Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Concept map as a tool to assess and enhance students' system thinking skills

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Concept map (CM) is introduced as a useful tool for studying students’ system thinking (ST). However, it is more known to represent students’ knowledge of system components and organization and less recognized as a tool to examine and enhance students’ understanding about the underlying causal mechanisms in complex systems. In this study, through a mixed method approach, we investigated the potential of CM in demonstrating undergraduate students’ (n = 173) ST. We also conducted a comparative analysis to examine the effects of different scaffolding on developing students’ ST skills. Through a theoretical framework of causal patterns, we present a new perspective on what CM reveals about students’ ST and what are its limitations in showing system complexities. The results indicated that CM can provide a platform for students to practice causal mechanisms such as domino, mutual, relational, and cyclic causalities, and accordingly, work as a tool for teachers to examine students’ knowledge of such mechanisms. The results also showed that students improved in demonstrating ST by CM when they were scaffolded for showing causal mechanisms and building CM. Eventually, this study concludes that the CM is a highly relevant tool to increase and examine students’ ST skills. To this end, we found it is important to explicitly teach students about causal patterns and guide them to construct CM with an emphasis on showing the interconnection among concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S. K., & Siegel, M. A. (2011). Assessment literacy: What science teachers need to know and be able to do. The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 205–221). Springer.

  • Assaraf, O.B.-Z., Dodick, J., & Tripto, J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human body system. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9245-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assaraf, O.B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, G. P., Elder, A. D., & Glaser, R. (1996). Knowledge-based cognition and performance assessment in the science classroom. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing results from empirical research on computer-based scaffolding in STEM education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergan-Roller, H. E., Galt, N. J., Helikar, T., & Dauer, J. T. (2020). Using concept maps to characterise cellular respiration knowledge in undergraduate students. Journal of Biological Education, 54(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1541001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, K. T., Kamp, M. J. A., Oever, L. van den, & Schalk, H. (2010). Naar actueel, relevant en samenhangend biologieonderwijs. Retrieved from, https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/115258

  • Brandstädter, K., Harms, U., & Großschedl, J. (2012). Assessing system thinking through different concept-mapping practices. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2147–2170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.716549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Investigating the role of representations and expressed models in building mental models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 119–135). Springer.

  • Conradty, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). Knowledge presented in concept maps: Correlations with conventional cognitive knowledge tests. Educational Studies, 38(3), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2011.643100

  • Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Dauer, J. T., Momsen, J. L., Speth, E. B., Makohon-Moore, S. C., & Long, T. M. (2013). Analyzing change in students’ gene-to-evolution models in college-level introductory biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, K. M. (2005). Chapter 2—Assessing science understanding through concept maps. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding (pp. 15–40). Academic Press.

  • Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Boone, W. J., Nückles, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Supporting students’ learning and socioscientific reasoning about climate change—The effect of computer-based concept mapping scaffolds. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9493-7

  • Fisher, D. M. (2011). “Everybody thinking differently”: K–12 is a leverage point. System Dynamics Review, 27(4), 394–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.473

  • Fisher, D. M. (2018). Reflections on teaching system dynamics modeling to secondary school students for over 20 years. Systems, 6(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilissen, M. G. R., Knippels, M.-C.P.J., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2020). Bringing systems thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1253–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1755741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grotzer, T. (2012). Learning causality in a complex world: Understandings of consequence. Rowman & Littlefield Education.

  • Hammond, D. (2017). Philosophical foundations of systems research. In M. C. Edson, P. Buckle Henning, & S. Sankaran (Eds.), A guide to systems research: Philosophy, processes and practice (pp. 1–19). Springer.

  • Hay, D., Kinchin, I., & Lygo-Baker, S. (2008). Making learning visible: The role of concept mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802049251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2010). Relational, structural, and semantic analysis of graphical representations and concept maps. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-008-9087-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ison, R., & Straw, E. (2020). The hidden power of systems thinking: Governance in a climate emergency. Routledge.

