See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325350261

System dynamics modelling to attract students to STEM

Conference Paper · April 2018

DOI: 10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363354

CITATIONS READS

0 146

4 authors, including:

Rachad Zaki H. Barada

Khalifa University Khalifa University
16 PUBLICATIONS   325 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yousof Al-Hammadi
Khalifa University
89 PUBLICATIONS   565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nano devices View project

MRI-only Image Guided Procedures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by H. Barada on 29 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 System Dynamics Modelling to Attract Students to STEM
Sohailah Alyammahi, Rachad Zaki, Hassan Barada, Yousof Al-Hammadi
Khalifa University of Science and Technology
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
{sohailah.alyammahi, rachad.zaki, hassan.barada, yousof.alhammadi}@kustar.ac.ae
Abstract—This paper demonstrates how a K-12 educational
system can be modeled using system dynamics in order to
recommend policies changes with the objective to increase the
number of students interested in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects in high schools
and beyond, as well as to improve students’ performance in
STEM subjects. Although we used data and variables from the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) education system, the system
dynamics model is applicable to many education systems in the
world with minor modifications.
Keywords—system dynamics; STEM; K-12; education system.
I. INTRODUCTION
System dynamics is a potent methodological and computer
simulation and modeling platform for structuring,
understanding, and delving into intricate issues and problems
[1]. It is a field of study founded by Jay Forrester at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the 1950s to
assist corporate managers in their comprehension of industrial
processes [2]. However, today system dynamics is used in the
public and private sectors to design and analyze various
policies. It basically provides the fundamental building blocks
needed to create informative models. These models teach us
how and why intricate real-world systems function over a
certain time period.
One of the main challenges of an educational system is its
complexity, which makes it very difficult to isolate problems
for independent analysis. Another main challenge is that it is a
slow moving system. Any major changes made to the system
usually require years to go by before the effects become
visible. For example, if a desired effect is to increase the
number of college graduates with Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) degrees by introducing
computer based learning in the first year of school, it will take
about sixteen years before the impact of this change become
evident. Another example, if students in college are forced to
take additional classes in mathematics in their freshmen year, it
will take anywhere from one to four years before the effects of
this additional requirement become evident. As a result,
changes to an educational system are discarded because the
benefits are not immediately visible or are not to the
expectation level. System dynamics modeling and simulation
which is an approach to studying the behavior of complex
systems over time using feedback loops and delays, is used to
surpass this barrier and to accomplish a task much faster than
what is possible by using the human mind alone [1] – [8]. This
approach allows compressing time and space in order to see the
consequences of actions over time and permits running
experiments in a safe and risk free environment; a computer.
In the paper, we demonstrate how a K-12 educational
system can be modeled using system dynamics in order to
recommend policies changes with the objective to increase the
number of students interested in STEM subjects in high
schools and beyond, as well as to improve students’
performance in STEM subjects. Although we used data and
variables from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) education
system, the system dynamics models apply to many education
system in the world with minimum modifications.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II briefly
introduces the concept of system dynamics and the modeling
process. Section III describes and analyze the proposed model
to attract students to STEM education and to improve their
performance. Section IV is dedicated to predictions provided
by the model and their interpretation, and finally Section V
concludes the paper with some comments and
recommendations.
II. SYSTEM DYNAMICS MODELLING
System dynamics modeling deals with the dynamic
behavior of systems over a time period. In the framework of
system dynamics, the modeler tries to locate patterns of
behavior being shown by important system variables, and then
create a model that can imitate the patterns. Once the model
has grasped the ability to mimic the system, it can be utilized to
test policies that are geared towards manipulating the system’s
behavior in desired ways.
Fig. 1 displays the four patterns of behavior that usually
appear, either in combinations or individually, in systems [4].
These patterns are represented in graphs showing: (a)
exponential growth – a quantity of an item begins to grow and
then the rate of growth increases; (b) goal seeking - quantity
begins above or below a target level and over the course of
time, it moves toward the goal; (c) S-shaped - initial
exponential growth followed by goal-seeking behavior, as a
result, variable tapers to a leveled performance; and (d)
oscillation - quantity of interest fluctuates around a certain
level. The term “Performance” in the figure refers to some
variable of interest, often a measure of efficiency.

