Определение уровня способности студентов к системному мышлению с помощью оценки концептуальных карт

Способность к системному мышлению стала чрезвычайно важной и широко изучаемой из-за возрастающей сложности систем. Из-за этого при обучении студентов очень полезно определить, обладают ли они способностями к системному мышлению, чтобы разработать конкретную стратегию обучения. В нашем исследовании применялся адаптированный целостный метод для оценки концептуальных карт, построенных аспирантами и студентами технических специальностей с целью выявления способностей к системному мышлению. Исследование состояло из двух фаз. На первой фазе студенты показали приемлемое знание факторов оценки затрат и некоторый уровень способности к системному мышлению. На втором этапе оба эти показателя были улучшены. Применялся U-критерий Манна-Уитни, чтобы определить, есть ли существенные различия между фазой 1 и фазой 2. Учитывались уровень достоверности 95% и уровень значимости 0,05.

1. York S., Lavi R. et al. Applications of Systems Thinking in STEM Education. Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 96, issue 12, 2019, pp. 2742-2751.

2. Maracha V. Systems thinking and collective problem solving practices. In Proc. of the V International Research and Practice Conference–Biennale on System Analysis in Economics, 2018, pp. 269-272.

3. Amissah M., Gannon T., and Monat J. What is Systems Thinking? Expert Perspectives from the WPI Systems Thinking Colloquium. Systems, vol. 8, issue 1, 2020, 26 p.

4. Valerdi R., Rouse W.B. When Systems Thinking is Not a Natural Act. In Proc. of the IEEE International Systems Conference, 2010, pp. 184-189.

5. Boehm B.W., Abts C. et al. Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall Press, 2000, 544 p.

6. Richmond B. Systems thinking/system dynamics: Let's just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, vol. 10, issues 2-3, 1994, pp. 135-157.

7. Mehrjerdi Y.Z. Quality function Deployment and its profitability engagement: A Systems Thinking perspective, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 28, issue 9, 2011, pp. 910-928.

8. Hebel M. Light Bulbs and Change: Systems Thinking and Organizational Learning of New Ventures. The Learning Organization, vol 14, issue 6, 2007, pp. 499-509.

9. Sankaran S., Hou Tay B., Orr M. Managing Organizational Change by using Soft Systems Thinking in Action Research Projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 2, issue 2, 2009, pp. 179-197.

10. Miertschin S.L., Willis C.L. Using Concept Maps to navigate complex learning environments. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Information Technology Education, 2007, pp. 175-184.

11. Schwendimann B. Concept Mapping. In Encyclopedia of Science Education, Springer, 2015, pp. 198-202.

12. Davies M. Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What are the Differences and Do They Matter? Higher Education, vol. 62, issue 3, 2011, pp. 279-301.

13. Henderson C., Yerushalmix E. et al. Multi-Layered Concept Maps for the Analysis of Complex Interview Data. Roundtable Discussion, Presented at the AAPT Physics Education Research Conference, 2003, 13 p.

14. Kennedy D., Hyland A., Ryan N. Learning Outcomes and competencies. Introducing Bologna objectives and tools. B 2.3-3, 2019.

15. Crawley E., Cameron B., Selva D. Systems architecture: Strategy and product development for complex systems. Pearson, 2015, 480 p.

16. Lavi R., Dori Y.J. Systems Thinking of pre- and in-service science and engineering teachers. International Journal of Science Education, vol. 41, issue 2, 2018, pp. 248-279.

17. Richmond B. Systems Thinking: Critical Thinking Skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics Review, vol. 9, issue 2, 1993, pp. 113-133.

18. Valdés-Souto F., Naranjo-Albarrán L. Improving the Software Estimation Models Based on Functional Size through Validation of the Assumptions behind the Linear Regression and the Use of the Confidence Intervals When the Reference Database Presents a Wedge-Shape Form. Programming and Computer Software, vol. 47, issue 8, 2021, pp. 673-693.

19. Durán M., Juárez-Ramírez R. et al. User Story Estimation Based on the Complexity Decomposition Using Bayesian Networks. Programming and Computer Software, vol. 46, issue 8, 2020, pp. 569–583 / Дуран М., Хуарес-Рамирес Р. и др. Оценка пользовательских историй на основе декомпозиции сложности с использованием байесовских сетей. Труды ИСП РАН, том 33, вып. 2, 2021 г., стр. 77-92. DOI: 10.15514/ISPRAS–2021–33(2)–4.

20. Trendowicz A., Jeffery R. Constructive Cost Model – COCOMO. In Software Project Effort Estimation, Springer, 2014, pp. 277-293.

21. Novak J.D., Musonda D. A Twelve-Year Longitudinal Study of Science Concept Learning. American Educational Research Journal, vol. 28, issue 1, 1991, pp. 117-153.

22. Tripto J., Assaraf O.B.-Z., Amit M. Mapping What They Know: Concept Maps as an Effective Tool for Assessing Students’ Systems Thinking. American Journal of Operations Research, vol. 3, issue 1A, 2013, pp. 245-258.

23. White R., Gunstone R. Probing Understanding, Routledge, 1992, 208 p.

24. Songer C.J., Mintzes J.J. Understanding Cellular Respiration: An Analysis of Conceptual Change in College Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 31, issue 6, 1994, pp. 621-637.

25. Turns J., Atman C.J., Adams R. Concept Maps for engineering education: A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions. IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 43, issue 2, 2000, pp. 164-173.

26. Novak J., Gowin D. Learning How to Learn. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, 216 p.

27. Stewart M. Joined up thinking? Evaluating the use of concept-mapping to develop complex system learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 37, issue 3, 2012, pp 349–368.

28. Rye J.A., Rubba P.A. Scoring Concept Maps: An Expert Map-Based Scheme Weighted for Relationships. School Science and Mathematics, vol. 102, issue 1, 2002, pp. 33-44.

29. D. L Darmofal, D. H. Soderholm, and D. R. Brodeur. Using Concept Maps and Concept Questions to Enhance Conceptual Understanding. Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA, November 6–9, 2002.

30. McClure J.R., Sonak B., Suen H.K. Concept Map Assessment of Classroom Learning: Reliability, Validity, and Logistical Practicality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 36, issue 4, 1999, pp. 475-492.

31. Trochim W.M., Cabrera D.A. et al. Practical Challenges of Systems Thinking and Modeling in Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 96, issue 3, 2006, pp. 538-546.

32. Raved L., Yarden A. Developing seventh grade students’ Systems Thinking skills in the context of the human circulatory system. Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 2, 2014, article no. 260, 11 p.

33. Odom A.L., Kelly P.V. Integrating Concept Mapping and the Learning Cycle to Teach Diffusion and Osmosis Concepts to High School Biology Students. Science Education, vol. 85, issue 6, 2001, pp. 615-635.

34. Markow P.G., Lonning R.A. Usefulness of Concept Maps in College Chemistry Laboratories: Students’ Perceptions and Effects on Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 35, issue 9, 1998, pp. 1015-1029.

35. Hu M., Shealy T. Methods for Measuring Systems Thinking: Differences Between Student Self-Assessment, Concept Maps Scores, and Cortical Activation During Tasks About Sustainability. In Proc. of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 2018, article id. 22718, 12 p.

36. Brandstädter K., Harms U., GroBschedl J. Assessing System Thinking Through Different Concept-Mapping Practices. International Journal of Science Education, vol. 34, issue 14, 2012, pp. 2147-2170.