  • Izci, K., Muslu, N., Burcks, S. M., & Siegel, M. A. (2020). Exploring effectiveness of classroom assessments for students’ learning in high school chemistry. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 1885–1916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., Markauskaite, L., Portolese, A., Kapur, M., Lai, P. K., & Roberts, G. (2017). Designs for learning about climate change as a complex system. Learning and Instruction, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01751-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, R. C., Hmelo-Silver, C., Liu, L., & Gray, S. A. (2013). Fostering reasoning about complex systems: Using the aquarium to teach systems thinking. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2013.797860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2020). Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1339–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, L. G. J., Szostak, R., & Repko, A. (2008). Using systems thinking to improve interdisciplinary learning outcomes: Reflections on a pilot study in land economics. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies. Retrieved from, https://our.oakland.edu/handle/10323/4442

  • Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

  • Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2005). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. Academic Press.

  • Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated). Sage Publications.

  • Morris, W. E., & Brown, C. R. (2001). David hume. Retrieved from, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/?fbclid=IwAR2RNvkYTwX3G5oQUdalb8rKcVrDm7wTt55aWyauFXptJWEbxAXRQVY6_-M

  • Moshman, D., & Tarricone, P. (2016). Logical and causal reasoning. Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 54–67). Routledge.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K–12 engineering education. National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press.

  • Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

  • Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.

  • Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Bob, G. D. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge University Press.

  • Novak, J. D., & Musonda, D. (1991). A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 117–153. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028001117

  • Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340, 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232065

  • Reinagel, A., & Speth, E. B. (2016). Beyond the central dogma: Model-based learning of how genes determine phenotypes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(1), 454. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0105

  • Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_3

  • Sawyer, K. R. (2006). The new science of learning. In K. R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). Cambridge University Press.

  • Schwendimann, B. A. (2015). Concept maps as versatile tools to integrate complex ideas: From kindergarten to higher and professional education. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 7(1), 73–99.

  • Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Wiley, E. W. (2005). Windows into the mind. Higher Education, 49(4), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-9448-9

  • Siegel, M. A., Menon, D., Sinha, S., Promyod, N., Wissehr, C., & Halverson, K. L. (2014). Equitable written assessments for English language learners: How scaffolding helps. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(6), 681–708.

  • Sommer, C., & Lücken, M. (2010). System competence—Are elementary students able to deal with a biological system? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(2), 125–143.

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

  • Tripto, J., Assaraf, O.B.-Z., & Amit, M. (2013). Mapping what they know: Concept maps as an effective tool for assessing students’ systems thinking. American Journal of Operations Research (AJOR), 3, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajor.2013.31A022

  • Tripto, J., Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Amit, M. (2018). Recurring patterns in the development of high school biology students’ system thinking over time. Instructional Science, 46(5), 639–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9447-3

  • Tripto, J., Assaraf, O.B.-Z., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2016). The ‘What is a system’ reflection interview as a knowledge integration activity for high school students’ understanding of complex systems in human biology. International Journal of Science Education, 38(4), 564–595. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1150620

  • Tripto, J., Assaraf, O. B. Z., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2017). How is the body’s systemic nature manifested amongst high school biology students? Instructional Science, 45(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9390-0

  • Verhoeff, R. P., Knippels, M.-C.P.J., Gilissen, M. G. R., & Boersma, K. T. (2018). The theoretical nature of systems thinking. Perspectives on systems thinking in biology education. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00040

  • Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701237780

  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20049

  • Yoon, S. A., Goh, S.-E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746090

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Mojtaba Khajeloo & Marcelle A. Siegel

  2. Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

    Marcelle A. Siegel

Authors
  1. Mojtaba Khajeloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelle A. Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mojtaba Khajeloo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

The master concept map.

figure a

Appendix B

Assignment C scaffolding.

Different factors are related to each other in various ways. Below are five ways that factors can be related to each other. Try to apply these patterns in your concept map so as to make it more comprehensive. (Note: below “X” is any word or phrase that can explain the cause and effect relationship between the factors.)

figure b

Appendix C

Concept map with cluster of concepts.

figure c

Appendix D

Concept map with sequence of concepts.

figure d

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khajeloo, M., Siegel, M.A. Concept map as a tool to assess and enhance students' system thinking skills. Instr Sci 50, 571–597 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09586-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09586-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation