Ben Zvi Assaraf2010

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 10, PP.
1253–1280 (2010)
Four Case Studies, Six Years Later: Developing System Thinking

Skills in Junior High School and Sustaining Them over Time
Orit Ben-Zvi-Assaraf1 Nir Orion2
1
Science and Technology Education Department, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev,
PO Box 653 Be’er-Sheva 84105, Israel
2
The Science Teaching Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Received 17 May 2009; Accepted 22 February 2010
Abstract: This study examines the process by which system thinking perceptions develop within the context of a
water cycle curriculum. Four junior high school students undergoing an especially designed inquiry-based intervention
were closely observed before, during, immediately after, and 6 years after completing a year long systems-based learning
program. The employed research tools included observations, semi-structured interviews, and a number of ‘‘concept
viewing’’ tools (drawings, concept maps, and repertory grids). Out of the data, four distinct ‘‘stories,’’ each presenting a
different way of constructing hydro system mental models, are described. The paper’s main conclusion is that students
develop their systems mental models and remember the learned material based on learning patterns that tend to remain
unchanged over time. Consequently, in order to facilitate efficient and lasting construction of students’ system models,
learning experiences should harness these, and especially the meta-cognitive learning pattern, which holds special
significance for constructing systems. ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 47: 1253–1280, 2010
Keywords: earth sciences; environmental education; system approach; system thinking
The science education curriculum today has become increasingly focused on the study of complex
systems, which is unsurprising considering the nature of the world our students live in—one increasingly
governed by complex systems that are dynamic, self-organizing, and continually adapting (Jacobson &
Wilensky, 2006; Lesh, 2006). Accordingly, the curricula of such fields as biology (Verhoeff, Waarlo, &
Boersma, 2008), and earth sciences (Kali, Orion, & Eylon, 2003; Tran, 2009) all require students to
understand complex dynamic processes like eco-processes, fractals, laser beams, heart rhythms, and weather
patterns, so that processes of this sort have become a unifying cross-disciplinary construct (Chi, 2005).
As a result of this focus on students’ comprehension of systems, the learning sciences have seen a
substantial growth in research on complex systems and complexity theories, as well as in students’ abilities to
deal with complex natural, social, and technological systems. The complex systems research community,
though, diverse, nevertheless shares the following common assumptions: (a) Many natural systems operate at
multiple distinct levels of organization; (b) such systems involve nonlinear interactions among the system’s
elements including positive and negative feedback loops; (c) even when the only interactions that exist in a
system are among its individual elements, important macroscopic descriptions can still be applied to the
system as a whole and are critical for understanding its patterns; (d) system-level patterns can emerge without
any force explicitly striving for the pattern, through the self-organized activity of many interacting elements;
and (e) the same system pattern can often be found in diverse domains, and it is useful to describe systems in
sufficiently general terms such that these commonalities can be revealed (Goldstone & Wilensky, 2008, p.
467). Related studies have been conducted within various disciplines, including social systems (e.g., Booth
Sweeny, 2000; Kim, 1999; Mandinach, 1989); technological systems (e.g., Frank, 2000); Biological systems
(e.g., Verhoeff et al., 2008; Wilensky & Reisman, 2006); and natural systems (e.g., Ben-Zvi Assaraf & Orion,
Correspondence to: Orit Ben-Zvi-Assaraf; E-mail: ntorit@bgu.ac.il

DOI 10.1002/tea.20383
Published online 28 June 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

1254 BEN-ZVI-ASSARAF AND ORION
2005; Hmelo-Silver, Marathe, & Liu, 2007; Hmelo-Silver & Pfeffer, 2004; Ossimitz, 2000; Wilensky &
Resnick, 1999).
System thinking has come to the attention of educators and is now looked upon as a viable approach
through which various scientific disciplines can be taught (Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000).
Pedagogically, it carries some additional benefits not provided by traditional ways of teaching science.
Central among these is that a systems perspective to teaching does not only impart the different components
and processes which make up any social, technological, or natural system (what traditional science teaching
does as well) but also unifies these into a holistic whole, revealing their interdependent nature: how the parts
make up a whole and how each of the components and processes affect other components and processes, thus
impacting the whole overarching system (Hmelo-Silver, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000).
Earth sciences offer the student the knowledge and the ability to draw conclusions regarding issues such
as: conservation of energy and water as well as proper utilization of global resources (Orion, 2002). The
starting point for this integrated model is the natural world, which is understood by studying the four earth
systems: geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere. The main educational goal of the earth systems
approach is the development of environmental insight, which includes the following two principles:
We live in a cycling world that is built upon a series of sub-systems (geosphere, hydrosphere,
biosphere, and atmosphere) which interact through an exchange of energy and materials.
Understanding that people are a part of nature, and thus must act in harmony with its laws of cycling.
In order to develop environmental literacy, we develop most of our Earth science programs within a
systems framework; for example, The Rock Cycle; The Water Cycle; The Carbon Cycle (Orion &
Ault, 2007).
Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) postulate that such environmental insight is based on an
understanding of the systemic and cyclical mechanisms that govern our planet.
The water cycle is a complex system, and to meaningfully understand it, students must understand
environmental phenomena in the context of interrelationship among earth systems. Wu (2010) makes a
similar point regarding the atmosphere, claiming that in such a complex system a single phenomenon like air
quality ‘‘is the result of interactions of numerous individual variables such as atmospheric stability, pollutant
emission factors, weather conditions, and topographic effects,’’ some of which may be widely dispersed over
space and time (p. 197).
Kali et al. (2003) suggested that students’ understanding of the dynamic and cyclic nature of the earth’s
crust is influenced by their ability to synthesize components into a coherent system. Moreover, the quality and
quantity of the relationships that students create within a system are influenced by their knowledge about each
component in the system. These characteristics point out the complexity of a system and therefore it is not
surprising that students encounter major difficulties in perceiving systems. Understanding complex systems
is fundamental to understanding science.
System Thinking and the STH Model

Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) identified eight emergent characteristics of system thinking in the
context of earth systems (Table 1). Each of these eight characteristics has appeared independently in the
literature as part of various studies conducted in the context of different systems. The first characteristic, the
ability to identify the components of a system and processes within the system, was identified by several
studies (e.g., Azevedo, Moos, Greene, Winters, & Cromley, 2008; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2000, 2007; Knipples,
2002; Liu, & Hmelo-Silver, 2009; Penner, 2000). The second characteristic, the ability to identify
relationships among the system’s components, is mentioned in Wilensky and Resnick (1999), Duncan and
Reiser (2007), Verhoeff, Waarlo, and Boersma (2008) , Hmelo-Silver and Pfeffer (2004), Verhoeff et al.
(2008). The third characteristic, the ability to identify dynamic relationships within the system, was identified
by Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007), Verhoeff (2003), Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007), and Verhoeff
et al. (2008). The fourth characteristic: The ability to organize the systems’ components and processes within
a framework of relationships was identified by Chi (2005), Jacobson and Wilensky (2006), Hmelo-Silver
et al. (2007), Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007), Liu and Hmelo-Silver (2009). The fifth characteristic, the
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
FOUR CASE STUDIES 1255
Table 1
The eight emergent hierarchic characteristics of system thinking in the context of earth systems
1. The ability to identify the The meaning of this characteristic in relation to the hydro-cycle system is the ability
components of a system and to identify components such as oceans, rivers, lakes, glaciers, ice-caps, rain,
processes within the system clouds, and processes such as evaporation, condensation, precipitation,
penetration, underground and surface flows, melting, freezing, and dissolution
2. The ability to identify The expression of this characteristic within the hydro cycle system is, for example,
relationships among the the acknowledgment of the connection between the composition of the water
system’s components solution and the rocks that they pass through; or the understanding that polluted
rivers could directly affect the water quality
3. The ability to identify Understanding the transformation of matter within the earth systems involves the
dynamic relationships identification of dynamic relationships within the hydro-cycle system such as
within the system human influences over the groundwater through pollution by fertilizers and
pesticides; water leaches through sand rock; water dissolves the mineral within
the rocks
4. The ability to organize the Placing the system’s components, processes, and relationships as a framework that
systems’ components and presents the system as a whole. For example, presenting the water cycle as a web
processes within a of processes and relationships occurring in the oceans in parallel to ones occurring
framework of relationships on land
5. The ability to understand the Understanding of the hydro-cycle system as a system includes the idea that we live in
cyclic nature of systems a cycling world. The hydro-cycle system itself is consisted of several sub-cycles:
evaporation and connection via precipitations on the oceans and on the lands;
precipitation and connection via rivers from land to sea; penetration and
connection via drawing underground water or transpiration from plants
6. The ability to make Such generalization might be expressed within the hydro-cycle system by the
generalizations understanding that this system is dynamic and cyclic. This understanding could
later be implemented for preventing environmental threats in the context of the
hydrosphere system
7. Understanding the hidden Recognizing patterns and interrelationships which are not seen on the surface. The
dimensions of the system hydrosphere system is a good example of this characteristic since a meaningful
part of this system is located under the surface
8. Thinking temporally: Understanding that some of the presented interaction within the system took place in
retrospection and prediction the past, while future events may be a result of present interactions. This notion is
expressed within the hydrosphere system, for instance, through the ability to
understand that the present quality of drinking water in a specific area is a result of
the events and processes that this water went through along the geological and the
human history. The ability to predict might be expressed, for example, by trying to
predict the influence of an industrial site or construction of a freeway in specific
areas on the quality of water in those regions
ability to understand the cyclic nature of systems appears only in Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007). The
sixth characteristic, the ability to make generalizations appears in Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007) and
Goldstone and Wilensky (2008). The seventh characteristic, understanding the hidden dimensions of the
system, was identified by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2000) and Liu and Hmelo-Silver (2009). The eighth
characteristic, thinking temporally: retrospection and prediction was identified by Hmelo-Silver et al. (2000),
Wilensky and Reisman (2006), and Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007).
The novelty of Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) is not in the identification of these eight
characteristics, but in their arrangement into a hierarchic model—the System Thinking Hierarchical (STH)
model—of the stages by which system thinking develops. It presents the development of system thinking in
the context of earth systems education as occurring in three sequential levels, arranged in a hierarchical
pyramid structure. The three levels are: (a) analysis of system components (characteristic 1); (b) synthesis of
system components (characteristics 2, 3, 4, 5); and (c) implementation (characteristics 6, 7, 8). Each group of
skills (each level) is used as the basis for the development of the next level’s skills. The STH model was
developed following a study on 8th grade students (Ben-Zvi Assaraf & Orion, 2005), and was further
supported in a study on Elementary School students (Ben-Zvi Assaraf & Orion, in press; Evagorou, Korfiatis,
Nicolaou, & Constantinou, 2009). It suggests that following the learning process, students’ improvements
will manifest in a pyramid pattern: with a wide basis of students progressing in analyzing systems to their
components and processes, and as one moves upward in the hierarchic model, with less and less students able
to manifest the relevant skills. The second prediction is that students who achieve higher levels of system
thinking will be ones who have mastered the lower levels of the pyramid—so, for example, it will not be the
case that a student who was not successful in analyzing a system to its components (analysis level) will be able
to think temporally (implementation level) about systems.
Though the formal categorization of the STH model implies a certain uniformity and predictability in
the development of students’ system thinking skills, this is true only to the extent that it identifies the
‘‘touchstones’’ students will pass along the path from lower to higher order systems thinking. Within this
general framework, students are still individually affected my the many factors that have been documented in
the literature, such as student-teacher discourse, argumentation abilities, motivation, approach to learning
(surface vs. deep), cognitive maturity, etc. This proposition that students learn and study in different ways
(which can be affected by variables such as bio-sociological needs, immediate environment, physical
characteristics, emotionality and psychological inclinations) has emerged as a prominent pedagogical issue
in the past few decades, and has given birth to a wealth of models attempting to identify and characterize
students’ various ‘‘learning styles’’ (Hawk and Shah, 2007). It is important to emphasize in this context that
the focus of the current study was not a broad identification of learning styles such as those suggested in
assorted models from the literature, but rather an analysis at the level of the individual student. The current
research was based on the grounded theory paradigm, aiming to retroactively identify patterns of systems
thinking development as they arise out of four ‘‘stories’’ presenting four different paths students may take
through the STH model.
System thinking research is a relatively young area of study and the STH in particular is a new model.
While a required thinking skill is expected to sustain as a part of one’s long-term memory, required
memorized information will only stand for a relatively short time as part of one’s short-term memory.
Therefore, looking at the four case studies 6 years after they learned the earth systems unit might verify the
sustainability of STH as a cognitive model of system thinking.
The aim of the present study is to examine the process by which system thinking perceptions develop
among junior high school students. Within the present water cycle context, we aim to provide a view of the
development of mental models of the hydrosphere throughout a specially designed intervention, and to
evaluate which of the learned aspects are retained 6 years after completing the learning process. More
specifically, the research questions are:
(1) What are the system thinking development processes of the different STH components among
junior high school students throughout the learning process?
(2) What are the learner patterns employed by the students for constructing mental system
representations?
This study is the first attempt (as far as we know) to identify the development of system thinking skills in
the individual level. Moreover, it provides a longitude perspective of the sustainability of the system thinking
skills that were developed by students through an earth system based learning.
Methodology
Sample
The sample of the current study included 8 out of the 50 junior high-school students (8th grade)
investigated in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005). These students were from the same class and had studied
together since the first grade. The sampling method was based on a maximum variation sampling (LeCompte
& Goetz, 1982). The sample constituted four pairs, each pair representing one of four learning capability
levels—exceptional, high, medium, and low—arrived at through examination of the students’ marks and a
joint discussion between the class’s science teacher and the researchers. The students’ consent to participate
was obtained following a discussion in which the meaning—in terms of time and effort they would have to
expend over the year, as well as 6 years after the learning process—of participating in such a study was
explained. These issues were discussed at length with the students. It was very important for us to include the
students in the selection process as the focus on them would be quite extensive and would require much of
their time.
While all the students showed unique ways of learning, due to considerations of space we had to choose
those whose learning patterns were the most distinct and would be of the greatest interest for understanding
how system representations are created. For this reason, out of the eight students, the results of only four are
presented—two girls (Eli and Tal) and two boys (Ofer and Jerry).
The Curriculum
The curriculum unit, named ‘‘The Blue Planet,’’ is a 45 hour-long multidisciplinary environmentally
based program introduced in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005, 2009). The unit emphasizes the
transportation of water within Earth’s systems and is based on the water cycle taxonomy employed by the
hydrogeology scientific community (Schlesinger, 1991). The program aims at developing students’ system
thinking skills within the context of the water cycle.
The following characteristics are at the heart of curriculum unit’s design:
(a) Identifying a realistic environmental ‘‘cover story:’’ The ‘‘cover story’’ of the program was the
question ‘‘How should we act in order to preserve our water resources?’’ To answer the question,
students had to explore the interrelationships among the earth systems and between each of them
and humans; based on the water cycle taxonomy used by hydrogeology researchers (Schlesinger,
1991).
(b) Using real world phenomena as a context for meaningful learning: As part of the program, the
students participate in three field trips in which they explore (a) a polluted river and water treatment
plant, (b) a spring and a stalagmite cave, and (c) a winter-rain puddle in their near environment. In
each of these sites they conduct the following scientific observations: they explore the earth, rocks
and their characteristics, they compare the water quality in the different locations; they identify the
components of the ecological system; they present the interrelationships between earth systems and
humanity.
(c) Employing knowledge-integration activities: In order to promote their construction of the water
cycle as a dynamic, cyclic system, the students participated in several types of knowledge-
integration activities such as concept maps, drawings, and summarizing the outdoor experiences
(described at length in the research tools section). While completing these tasks the students had to
identify the system’s components; they created relationships among the components and organized
and placed them within a framework of connections. These connections served as a mechanism by
which students could create an entire cycle.
The above general framework is in accordance with the design principles for learning about complex
systems, that is, experiencing complex systems, making the system framework explicit, encouraging
collaboration, discussion and reflection, constructing theories and models, and facilitating deep
understanding (Evagorou et al., 2009; Hmelo et al., 2000; Jacobson & Wilensky, 2006).
Research Design
The present study is a zoom-in study of 4 out of the 50 participants in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion’ (2005)
extensive study of system thinking skills in the junior high school age. While the previous study set a
theoretical basis for the development of system thinking among junior high school students, the purpose of the
current study is to explore the ways in which students actually learn and how they relate to their ability to
develop these quite complex thinking skills. Accordingly, the present study is more qualitative in nature,
closely examining a small sample of carefully selected subjects, with a focus on observations and
semi-structured open-ended interviews.
The study included four main stages. Stage 1 was conducted before the beginning of the learning process
(pre-test). This stage provided the system thinking abilities baseline of the sample. Stage 2 was conducted in
the middle of the learning process (after the first field trip). Stage 3 was conducted at the end of the learning
process (post-test). During this year the entire student sample studied the same general curriculum in the same
school with the same teachers and none of the other subjects (e.g., math, literature, history, geography)
included any aspects of system thinking. Thus, there was no ‘‘history effect’’ threat on this study. The fourth
stage was conducted 6 years later, after the students had completed high school and their army service, but
before they began their university studies. The purpose of this stage was to measure the conservation of
system thinking skills over time.
As a long term study, the design of the research had to contend with several threats to its internal validity,
such as the history effect, maturation, testing, instrumentation, and differential selection (LeCompte &
Goetz, 1982). In order to control for ‘‘history effect’’ during this 6-year period, a careful examination of each
of the students’ sample studies during the last year of junior high school and the three high school years
revealed that none of them participated in any systems-based learning in that period. This examination was
based on three sources: (a) an analysis of all possible programs that they studied in high school; (b) Interviews
with the teachers who taught the students in the high school and (c) interviews with the students. All the three
sources indicated that the students participated in no systems-based learning after studying the ‘‘Blue Planet’’
in the 8th grade. Thus, the fourth stage measured the maintenance of the system thinking skills 6 years later.
Maturation could be another threat to the internal validity of the study. However, as we will show below,
we found no influence of this factor. The testing and instrumentation threats were also controlled, as discussed
in the research tools section.
Research Tools
To ensure a comprehensive but accurate depiction of the progression of the students’ system thinking
abilities, all research tools utilized in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005) are employed here as well, but in an
extended format more suitable to the research’s current purposes. The research tools employed can be
grouped into three main categories: (i) observations; (ii) semi-structured interviews; and a number of research
tools we named (iii) concept viewing tools. This last group consists of drawings, concept maps, and repertory
grids—all conducted in person and accompanied by discussions with the students regarding their yield. These
tools in particular are well adapted to provide insight into the concepts and mental representations held by the
participants. The research tools’ description, the data collection, and their analysis are briefly presented in the
next two sections.
The development of these tools, together with their descriptions, scope and analysis, including validity
and reliability issues, were all presented in detail in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005). For reasons of space
(there are, after all, 10 research tools), we cannot present all this information here.
The large amount of data allowed us to assess the students’ yields and progress, and to break it down to
specific system thinking aspects rather than just a general view of their level. It also allowed the construction
of ‘‘stories’’ in which we attempted to try and find the underlying causes—related to both background and
personality, as well as to the program’s features—and learning patterns of the various system thinking skills.
Finally, we examined the students’ thinking abilities 6 years after completing the learning process. These are
presented in the results section.
Observations. The observation tools were used for the identification of students, learning materials, and
teacher interactions. We also used observations for monitoring students’ involvement in the activities and the
teachers’ teaching strategies. During the learning process, one of the authors was present in each lesson as a
participant observer. While observing, the researcher took brief notes of the event, which were expanded
immediately after the observed lesson into more detailed descriptions. In some cases during the interviews,
the students were asked to react to events that were observed earlier by the researchers.
Analysis of Students’ ArtifactsAn additional way to evaluate the quality of the students’ involvement in
the learning process was through analysis of their booklets. Once a month one of the authors collected all the
students’ booklets and analyzed the amount of activities that each student had performed and the level of
understanding shown through his/her answers.
Interviews. This study used a ‘‘semi-structured’’ interview format as a qualitative research method in
order to illicit in-depth information about the students’system thinking abilities in the learning process. Semi-
structured interviews offer topics and questions to the interviewee, but are carefully designed to elicit the
interviewee’s ideas and opinions on the topic of interest, as opposed to leading the interviewee toward
preconceived choices. They rely on the interviewer following up with probes to get in-depth information on
topics off interest (White and Gunstone, 1992).
The raw material for the drafting of the interviews was taken from the following research tools employed
in Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005). The first three tools are Likert-type questionnaires, which were
followed by interviews:
Groundwater Dynamic Nature Questionnaire (GDN)Identifies students’ previous knowledge and

understanding of the dynamic nature of the groundwater system, and its environmental relationship with
humans, such as: (a) Rocks do not influence the composition of water that penetrates them. (b) Only when
rocks are cracked can water penetrate them. (c) Ground water can be found only in rainy areas.
Cyclic Thinking Questionnaire (CTQ)Identifies students’ understanding of the cyclic nature of the
hydrosphere and the conservation of matter within the earth systems such as: (a) Clouds are the starting point
of the water cycle and the tap at home is its end point. (b) The amount of water in the ocean is growing from
day to day because rivers are continually flowing into the ocean. (c) Amplification of evaporation as an effect
of earth’s global warming may lead to a decrease in the amount of water on earth.
The Global Magnitude Questionnaire (GMQ)Identifies students’ understanding about the quantity of
each component of the water cycle, such as: (a) Most of the water in our planet is the salty water in the
oceans and is not available to use for humans. (b) It rains mostly over the oceans and only a little bit over the
land. (c) Rocks contain much more water than lakes and rivers together.
In the interview, the students were asked to explain at length why they agree or disagree with each
statement, which of their observations throughout the learning process support their view, and when they
were indecisive, the students were asked what they would like to understand about the statement that could
help them decide.
The Factory InventoryThe students were told about a factory for chemicals that was supposed to be
constructed in their town. The students were provided with a list of experts in the fields of geology, economy,
environment, hydrology, and chemistry. They had to ask each ‘‘expert’’ three questions in order to decide if
they would recommend building the factory. During the interview, the students were asked to explain and
length, for every question they asked the experts, why that question is important in their opinion and how it
connects to the decision of whether or not to build the factory.
The interviews were conducted in the beginning, middle, and end of the learning process, as well as 6
years after completing the learning program.
Cognitive Perception Tools. The tools, detailed below, were employed in a one-on-one setting, with the
researcher carefully listening to students’ answers, asking for elaborations, and discussing points of interest.
These discussions also helped identify whether the absence of a system’s components in a student’s drawing
resulted from the students’ drawing ability or from their poor acquaintance with those components. The
following are three types of cognitive perception tools that were employed.
Students’ DrawingsStudents’ drawings can serve as ‘‘windows’’ to their conceptual knowledge. They
are one of several meaningful tools that can be used to assess scientific conceptual knowledge, observational
skills, and the reasoning abilities (Dove, Everett, & Preece, 1999; Rennie & Jarvis, 1995; Reiss & Tunnicliffe,
2001). In this study, the students were asked to draw ‘‘what happens to water in nature’’ and in a later interview
were asked to elaborate on their drawings, and provide a full verbal explanation of what influences what in
their drawing. Concept maps:
Concept maps are a powerful research tool that allows examination of how learners restructure their
knowledge. They do this by identifying misconceptions and recognizing different learning styles (Martin,
Mintzes, & Clavijo, 2000; Mason, 1992; Novak & Gowin, 1984; Roth, 1994). Moreover, concept maps focus
on the structure and the links that the student perceives. Mapping is a means of eliciting the relationships that
each student perceives among the concepts (White & Gunstone, 1992).
Making the concept maps involved the following three stages: First, the students were asked to choose
15 concepts from a given list and associate to each one words related to the water cycle. Second, the students
were asked to connect within any single sentence two concepts. They could use the same concept more than
once. Third, students were asked to make a new concept map concerning the water cycle.
A number of days after the creation of the concept map, a personal interview was conducted with each
student, in which, through dialogue with one of the researchers or teacher, their concept map was expanded. In
the mediation process, the mediator (the teacher or one of the researchers) asked each student whether a
relationship existed between concepts they had drawn and other concepts in their map, and whether this
concept can be connected to a new concept that has not yet been written.
Repertory GridsGeorge Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory [PCT] (Kelly, 1955) describes how concepts
are acquired and organized within a learner’s cognitive structures. The grid method today is used in many
different fields. While applications in the original field of counseling are still important, there are a wide range
of other applications in science and technology education (e.g., Bencze, Bowen, & Alsop, 2006; Bezzi, 1999;
Latta & Swigger, 1992; Nicholls, 2005).
The repertory grid contains elements and constructs:
Elements—are the objects of attention within the domain of investigation. The subject is usually
presented with 10–15 elements, which were either pre-given by the researcher or are derived through a Word
Association task. In this study we employed the latter method.
Constructs—represent the research participants’ interpretations of the elements and the relations
between them. There are several ways to elicit constructs. The classic method used by Kelly is to consider
various element triads selected successively from the element list. The subject or person(s) from which the
constructs are to be elicited is first presented with three elements and asked to specify some important aspects
in which two of them are alike. Then the subject is asked in which aspects the third concept differs from the
other two.
In the present study, the students received the following instructions: (a) Write your elements on 12
cards. (b) Place the cards in the envelope. (c) Take out three cards randomly. (d) Now think which of the three
elements is exceptional and write down why. (e) Now put the notes back in the envelope and randomly take
out another three cards.
The students repeated the procedure eight times, and were later interviewed regarding their constructs.
Students were also asked to choose three concepts, think about new links among those concepts, and mark
them in a different color. This process was performed twice using different colors, in order to probe more
deeply into the relations that students see between two or three important terms. In the interviews, the
interviewer entered into a dialog with the students regarding each aspect/property they addressed, asking
them to explain their choice, and why they think it works as a defining characteristic of the water system
components (i.e., why it works as a construct).
Data Analysis
Observations and Interviews. All the recorded episodes were transcribed. The transcribed protocols
were coded in a stepwise manner. First, all the episodes were segmented into utterances, defined as a series of
words with a single idea. Second, utterances with similar ideas were sorted according to a main category
(Table 2 summarizes the categories arising from all of the interviews and observations). To ensure the validity
of this data, this procedure was carried out by the two researchers independently, after which a mutual
discussion was held to compare coding and categories and clarify disagreements. After all of the utterances
were categorized, the numbers of utterances in each category were counted to determine which of the main
categories were more dominant.
Concept Viewing Tools. DrawingsStudents’ responses to the drawing activity were analyzed using a
coding framework prepared by Rennie and Jarvis (1995). In order to increase the reliability and consistency of
Table 2
Categories arising from all of the interviews and observations
Cognitive level Affective level
Primary categories Secondary categories Primary categories Secondary categories
Deductive approach to Approached the learning with a tendency to focus on patterns Tendency towards external motivation Ascertaining ‘‘what I get out of it’’
learning
Making generalized claims Coming to school because of parents
Trying to fit details into a cyclical mold Doing homework because of parents
Inductive approach to Collecting processes and concepts during the learning process Tendency towards internal motivation Trying to find relevance for learned material in student’s
learning life
Trying to find a connecting claim between conclusions and Completing assignments in order to satisfy their own
observations inner needs
Addressing the studied content and attempting to generalize Attempting to display personal excellence in studies
from it
Using the knowledge integration activities in order to build Aspiration to develop abilities and skills or to improve
generalizations the understanding of learning
Knowledge integration Active participation in knowledge integration activities Perception: learning science in school Negative perceptions of the method of school science
tendencies
Non-active participation Positive perceptions of the method of school science
Transition between various integration levels Positive perceptions of learning science as a citizen
Tendency toward Addressing previous knowledge during the learning process Social interaction with group mates Teacher’s encouragement of learning
metacognitive activity and teacher
Figuring out ‘‘what I don’t know’’ while performing tasks Encouraging and sharing with the group
‘‘What does this tell me’’—attempting to assign meaning Social interaction in an interpersonal context
Question asking Asking ‘‘content’’ questions while performing tasks, in class Feelings of self-efficacy Showing ability and efficacy in learning
FOUR CASE STUDIES
tendencies
Asking ‘‘execution’’ questions while performing tasks, in class Lack of confidence in one’s ability or efficacy
Questions for the purpose of attaining in depth understanding Dissatisfaction Feelings of frustration from lack of interest in school
Participation in Writing down observations and conclusions from experiments Performance goals Students regard their abilities as high attempt to
experiments demonstrate higher abilities in relation to their peers
Addressing the experiment’s execution instructions only
Interaction with other Including group mates in the learning process System thinking components
group members
Including group mates in homework Analysis Present the ability to identify processes
Negotiating over work division and result presentation Present the ability to identify components
Process approach Cyclic connection of processes to one another Synthesis Presenting a cyclic perception and conservation of matter
Questions relating to the water transition process Organize a framework of relationships
Identifying dynamic relationships within the system
Preference for process-centered explanations Implementation Time (prediction or retrospective) dimension-scientific
knowledge acquired in class
Attempting to present a scientific mechanism Hidden dimension
Ignoring previously acquired scientific knowledge Present the ability the ability to make generalizations
1261

the drawing analysis, both authors of the current study analyzed and individually coded the same drawings of
all the students. After comparing and discussing the two separate analyses, they developed a standardized
coding system. The drawings were analyzed according to the following criteria: (a) the presence of the earth
systems; (b) the presence of processes; (c) the presence of human consumption or pollution.
Concept MapsAdopting White and Gunstone’s (1992) approach, we evaluated the maps according to the
number of concepts, their linkages, and their organization within the map. To assess students’ ability to
present their understanding of dynamic processes within the system, ‘‘dynamism’’ was classified within two
categories: ‘‘Matter transportation’’, (sentences that describe dynamic nature of matter transition in the
system), and ‘‘dynamic concepts’’ (concepts connected by a node that described a process).
– The cyclic thinking value was divided into the following five levels: (a) no cycle appears in the
concept map, (b) the atmospheric cycle—evaporation and connection via rain on the ocean; (c)
connection via rain on the land; (d) connection via rivers from land to the sea, and (e) penetration and
connection via underground water, drawing or transpiration from plants.
– Repertory grid: In order to assess students’ system thinking abilities, the data analysis of the repertory
grids involved two processes. First, using a similar process to that of the word associations, we
qualitatively analyzed the elements indicated by the students. These elements were classified
according to their relation to a unifying concept such as processes in the water cycle, location, the
geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and atmosphere, human use of water, and environmental and
chemical aspects. The elements Ocean, Rivers, and Aquifer, for instance, may form a construct based
on their relation to the concept ‘‘high salinity,’’ which separates the element ‘‘Ocean’’ from the other
two. Second, when the elements had thus been assigned to their relevant concepts, we asked the
students to rate every element’s relation to the concepts on a grid scale of 1–5. Thus, for example,
students assigned the elements ‘‘Aquifer’’ and ‘‘River’’ a grade of 2 on the salinity scale in their pre-
test, but changed it to 3 in the post-test, after having learned about mineral dissolution. The
explanations accompanying this relative grading process allowed us to assess the students’ ability to
identify components and processes in systems.
In addition to the above, the following steps were taken to ensure the objectivity, reliability and validity
of the present research: (a) Crosschecking sources (i.e., interviews, observations, concept viewing tools), (b)
Triangulation: Omitting the categories that did not appear in at least three interviews or through three
different data collecting methods. (c) ‘‘Cross-examination’’: repeating questions. (d) Presenting the
findings to the participants in order to examine the extent to which they agree with the interpretations
(response validity). (e) Recording all of the interviews. (f) Prolonged stay of the teacher in the research sites in
order to examine the issues in a comprehensive manner and avoid the influence of prejudice as much as
possible.
Results
The results section presents detailed ‘‘stories’’ of the development and learning patterns of each student.
This development is presented in graph form in Figures 1–3 below, which with the addition of the data
gathered through the observations and interviews provide the body of what ultimately aims to allow the reader
to see how each student goes about constructing mental representations of the Earth’s systems. Figures 1–3
portray the development of system thinking skills, according to the STH model components, both throughout
the learning process and 6 years after its completion. For considerations of space and because their results
were almost identical, we have unified characteristics 1 and 2 (identifying system components and processes,
and the relationships between them), and characteristics 7 and 8 (understanding hidden dimensions and
temporal thinking). The criteria used to assign each student to a numerically represented level are available in
Supplementary Appendix.
The developmental patterns that emerge are interesting, and they differ from student to student. Eli’s
starting point is equal to or higher than that of the other students. She shows a gradual increase in her abilities,
usually up to a level higher than the other students, throughout the learning process, and a slight decline 6
Figure 1. Development of ability to

identify relationships among system com-
ponents throughout the learning process
and 6 years after its completion.
years after. Tal’s starting points in each of the characteristics as well as her end points 6 years after are always
equal to or lower than the rest of the students; however, in between, she shows some drastic improvements in a
number of the system thinking skills (Figure 2).