Fig. 1. Pattern of behavior in system dynamics.
The transmission and return of information is called a
feedback or causal loop [3]. Conventionally, a feedback loop is
a closed sequence of causes and effects, or a closed path of
action and information [4]. Causal loop diagrams entail
elements and arrows (or causal links) joining these elements
together as shown in Fig. 2. The loops include a positive “+” or
a negative “–” sign on each link. The link from A to B is
positive if A adds to B; that is, if a change in A creates a
change in B in the same direction. The link is negative if A
subtracts from B; a change in A creates a change in B in the
opposite direction.
Fig. 2. Feedback loops.
In system dynamics modeling, dynamic behavior is thought
to arise according to the Principle of Accumulation [3]. This
principle claims that a dynamic behavior happens when flows
accrue in stocks which are the important accumulations over
time. Stocks are also called “states” since they represent the
state of the system at a given time. The flow in and out of the
stocks (i.e. the changing of the stocks values) is called flows.
They represent the “rate of change” of stocks. A representation
of stock and flow is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Representation of stock and flow.
In order to detect stocks and flows, a system dynamics
modeler has to verify which variables in the system
encountering the problem define its state, or its stocks.
Furthermore, the modeler must identify variables that define
the changes in its state, or its flows. The following are basic
principles that can be used to ease the process of identifying
stocks and flows [4]:
1. Usually, stocks are nouns and flows are verbs.
2. If time is stopped, as in if a snapshot of the system
was taken, stocks do not disappear; conversely, flows do
disappear.
3. Stocks send signals, or information about the state of
the system, to the rest of the system.
III. MODEL TO ATTRACT STUDENTS TO STEM
System dynamics can play one of many vital roles in the
proper functioning of an effective education system. For
example, system dynamics has been used in school systems to
assess implications of achievement [3], research “knowledge
management” in engineering education [5], and also examine
the performance of research and development in higher
education. In [6], the author strongly suggests using system
dynamics modeling as way to analyze the effectiveness of
school systems.
In order to study and analyze how to attract students to
STEM subjects, we model in this paper two components of the
K-12 education system using system dynamics: quality of
STEM education, and positive influences on students.
A. Modeling Process
System dynamics modeling is based on dynamic hypothesis
that contains causal feedback loops existing between the
elements of the system. The fundamental architecture of the
education system gives out the basis for the stock and a flow
model. The system also contains the causal relationships that
are represented in the dynamic hypothesis. The process of
forming the dynamics hypothesis, investigating the behavior of
feedback loops, and developing stock as well as flow models is
regarded as an iterative exercise that guarantees effectiveness
in the system
B. Modelling Quality of STEM Education
Extensive studies done in the United Arab Emirates [9] –
[13] showed that the three primary factors that affect the
quality of STEM education are the facilities quality, curriculum
quality and the teachers’ capability. These three hypotheses are
represented in the casual loop diagrams in Fig. 4.
 In Fig. 4a) the facilities quality hypothesis is represented.
While facilities do get obsolete with time, the Ministry of MOE Investment
+
Education (MOE) investments help improving the quality of on Facilities
facilities. Better facilities will then help improving the levels at
which teachers can perform and then increase the quality of
STEM education. This results in a higher number of STEM Need for More and
Better Facilities +
students which then increases the need for more and better
facilities and therefore the need for more MOE investment in + Facilities Quality
-
facilities.
In Fig. 4b) the curriculum quality hypothesis is represented. STEM Students
The curriculum quality is influenced by the MOE investment in + Facilities
improving the curriculum. The curriculum also gets old with Obsolesence
Quality of STEM +
time and so an obsolescence rate for the curriculum is included.
Education
The hypothesis is that a better curriculum quality increases the
quality of STEM education which increases the number of a) Facilities quality.
STEM interested students which in turn results in increasing
the need for better curricula due to more interested students and
this requires more investment from the ministry on improving
the provided curricula which eventually impacts the curriculum
+ Need for better
quality itself.
Curriculum
In Fig. 4c) the teachers’ capability hypothesis is +
represented. This loop shows that increasing MOE investment
MOE Investment in
in training and professional development programs improves Number of STEM Curriculum
teachers’ capability and this results in increasing the quality of Students
STEM education. With a better quality of STEM education, +
the number of STEM students also increases leading to an +
increased need for more STEM capable teachers leading to a Curriculum Quality
lower capability level for STEM teachers (as the need for -
capable STEM teachers cannot be met immediately and can be Quality of STEM
Education +
met by teachers who are not STEM capable in the interim Curriculum
period). This in turn requires more investment from the MOE Obsolesence
on training and development. b) Curriculum quality.
Fig. 5 illustrates the casual loop diagram that examines how
the three factors mentioned above contribute to closing the gap
between the actual number of students studying STEM and the
desired (i.e. larger) number of students who should be studying
STEM. The Ministry of Education investments in facilities, Need for More STEM MOE Investment on
+ Capable Teachers Training & Development
curriculum and training and development help increasing each
of these three corresponding factors. An increasing level of the
quality of STEM education results in a greater number of -
students studying STEM and therefore a lower gap between the Number of STEM Teachers
desired and the actual number of students studying STEM. Students Capability +
The causal loop in Fig. 5 can also work in the opposite +
manner, where with a lower quality of STEM education, there
are lower numbers of students studying STEM, and therefore
there is an increasing gap between the desired and the actual Quality of STEM +
number of students studying STEM. This behavior is seen in Education
practice and is described in the historical data of the UAE
public school system where the data shows that there is a large c) Teachers’ capabilities.
gap between STEM students and non-STEM students during
last 12 years [9]. This large gap can be addressed by improving Fig. 4. Casual loop diagrams on factors affecting quality.
quality of STEM education through hiring more STEM capable
teachers, increase MOE investment in developing and training
of non-capable teachers and increase MOE investment in
improving facilities and curriculum. Such strategies could
enhance quality of STEM education and attract more students
to pursue STEM and then reducing the gap between the desired
and actual STEM students.
 + Quality of STEM
Education
+ The loop in Fig. 6 also shows that positive influences help
+
Facilities Quality
+ creating positive perceptions of students toward STEM
Curriculum Quality
+
Teachers
+ Capability +
Number of Students
MOE Investment in
Curriculum
MOE Investment in +
Hiring STEM
Facilities MOE Investment in
Capable Teachers
Training & Development
+ +
+ STEM
Gap Between Desired
and Actual STEM - Role Models
Students
+ Society Influence
Desired Number of
STEM Students
Fig. 5. Modelling quality of STEM education.
C. Modelling Positive Influences on Students
In addition to a good quality of STEM education, it is
hypothesized that students also need positive influences to both
choose STEM and continue in STEM education. From the
findings of students’ surveys [11], we learned that parents
seemed to have differing influences on STEM and non-STEM
students. Parents were found to be an important factor in
influencing their children to choose STEM or not to choose a
STEM education.
Although research has showed that friends or peer pressure
help determining students’ choices for STEM, our findings of
students’ surveys did not show a clear causal relation between
peer pressure and student’s choice [11]. In countries where
there are strong visible role models and society as a whole has
a very positive perception of STEM, it is seen that large
numbers of students choose STEM education. Therefore, the
influences of role models and the influence of society in
general were also considered as possible factors that affect
student choices to a STEM education.
The causal loop diagram presented in Fig. 6 hypothesizes
that these four influences (parents, society, peers, and role
models) together, when positive, help increase students’
motivation which result in larger number of students choosing
STEM and therefore reducing the gap to the desired number of
STEM students. This loop can also work in the opposite
direction as is seen from the historical data of the UAE
education system. The large gap between numbers of STEM
and non-STEM students during the last 12 years maybe
generated due to the lack of positive influences on students to
pursue STEM which resulted in less student motivation for
STEM, fewer STEM students and consequently a large gap to
the desired number of STEM students. This large gap can be
addressed by initiating activities to increase awareness and help
making the influences on students more positive to reverse the
direction of this loop.
education. This will result in increasing numbers of students
+ choosing STEM, the increased motivation of students for
STEM also results in better performance of students in these
in STEM subjects.
+
+ Student Motivation
for STEM +
+ +
Students Choosing
-
Gap between Desired and
Influence Peers Influence Parents Influence Actual STEM Students
+ + +
+ +
Desired Number of
STEM Students
Activities and Initiatives to
Improve Positive Influences +
Fig. 6. Modelling positive influences.
IV. TESTING OF MODELS
What-if scenarios are created to assist in deciding the most
effective policies essential for enhancing the future of STEM
education in the country.
Scenario 1: Assuming an initial level of quality of STEM
education of 65% for all three primary factors that affect the
quality of STEM education – teachers’ capability, curricula
quality and the quality of facilities, what if each of the three
factors is increased to its maximum value (improved by 100%
till reaching its desired goal)? Fig. 7 tests improving each
factor independently and shows its impact on the quality of
STEM education. STEM teachers’ capability has the largest
impact on improving the quality of STEM education, followed
by the quality of STEM curricula. The quality of STEM
facilities has the smallest impact.
The actual initial values for the quality varies between the
three factors. In the UAE, the quality of facilities is very good
(85-90 in the present time), curriculum is also good (80-85) but
the teachers’ capability is much lower (45-50). These initial
values are based on interviews with subject matter experts who
understand the problem to be solved. The elasticity of these
three factors were obtained and measured from the students
responses to the surveys conducted as part of this study [9].
The MOE in the UAE has been investing a huge amount of
funds in bringing new and improved facilities to the public
school education system. However, as can be seen from Fig. 7,
the quality of facilities has the least impact on improving the
overall quality of STEM education. The major investment
should be on training and professional development programs
for teachers and on improving the curriculum taught at public
schools.
 QUALITY OF STEM EDUCATION (reaching its desired goal)? Fig. 9 shows the impact of the three
100 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 factors: teachers’ capability, curricula quality and facilities
1
2
quality on the number of students enrolled in non-STEM
2
education in grades 10-12. We can see that STEM teachers’
90
2
capability has the fastest impact on the number of non-STEM
1
students converting to STEM education, and therefore, in this
graph we can see that the number of non-STEM students
Dmnl

80 2

2
declines rapidly with more capable STEM teachers. The
70
2 3 3 3 3 3 quality of STEM curricula has the second fastest impact on
3

1 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
students’ choice. The quality of STEM facilities has the lowest
60 impact on students’ choice compared to the other two factors.
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Time (Year) However, it is important to note that other factors also
QUALITY OF STEM EDUCATION : increase teachers capability only
QUALITY OF STEM EDUCATION : increase curricula quality only 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
determine students’ choice (e.g. some students will prefer non-
QUALITY OF STEM EDUCATION : increase facilities quality only 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 STEM education based on their career choice no matter how
Fig. 7. Increase quality of STEM education. good STEM education is and so Fig. 9 will not usually result in
the number of non-STEM students going to zero value.

STUDENTS NON-STEM 10-12

Scenario 2: According to statistics collected from the data
sources of the UAE (National Bureau of Statistics, 2012), the 40,000

total number of Emirati students choosing or majoring in 3

3 3 3 3
3
1 2
STEM track at grades 10-12 in the year 2012 was about 12,000 30,000 2 3
3
3
students. What if each of the three factors affecting the quality 1
2 3
3
3
of STEM education is increased to its maximum value Students 20,000 2
3
3

(reaching its desired goal)? Fig. 8 tests improving each factor 1

independently and shows its impact on the quantity of students 10,000 1

2

choosing STEM education at grades 10-12. 1

2
2
1 2
In Fig. 8, it is clear that the teachers’ capability has the 0
1
1 1
2
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
fastest impact on increasing the number of students choosing 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Time (Year)
and remaining in STEM education. The quality of curricula has "STUDENTS NON-STEM 10-12" : increase teachers capability only 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
the second fastest impact on students’ choice. The quality of "STUDENTS NON-STEM 10-12" : increase curricula quality only
"STUDENTS NON-STEM 10-12" : increase facilities quality only
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3

facilities has the lowest impact on students’ choice compared to

Fig. 9. Reducing quantity of students pursuing non-STEM education by
the other two factors as is seen from the model simulation. increasing quality of STEM education factors.

