Search

In Fall 2016, the School of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) chartered the New Engineering Education Transformation (NEET) initiative. NEET aims to educate young engineers to build the new machines and systems that will address societal needs of the 21st century. Students enter NEET in their sophomore year and join one of five threads, namely Advanced Materials Machines, Autonomous Machines, Digital Cities, Living Machines, and Renewable Energy Machines. Threads are cross-departmental pathways of subjects and projects in interdisciplinary areas. NEET students earn an SB degree in their declared major as well as a NEET Certificate in their thread, within the usual four-year duration. Enrollment in the program has increased from 28 students in Fall 2017 to 187 in Fall 2020. NEET students practice the 12 NEET Ways of Thinking, which are cognitive approaches for tackling complex challenges. Thus far, we have incorporated the Ways of Thinking into the program curriculum in two ways: (a) standalone Modules on four Ways of Thinking, i.e., Ethical Thinking, Creative Thinking, Critical Thinking, and Learning How to Learn, which were developed, piloted and taught in 32 sessions from Fall 2018-20 by MIT experts from outside of the program; and (b) an elective class last fall that introduced first-year students to the five threads and to four Ways of Thinking, i.e., Creative Thinking, Systems Thinking, Analytical Thinking, and Making. We learned from the emergency teaching pivot last spring and from remote teaching in fall, and now plan to launch another first-year class that will focus exclusively on Creative Thinking and Systems Thinking along with a semester-long challenge as well as introductory learning vignettes covering each Way of Thinking separately. In this paper we describe how the Ways of Thinking were and are being implemented, share key lessons we have learned, and describe our plans for further incorporation and assessment of the Ways of Thinking into the program.

Student engagement has been described as active involvement in a learning activity that significantly affects learning achievement. This study investigated student engagement in robotics education, considering it as an instant emotional reaction on interaction with the teacher, the peers, and the robotic environment. The objective was to characterize engagement in high school robotics courses through the lenses of preparation for academic and technical careers. Students who participated in this study (N = 41), all of whom were in the eleventh grade, belonged to either School A (n[subscript 1] = 20) or School B (n[subscript 2] = 21). School A students studied only one subject at an advanced level--mechatronics, while each student in School B studied engineering systems as well as one of the following three subjects at an advanced level: computer science, a natural science subject, or mathematics. Data were collected via structured classroom observations, interviews, and a questionnaire. From the analysis of the collected data, we identified 23 engagement structures in total, 12 of which were already known in the literature, and 11 of which were novel. The two groups of students shared nine known structures, and no novel structures. Unlike previous studies of engagement structures, this study was based on an entire year of observations. Additionally, it is one of the first studies of high school student engagement in robotics education. Our findings and conclusions contribute to understanding of student engagement in robotic education, allowing robotics teachers to tailor their instruction more effectively.

Contribution: The authors present a methodology for assessing both novelty and systems thinking, as expressed in the same conceptual models constructed by graduate engineering students. Background: Companies worldwide seek employees with creativity and systems thinking, since solving design problems requires both skills. Novelty and usefulness are the most commonly accepted components of creativity, while systems thinking is the holistic understanding of systems. Research Question: How can novelty and systems thinking be assessed based on conceptual models (of technological systems) constructed by graduate engineering students? Methodology: Six student teams of two to four members each (N = 21) constructed solution models based on Object-Process Methodology, a formal methodology and language for model-based systems engineering. The authors assessed these models for novelty and for systems thinking using two existing rubrics based on the construction of system aspects--function, structure, and behavior. Findings: The authors provide indications that both novelty and systems thinking can be assessed based on conceptual models of technological systems.

Contribution: A rubric for assessing the systems thinking expressed in conceptual models of technological systems has been constructed and assessed using a formal methodology. The rubric, a synthesis of prior findings in science and engineering education, forms a framework for improving communication between science and engineering educators. Background: Systems thinking is an important skill in engineering, but to date no rubric for assessing this skill based on a formal methodology has been published with reliability and validity measures. Research Questions: (a) What attributes should a rubric for assessing the systems thinking of engineering students comprise? (b) To what extent can such a rubric serve in assessing the systems thinking level of engineering students, as expressed in their conceptual system models? Methodology: Based on a literature review of systems thinking assessment in science and engineering education, the authors classified the systems thinking attributes they had identified into system function, structure, and behavior. Scoring instructions were developed for conceptual system models based on Object-Process Methodology ISO 19450, a formal methodology and language for model-based systems engineering. A total of 142 undergraduate engineering students in 32 teams modeled Web-based systems using the methodology. Each team submitted two models of the same system, at the middle and end of semester. Models were scored using the rubric, and its reliability and validity were evaluated. Findings: Indications of interrater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were acceptable, excluding the system function aspect, implying the rubric may be used reliably for its intended purpose.

