limited to the study of how the policies of corporations affect success and failures but has now transcended the confines of the corporate world and branched out into the educational domain (Forester, 1997).
In order to better understand the benefits of interdisciplinary education (or the unified field theory approach to education) it is informative to explore the cognitive underpinnings that contribute to successful learning. Hence the next section will discuss the implications that cognitive research has in relationship to education, more specifically, engineering and technology education, and how these areas can be used to promote or foster or cultivate an acceptable model for this numinous unified field theory (or interdisciplinary curriculum design).
Cognitive science in relation to engineering and technology education
The mental process by which knowledge is obtained is called cognitive learning. Cognitive learning involves intellectual activities such as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words. Cognitive science or the study of thinking and learning extend over across a wide variety of disciplines from developmental psychology to medicine. Engineering and technology education is no exception. Cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems. Cognitive researchers attempt to discover if everything that humans know, such as, history, scientific knowledge, religious and political beliefs are shaped by humans through their language and vocabulary or, are there some aspects of thought that are universal (Notess, 2001). For example, 1+1=2 is a statement that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias and has the same connotation for everyone. Literature reveals that researchers in very diverse fields have embraced cognitive theories for developing instructional principles and strategies for teaching. These theories can be quite informative to engineering and technology educators as they strive to augment the cognitive reasoning skills of their students, especially as it relates to the communication of core academic subjects.
“True teaching is not an accumulation of knowledge; it is an awaking of consciousness which goes through successive stages.” (Diop, 1974)
Per the constructivist view of learning, education is student-centered; students have to construct knowledge themselves; learning is an extensive progression of accumulating new information and adding it to what is already known. Moreover, the understanding of applied math and science concepts, in conjunction with engineering and technology related concepts, involves a multitude of mental processes, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, judgment and/or intuition. The development of these mental processes requires a system of learning/teaching that a) reminds students about what they already know, b) makes use of analogies and metaphors, c) makes distinctions between new and old information, d) establishes a purpose for what is to be learned, e) encourages students to generate thought provoking questions, and f) encourages teachers to design activities based on real world situations. These associations allow the learner to understand and appreciate the workings of nature and the universe.
Engineering and technology education integrates a multitude of subject areas such as history, science, math, language, writing, and creative design. Because many of the concepts and principles inherent within engineering and technology education, a plethora of seemingly unrelated subjects can be organized and delivered via engineering and technology education. Hence, engineering and technology education has the potential to provide an instructional vehicle that facilitates interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).
Constructivism and Cognition
Those who promote constructivism concur that cognitive structures that influence adaptive behavior is the result of an individual’s perception of stimuli from his/her environment, rather than the actual stimuli (Huitt, 2003). Bruner's constructivist theory is a general framework for instruction based upon the study of cognition. Child development research laid much of the groundwork for the theory (especially Piaget, 1972). The ideas outlined by Bruner (1960) originated from a conference focused on science and math learning. Bruner’s theory is exemplified in the context of mathematics and social science programs for young children (Bruner, 1973). Bruner’s (1966) position is that instructional strategies concentrate on the following four major components: a) Tendency or predisposition towards learning, b) The ways in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the learner, c) The most effective sequences in which to present material, and d) The nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information. (Bruner, 1966).
More recently, Bruner (1986, 1990) has extended his theoretical framework to include the social and cultural viewpoints of education per the following: a) Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness), b) Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization), c) Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information given), d) Knowledge about one's own cognitive system, in other words, thinking about one's own thinking, is an essential skill for learning to learn, and e) Includes thoughts about (1) what we know or don't know and (2) regulating how we go about learning. (Bruner 1986, 1990)
A major premise in the theoretical framework of Bruner is that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner chooses and transforms information, forms hypotheses, and makes judgments, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Mental models are pertinent for engineering and technology educators because they help to form mental images or representations of physical systems and objects (Johnson and Thomas, 1994). Cognitive structure, more specifically schemata, and mental models, imparts significance and organization to experiences and allows the individual to expand beyond the information given.
As research advances in this field, evidence is surmounting that indicates the mental models that influence decisions and behavior can vary depending on the situation, environment, and/or the context of learning. This, in turn, increases the difficulty of making generalizations regarding outcomes that transverse the differences between task and knowledge domains (Doyle, 1997). Doyle (1997) recommends that the evaluation of systems thinking interventions should assess both behavioral and cognitive changes until we know more about the structure, substance, and the role of mental representations of systems as they relate to a specific research setting.
The limitations in student understanding of math, science, reading, and writing impede the development of higher order reasoning skills. If educators are to devise curriculums that are effective in the development of proficient thinkers, then cognitive research as it pertains to interdisciplinary education, more specifically, systems thinking (learning) is both exigent and momentous.
Discussion
Implications for ETE
Let us reconsider Bruner’s general framework for instruction based upon cognitive research. Bruner’s framework sheds light on a person’s predisposition towards learning, wherein the initial interest of the learner plays a major role in the education process. In other words, the learner has to be somewhat interested in what is being taught in order to develop his/her higher-order cognitive abilities. Otherwise, the learner loses interest quickly. From this, educators must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing to learn, as well as, structuring information so that it can be easily grasped by the student. Hence, students have to build knowledge themselves while accumulating new information and adding this new information to what is already known. ETE, as it relates to interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning), provides real world connections plus a relevant reference frame for a multitude of content areas, especially as it concerns core academic subjects, such as, math and science education. This type of pedagogy also facilitates “deep thinking”, and, in turn, encourages students to generate questions, explanations, and summaries regarding a multitude of academic concepts and principles.
Although cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems, forming connections between thinking and behavior can be misleading. Apparently, this presents a major dilemma when taking into account an individual’s personal knowledge, intellectual skills, attitudes, etc (Doyle, 1997). Hence, variables, such as learning contexts, situational variables, emotions, and learning outcomes, are important factors in producing explicit, adaptive behavior. According to Doyle (1997), these variables (i.e., attitudes, mental models, scripts, and schemas) are obviously linked to behavior, but the association is often multifaceted and contrary to what common sense would have us believe.
Final Note
Engineering has added a great deal to the quality of life that we take pleasure in today, and the prospects for the future are likely to be even better (National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, 2004). A major issue for engineering and technology educators is making certain that students are provided with rigorous instruction that facilitates continued success as they progress along their academic path. We live in a world that is technologically driven and requires people to possess skills beyond just basic reading, writing, and math. These issues are forcing educators to rethink the way in which they instruct their students (Technology for All Americans Project, 1996).
Since engineering and technology influences almost every facet of our daily lives, it is important that citizens become somewhat technologically literate and have an elementary understanding of how the world functions around them, plus how to exist therein. Moreover, a good comprehension of systems thinking has great potential in facilitating teaching and student understanding of abstract academic concepts and principles, in effect, helping students to assimilate engineering and technology concepts more quickly plus would better prepare them for more advanced topics. If our schools systems, as it concerns interdisciplinary curriculums that employ systems thinking (learning), are to address the demands of the global marketplace, plus serve as a vehicle for fostering engineering/technological literacy, then it is critical that instructional leaders, educators and engineering/technology educators develop effective delivery systems so that students gain exposure to the world of applied learning. Moreover, classes devoted to systems thinking principles and practices, especially as it concerns engineering and technology education, should focus on helping students apply academics to real world situations.
Addendum: Future Objectives
Future objectives will involve using the knowledge obtained from this study to identify ways in which the professional development of teachers can be enhance by employing the engineering design process to deliver content from areas such as science, technology, art, writing, reading and math concepts and principles. The methodology of this approach is as follows: Teachers from a variety of disciplines including math, science, and technology education will participate in a professional development workshop involving the following three phases:
The first phase will involve laying the groundwork to prepare teachers to infuse engineering design into their respective programs using math, science (especially physics), and engineering design principles.
The second phase involves the use of an engineering design project model called “Elements of Design” that illustrates methods that can be used to develop interdisciplinary curriculum programs. The existing activity can be used as is or teachers can develop their own design activities based upon the underlying model of “Elements of Design”
The third phase will involve a follow up study to assess the efficacy of the extant or underlying model of design. This will inform future studies as it pertains to the design of professional development workshops plus identify areas that need improvement. Data will be collected from participants regarding the quality and outcomes of the professional development. The participants also will develop a portfolio of resource materials collected in a project binder.
Significance of the workshop for instructional leaders is to better understand models for professional development that foster self-efficacy and collegiality among faculty, in addition to, providing teachers with an underlying model that enhances teaching and facilitates student learning as it concerns interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning) programs.
Desired outcomes of this professional development workshop include:
Establishment of a common culture and unification of goals amongst pedagogical disciplines.
Reduce seclusion or isolation of teachers.
Encourage discussion and sharing amongst teachers as it pertains to interdisciplinary learning and the reality of what is occurring in individual classrooms.
Design effective professional development workshops that improve teaching and learning for teachers and students.
Foster constructive staff relationships.
Upon returning to the classroom, teachers' feel that they are able to better engage the interests of students by organizing educational topics, such as math, science, reading and writing, in a manner that: a) provides relevant reference frames and b) connects to real world situations.
References
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968). General System Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications New York: George Braziller
Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Committee on Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the Future: Changing the
Culture of Math And Science Education to Ensure A Competitive Workforce. Retrieved on October 29, 2005, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_scientists.pdf.
Diop, A.C. (1974). The African origins of civilization; myth or reality (Cook, M, Trans.)
New York: Westport (Original work published 1967).
Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics
Review, 13(3): 253-265.
Feil, Adam J. (2002). Talking Physics: How the Ability to Communicate
PhysicsConcepts Affects Learning. Retrieved November 21, 2005, from http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/research/PER/Adam/adam_thesis.pdf#search='limitations%20in%20student%20understanding%20physics'
Forrester, Jay W. (1992). System Dynamics and Learner Centered Learning in
Kindergarten through 12th Grade Education. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4337.pdf
Forrester, Jay W. (1996). System Dynamics and K-12 Teachers. Retrieved November 11,
2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/D-4665-4.pdf
Hacker, Douglas J (1998) Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations
Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm
Huitt, W. (2003). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:
Valdosta State University. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/metacogn.html.
Johnson, Scott D., Thomas, Ruth, G. (1994). Implication of Cognitive Science for
Instructional Design in Technology Education. The Journal of Technology Studies, pg. 34.
McGee, Bruce G. (1997). Multimedia - Effectiveness in the Learning Environment:
A Review of Literature. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from,
National Academy of Engineering, (2004). The Engineer of 2020, Washington, D.C.: The
National Academy of Science.
Nash, Patrick L. (2005). A Message From The Chair. Retrieved November 15, 2005,
from, http://physics.utsa.edu/about%20us.htm.
Notess, Charles (2001). Glossary. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from
www.greeleynet.com/~cnotess/gloss.htm.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Definition for “Unified Field Theory” retrieved from (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci554508,00.html on April 2, 2006
Technology for All Americans Project. (2003). Promoting Technological Literacy for All Students. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from www.iteawww.org/TAA/TAA.html
posted by BlackSpace Digital Unlimited at 1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home