Subject: What are the differences between teaching ST/SD and other subjects?

Posted by Scott Guthrie on 6/7/2010
In Reply To:What are the differences between teaching ST/SD and other subjects? Posted by Tony Phuah on 6/4/2010

Message:

Greetings,
>
> I have followed the conversation resulting from this question with
> interest and would like to respond rather than continue to lurk...it
> being late on a Sunday night helps too . The numbers refer to
> emails in the conversation so far (included far below).
>
> (1) "Is there any difference between teaching ST/SD and other
> subjects...?"
>
> I have not found there to be any difference between teaching ST/SD and
> other subjects since I started teaching both with the tools and
> teaching the tools themselves in high school in the 90's. There is an
> interesting, anecdotal, piece of information though: students who do
> well in traditional classes have a much harder time adjusting to ST/SD
> than those who don't always do so well in class; not always, just
> sometimes. I have also found a huge difference between teaching a
> subject using ST/SD tools and teaching one
> without: the way the subject is approached is quite different (to
> vastly understate).
>
>
> (2) "Models are so far removed from how that half of the population
> experiences the world that there would be little motivation for
> putting the numbers together with the emotional and tactile
> experience.
> Not impossible
> but a stretch without a generational shift in education.
> Not impossible but
> that is the barrier I see."
>
> I must assume you mean a simulation model or diagram as everyone uses
> some kind of mental model all the time. I think you meant that half
> (or more) of the population does not think they are using models.
> I totally agree that
> "we can't get there from here" educationally, since we seem to be set
> on "fixing" education in this country by "doing more of the same
> because it didn't work the first time." This is the mental model that
> our educational and political leaders (and voters) seem to have. We
> would greatly benefit if it were exposed, diagramed, examined, and
> discussed before we go any further(IMHO).
>
>
> (2) "I think as long as it [SD/ST] is synonymous with modeling, which
> some if not many ST/SD enthusiasts do, it won't be taught in any of
> the humanities, only the sciences, and probably not in many social
> sciences. The translation of the world into numbers, as well as the
> mathematical preparation, just isn't there. It's more than the
> preparation, however, it's a whole world view."
>
> It is indeed a "whole world view." While it is true that the fear of
> numbers and the unknown (ST/SD) are huge barriers to learning, they
> can be overcome (as you imply). While some people involved with the
> humanities may shudder when they start thinking of numbers, they can
> get past it (look at some of the resources here on the CLE, emphasis
> on Tim Joy). When they start examining the language they are using to
> discuss a topic, they can begin to see the model they are describing.
> Even building and simulating little models leads to greater
> understanding by everyone involved in the process. For that, nothing
> more than simple mathematics (first year algebra at most) is required.
> Search for Barry Richmond, among others, on this site, with emphasis
> on this one:
> http://www.clexchange.org/ftp/documents/whyk12sd/Y_1993-05STFourKeyQue
> stions .pdf and "Situational Impediment Number 1").
>
> As I see it in my simple mental model of the introduction of SD/ST
> tools in any curriculum, there are two large barriers, both personal
> to the teachers
> involved: one is the attitude that "what I'm doing works just fine and
> I don't need to change" and the other is the total overwork/burnout
> level of your average educator leading to the attitude described in
> the first ...and that is if the teacher is interested in using ST/SD
> in the first place! (see the Forrester paper linked in (9) below for
> other reasons)
>
> I love visual thinkers like Tufte.
>
>
> (6) "If I read your comment correctly, it seems to suggest that
> conventional subjects actually seldom try to assess their transfer of
> learning to students' everyday life for longer period of time," (7)
> "use it or lose it,"
> and (8) "there is something very powerful about certain kinds of
> learning, that gives these things staying power, beyond the more
> obvious powers of retention"
>
> What a great idea for a model. Learning is a very complex, non-linear
> process as is forgetting what you've learned. If learned information
> and behavior increases and decreases over time, what causes the
> increase and decrease? Is there a natural drain? What is the impact
> of an artificial success (doing well on a test)? What is the impact
> of actual success "in the field?" There is a lot of education theory
> to explore with this question/model.
>
>
> (9) "Does it imply that to improve retention of learning, we need not
> only teach people about ST/SD, but also help them to develop their
> ability to apply it in their everyday life to keep on using and so not
> forgetting?"
>
> Definitely! This is why it needs to be infused throughout the
> curriculum (See "An Introduction to Systems Thinking with STELLA" by
> Barry Richmond and the papers Jay Forrester has posted at the CLE,
> particularly
> http://www.clexchange.org/ftp/documents/whyk12sd/Y_1993-01SD&LearnerCe
> ntered
> .pdf).
>
>
> I think I've given myself some homework for the summer here ...nuts!
>
> -scott guthrie

Follow Ups:

What are the differences between teaching ST/SD and other subjects? - Tony Phuah 6/7/2010