One challenge associated with introducing systems thinking in chemistry classrooms is the increase in content complexity that students face when they engage in this type of approach. Placing core chemical ideas within larger systems has promise, as long as students are not overwhelmed by the added complexity. Although there are many potential strategies for dealing with complexity, one common tool is to employ visual or graphical tools to help conceptualize the problem or system at hand. In part because systems thinking touches on many potential levels of implementation, there are different visual tools that are helpful in conceptualizing different aspects. Some tools, such as systems-oriented concept map extension (SOCME) diagrams and systemigrams, use methodologies often associated with concept mapping but add features that enhance their applicability in systems thinking. Object-Process Methodology (OPM), which has seen fairly wide use in systems engineering contexts, uses formally defined components and links between them to help conceptualize systems and problems. Many systems of interest are dynamic in nature so tools such as behavior over time graphs (BOTG) are helpful in calibrating the temporal aspects of systems. Such dynamics are also captured via causal loop diagrams and stock and flow diagrams. Here, we introduce and describe the affordances of multiple types of graphical tools that can be used to support systems thinking approaches in chemistry education. Knowing the uses and advantages of these different tools will allow instructors to make informed choices about the tools that will best meet a particular educational goal when using systems thinking approaches in the classroom.

Systems thinking is an important skill in science and engineering education. Our study objectives were (1) to create the basis for a systems thinking language common to both science education and engineering education, and (2) to apply this language to assess science and engineering teachers' systems thinking. We administered two assignments to teacher teams: first, modelling the same adapted scientific text, and second, modelling a synthesis of peer-reviewed articles in science and engineering education, with teams selecting a topic from a list and summarising them. We assessed those models using a rubric for systems thinking we had developed based on our literature review of this topic. We found high interrater reliability and validated the rubric's theoretical construct for the system aspects of function, structure and behaviour. We found differences in scores between the assignments in favour of the second assignment, for two attributes of systems thinking: 'expected outcome/intended purpose' and 'main object and its sub-objects'. We explain the first attribute difference as stemming from the modellers' domain expertise as science or engineering teachers, rather than as scientists or engineers, and the second attribute difference -- from the larger amount of information available for modelling the articles synthesis assignment. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in the definition of the systems thinking construct as a first step in establishing a common language for the science education and engineering education communities. The study's methodological contribution lies in the rubric we developed and validated, which can be used for assessing the systems thinking of teachers and potentially also of undergraduate students.

Systems thinking is crucial for understanding and solving complex problems and is considered an important thinking skill in engineering. Active learning is considered an effective approach for fostering STEM students' systems thinking. However, viable methods for teaching and assessing systems thinking with active learning across STEM disciplines, particularly in first-year undergraduate education, are still under-researched. In this paper, we introduce a research-based framework named System Architecture-Function-Outcome to help first-year STEM instructors both foster and assess students' introductory systems thinking. To conduct an initial evaluation of the framework's suitability in active learning settings, we designed a directed case-based learning assignment with an adapted article and a rubric for assessing 'introductory systems thinking', as defined in the framework. We deployed the assignment among 84 first-year STEM students and successfully tested its inter-rater reliability, with 75–100% inter-rater agreement across all assessment criteria. We discuss the implications of our results on fostering and assessing first-year STEM students' systems thinking, and outline examples for potential applications of the framework, pending further validation, in case-based learning settings of varying degrees of learner autonomy, from lecture-based to problem-based learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a summary of a collection of papers published in the journal Education Sciences. The papers focus on active learning pedagogies in high school and undergraduate STEM education. The first theme of the collection explores the impact of active learning on students' attitudes towards STEM learning, including the development of scientific dispositions and intentions to pursue STEM careers. The second theme examines various active learning pedagogies, such as the use of online polling platforms to enhance student engagement and the integration of puzzle-based learning tasks in mathematics education. The papers highlight the importance of fostering higher-order thinking skills and student engagement in STEM education, but also acknowledge the challenges of implementing active learning approaches in different contexts. The authors suggest the need for further research to validate these innovative practices and explore interdisciplinary and intercultural teamwork in STEM education. [Extracted from the article]

As systems become more complex, demand for teaching systems thinking is increasing. To date, studies in undergraduate engineering education have not presented a pedagogical framework suitable for teaching systems thinking to first-year engineering students. We designed and applied such a framework, the System Architecture-Function-Purpose framework for technological systems, in a semester-long first-year remote course. Forty-four first-year students with undeclared majors studying at an engineering-centric university participated in this study. Participants practiced the framework as applied to multidisciplinary case studies. Participants carried out three in-class individual training assignments during weeks 4,5, and 6. Each training assignment was followed by an out-of-class team assignment which expanded on the same case study. These assignments comprised the intervention component of the study, intended to improve students' systems thinking. The effectiveness of this intervention was evaluated during weeks 1 and 7 based on self-rated systems thinking (a) knowledge and ability, and (b) systems thinking as expressed in examples provided by participants. While self-rating improved from week 1 to 7. example assignment performance scores remained the same. We discuss future efforts for framework validation and provide suggestions for instructors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]