STUDENTS STEM 10-12 Scenario 4: What if each of the four factors (parents,
60,000 society, peers, role models) creating the positive influences on
students is increased to its maximum value (improved by 100%
45,000 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 till reaching its highest value). Fig. 10 studies the differing
1 2
1
1
2
2 strengths of the impact of the various factors on the positive
1 influences on students to motivate them to choose STEM
Students

2
30,000 1
2
3 3
subjects. Of the four factors, parents and society have the
1 2 3 3 3 3 3
largest impact on creating a positive influence on students
15,000 3 3 3
followed by role models and then peers. The elasticity of these
2 3 3
1 2 3 3
four factors were obtained and measured during this study from
0 the students’ responses to the surveys conducted [11].
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Time (Year)
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase teachers capability only 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase curricula quality only 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase facilities quality only 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Fig. 8. Increase quantity of students pursuing STEM by increasing quality of

STEM education factors.

Scenario 3: According to statistics collected from data

sources of the UAE (National Bureau of Statistics, 2012), the
total number of Emirati students choosing or majoring in non-
STEM track at grades 10-12 in the year 2012 was about 30,000
students. What if each of the three factors affecting the quality
of STEM education is increased to its maximum value
 POSITIVE INFLUENCES ON STUDENTS much higher and more effective than the impact of positive
1 2 3
1 2 34 12 3 4 12 3 41 2 34 1 23 4 12 3 41 2 34 1 23 4 influences on students’ choices, considering that both factors
100
2 3
4
increased to their maximum values.
1

90
4
Fig. 13 details the various component factors that are
responsible for each of the two general factors in Fig. 12. The
factors marked as 1-3 are components of the quality of STEM
Dmnl

80
2
3
4
education, and the remaining four factors, marked as 4-7, help
70 determine the components of the positive influences on
1 students. By breaking up the two factors – quality of STEM
60 education and the positive influences on students and
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 considering all these factors increased to their maximum
Time (Year) values, we can now see which of the seven component factors
POSITIVE INFLUENCES ON STUDENTS : increase +ve parents influence only 1 1 1 1
POSITIVE
POSITIVE
INFLUENCES
INFLUENCES
ON STUDENTS
ON STUDENTS
:
:
increase +ve society influence only 2
increase +ve role models influence only 3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
will have a larger impact on the quantity of students pursuing
POSITIVE INFLUENCES ON STUDENTS : increase +ve peers influence only 4 4 4 4 STEM fields. As is clear from Fig. 12, teachers’ capability
Fig. 10. Increase positive social influences on students. (marked as 1) and curricula quality (marked as 2) have the
fastest and largest impact on the number of students choosing
STEM education. Then it comes the other two factors of the
Scenario 5: Fig. 11 studies the differing strengths of the ones that affect the positive influences, parents (marked as 4)
impact of the same factors as discussed in Fig. 9 on the positive and society (marked as 5), which are the two important factors
influences on students which in turn determine the number of that should be focused on relative to the role models and peers.
students choosing STEM track in grades 10-12. The figure
shows how the number of students interested in STEM will be
increased due to the various positive influences. Similar to the STUDENTS STEM 10-12
positive influences shown in Fig. 9, of the four factors, parents 60,000
and society have the largest impact on motivating more
students to choose and remain in STEM followed by role 1 1 1 1 1
45,000 1 1
models and then peers. 1
1
1

1
Students

STUDENTS STEM 10-12 30,000 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2
40,000 2 2
2
1 2
15,000 2
1 2
30,000
2 3 4 1 2
3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
1 23 4 1 2 0
1 2 3 4
Students

20,000 1 2 3 4 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
3 Time (Year)
1 2 4
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase all 3 quality of education factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4
10,000 "STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase all 4 +ve influences 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Fig. 12. Comparing the quantity of students pursuing STEM education by

0 increasing quality and influences factors (merged into 2 groups).
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Time (Year)
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase +ve parents influence only 1 1 1 1 1 1
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase +ve society influence only 2 2 2 2 2 2
"STUDENTS
"STUDENTS
STEM
STEM
10-12"
10-12"
:
:
increase +ve role models influence only
increase +ve peers influence only 4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
STUDENTS STEM 10-12
60,000
Fig. 11. Increase quantity of students pursuing STEM education by increasing
positive influences factors. 1 2
1 2
45,000 1
2
1
2
Students

30,000 1
Scenario 6: What if the three factors affecting the quality of 45 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7
STEM education as well as the four factors affecting the 15,000
2 4 5 6 7
3
3

4 5 6 7 3
positive influences on students are increased to their maximum 1 2 3 3

values (reaching their desired goals)? Fig. 12 tests increasing 0

the three quality factors together and compares it with the 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
increased value of the four factors of influences collectively, Time (Year)
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase teachers capability only 1 1 1 1
while Fig. 13 tests improving each factor of the seven factors "STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase curricula quality only 2 2 2 2
"STUDENTS STEM 10-12" : increase facilities quality only 3 3 3
independently and shows its impact on the quantity of students "STUDENTS
"STUDENTS
STEM
STEM
10-12" :
10-12" :
increase +ve parents influence only
increase +ve society influence only
4
5
4
5
4
5
choosing STEM education at grades 10-12. "STUDENTS
"STUDENTS
STEM
STEM
10-12" :
10-12" :
increase +ve role models influence only
increase +ve peers influence only 7
6
7
6
7
6
7

The graph in Fig. 12 illustrates an important difference Fig. 13. Comparing the quantity of students pursuing STEM education by
between the impact of the two factors (quality of STEM increasing quality and influences factors (break-down to all factors).
education and positive influences) on students’ choices. It
shows that the impact of the quality of STEM education is
 Scenario 7: What if each of the seven factors affecting the
performance of students in STEM is increased to its maximum
value (reaching its desired goal)? Fig. 14 and Fig. 15 test
improving each factor independently and show its expected
impact on the students’ performance in STEM.
Along with the quantity of students choosing STEM in
grades 10-12, the second most important factor in the model is
the students’ performance in STEM. The goal is to increase
the number of students choosing STEM track and also to
improve their performance in these fields. The students’
performance in STEM is influenced primarily by two factors –
the quality of STEM education and the positive social
influences on students. Where these two factors influence
students positively, the students are more motivated to work
hard and perform better. As can be seen from Fig. 15, even
after increasing the positive social influences to their maximum
values, the expected students’ performance still do not grow as
fast as by improving the teachers’ capabilities which highly
enhance the quality of STEM education.
STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN STEM
100 1
2
1 2
1
2
90
1 3
Dmnl
V. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a System Dynamics model that would
help to identify ways of attracting students into STEM majors
and improve their performance in STEM subjects. The model
presented in this paper is mainly one sector of a much bigger
model that describes a complete education system.
The major factors that were responsible for the low quantity
of STEM students and the low quality of STEM education
were identified using data, various studies, and surveys from
the United Arab Emirates [9-12]. These variables and factors
were then included in dynamic hypotheses that were presented
in a series of causal loop diagrams. The factors were then
modeled in a system dynamics model that used differential
equations to define and explore the non-linear relationships
between the various factors. Simulation of this mathematical
model was carried out using VENSIM®.
An analysis of the behavior of the factors and a study of the
underlying structure of the model provided useful policy
implications which included:
 Improving teachers’ capability has a much faster and
larger impact than all other factors on the quantity of
1 2 1 2
3
1 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31 2 31 2
students in STEM education as well as the quality of
3 STEM education. Therefore, policymakers should
invest much more in training teachers and providing
professional development programs for them.


80 Improving curriculum quality is the second most

2 3 important factor in the motivation of students towards
70 3 STEM, while improving the facilities used in public
1 23
3 schools has the least impact. Hence, improving the
60 curricula, mainly at public schools, would provide a
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 boost to the number of STEM graduates.
Time (Year)
STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN STEM : increase teachers capability only
STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN STEM : increase curricula quality only 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
 Of the factors that positively influence students to
STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN STEM : increase facilities quality only 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
pursue STEM, parents and society are the most
Fig. 14. Increase students’ performance in STEM by increasing important influencers compared to role models and
quality of STEM education factors. peer pressure. It is proposed that activities and
initiatives should be implemented to increase these
positive influences.
STUDENTS PERFORMANCE IN STEM  Of the factors that can be used to increase students’
100 1 2
34 1 2 34
12 3 4 12 3 41 2 34 1 23 4 12 3 41 2 34 1 23 4
performance in STEM, the teachers’ capability,
2
3 4 curriculum quality, parents and society have the
90 1 greatest influence. These four factors must be
improved to yield the largest impact on student
academic performance in STEM.
Dmnl

80

4  The impact of the quality of STEM education (that is

70 3
2
affected by teachers’ capability, curriculum and
1 facilities quality) is much higher and more effective
60 than the impact of positive influences (that are formed
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Time (Year)
by parents, society, role models and peers) on students’
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
IN STEM
IN STEM
:
:
increase +ve parents influence only 1
increase +ve society influence only 2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
STEM choices and students’ academic performance in
STUDENTS
STUDENTS
PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE
IN STEM
IN STEM
:
:
increase +ve role models influence only
increase +ve peers influence only 4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3 STEM.

Fig. 15. Increase students’ performance in STEM by increasing

positive social influences factor.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to sincerely thank H. H. Sheikh
Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan for his generous and unlimited
support for this research via Buhooth Graduate Scholarhsips
program. Additionally, the authors would like to thank the
Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Higher
Education and Scientific Research (MOHESR), the Abu Dhabi
Education Council (ADEC) and the National Bureau of
Statistics (NBS) of the UAE for their support of this project,
and all the students and teachers who contributed to this
research by responding to the surveys.
REFERENCES
[1] A. T. Bahill and B. Gissing, “Re-evaluating systems engineering
concepts using systems thinking”, IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, 28(4),1998, pp. 516-527.
[2] J. W. Forrester, Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T Press and
John Wiley & Sons, 1961.
[3] M. J. Radzicki and R. A. Taylor, “Introduction to system dynamics: a
systems approach to understanding complex policy issues.” 1997.
U.S.Department of Energy. Retrieved from
http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/start.htm.
[4] G. P. Richardson and A. L. Pugh, Introduction to System Dynamics
Modeling with DYNAMO. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; reprinted by
Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon, USA, 1981.
View publication stats
[5] J. D. Sterman, Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a
complex world. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000.
[6] A. Mehmood, “Modeling framework for understanding the dynamics of
learning performance in education systems.” 23rd International
Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 2005.
[7] B. H. Wells, H. A. Sanchez, J. M. Attridge, “Modeling student interest
in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.” IEEE Meeting
the Growing Demand for Engineers and their Educators, 2007.
[8] A. K. Gaynor, “Analyzing problems in schools and school Systems.”
NJ: Lawrence Embaum Associates, 1998.
[9] S. Makhmasi, “A System Dynamics Model of the UAE K-12
Educational System: Simulating Students' Interest in STEM.” MSc
thesis, Khalifa University, UAE, 2013.
[10] S. Alyammahi, R. Zaki, H. Barada, and Y. Al-Hammadi, “Attracting
Students to STEM: Obstructors and Facilitators.” Proceedings of IEEE
Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), UAE, Abu
Dhabi, 10–13 April 2016.
[11] S. Makhmasi, R. Zaki, H. Barada, and Y. Al-Hammadi, “Students’
interest in STEM education: A survey from the UAE .” Proceedings of
IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),
Marrakesh, Morocco, 17–20 April 2012. (Best Paper Award).
[12] S. Alyammahi, R. Zaki, H. Barada, and Y. Al-Hammadi, “Overcoming
the Challenges in K-12 STEM Education.” Proceedings of IEEE Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), UAE, Abu Dhabi, 10–
13 April 2016.
[13] S. Makhmasi, R. Zaki, H. Barada, and Y. Al-Hammadi, “Factors
influencing STEM teachers' effectiveness in the UAE.” Proceedings of
the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle,
Washington, USA, October 2012.