Ofer’s starting point is also quite high, but what is interesting about Ofer’s development is that whenever
a sharp increase in any of his abilities occurs, it is maintained even 6 years after (as for instance, in his
identification of dynamic relationships, and his ability to make generalizations, understand hidden
dimensions and think temporally); on the other hand, components in which the improvements are small are
also less remembered over time (such as his identification of components and processes, organization of them
within a framework of relationships, and understanding of systems’ cyclic nature). Jerry’s patterns are the
least consistent among the students. In characteristics 1 and 2 (identification) he shows a low starting point
and very little improvement, which is also true for characteristic 5 (cyclic perception). However, 6 years later
he improves this ability beyond his achievements at the end of the learning process and rises up to Eli’s level.
In characteristics 3 and 4 (perceiving relationships) he shows a gradual rise and moderate decline 6 years later.
Finally, in the level C characteristics (generalization, hidden dimensions, and temporal thinking), Jerry shows
a low initial ability, a steep rise during the first half of the learning process, no development in the second half,
and then holds the level 6 years later in the former, while declining steeply in the latter two characteristics
(Figure 3).

organize the system’s framework of rela-
tionships and to understand the cyclic
nature of systems, throughout the learning
process and 6 years after its completion.
The Students’ ‘‘Stories’’

The presentation of each student’s story is divided into four sub-categories. First, we present a general
overview of the student’s particular learning pattern. Then we address the knowledge with which that student
began the learning process (corresponds to ‘‘1 month’’ in Figures 1–3). The third category describes the
student’s progression throughout the study unit itself (includes ‘‘5 months’’ and ‘‘8 months’’ in Figures 1–3).
Finally, we discuss, for each student, what they retained 6 years later (‘‘72 months’’).
Eli—The Metacognitive Learner
Overview. Eli is the kind of exceptional student that every teacher wishes for. She is smart,
hardworking, involved, and has a strong internal motivation to learn and remember. In her words: ‘‘I like
thinking, I like solving riddles and finding out that I can succeed. The best thing for me is to see that I’ve
succeeded in something difficult, that I’ve understood it. . . for me it’s like a game. Some kids like sports,
others like to study. For me, studying is like a competitive sport. I wanted to be best in class.’’ Like many
competitive people, she is self critical: ‘‘. . .my difficulty in science studies was different, smaller. Some
things I found quite difficult, I mean I didn’t catch them quickly enough when I should have understood them
already. . .’’ Eli becomes uneasy when she does not understand things fast enough or is unsure of all the

ability to make generalizations, under-
standing hidden dimensions and thinking
temporally, throughout the learning pro-
cess and 6 years after its completion.
details. Her wish to lead—not only in class—is manifested in the interviews, where she attempts to lead the
interview, talking about ‘‘the things that interest me’’ and asking a lot of questions.
In Eli’s initial system model, all the system’s levels of organization (the molecular, procedural, cyclic,
and system) already exist, and she continued to develop them using both inductive and deductive strategies. In
Eli’s learning, one can see a combination of these two strategies—as she perceives a dynamic-cyclic mold, as
well as a system created by constructing a web of components and processes while fitting knowledge clusters
to the system being constructed. Eli is a unique student in the sense that she shows a high degree of
metacognitive ability, which greatly aids her in moving between different levels of organization, constantly
monitoring what she is learning, and being able to tie it to previous knowledge.
Initial Systems Thinking Abilities. At the beginning of the learning process, Eli stands out in that the
products she presents give expression to all Earth systems and to the effect humans have on them. Her
knowledge prior to the learning process was quite impressive. She presented the interrelations between
man and environment right at the beginning. These relations are evident in her repertory grid constructs, in
her drawing, and in her first concept map (Figure 4). Also, Eli already had a dynamic perception of the
system and, even before the first field trip, drew the water cycle model and tried to incorporate into it as large a
Figure 4. Eli pre-test concept map (1 month).
variety of processes and sites as possible. While she did not yet possess scientific explanations, such as the
one for the rock-water relationship, she did draw the water as passing through cracks in rocks and creating
springs.
Progress Throughout the Study Unit. Eli’s progress, and the final product she presents at its conclusion,
is an example of the most sophisticated model of the water cycle one might wish a student to achieve. While
all of the levels of organization already existed in Eli’s initial model prior to the learning program, she
continued to enhance them both inductively and deductively throughout the study unit. During the field trip
and the knowledge-organization activities, Eli collected a variety of interrelations, immediately translating
each new property she learned into ‘‘what does it mean in terms of interrelations?’’ In doing so, she showed
not only cognitive abilities but also meta-cognitive awareness. Eli kept track of whether the new knowledge is
important and whether it is already stored in her memory. During the interviews she often used expressions
such as: ‘‘I know that’’, ‘‘We’ve already learnt this,’’ ‘‘I saw this in class so. . .’’, ‘‘what I’ve understood this far
and what I don’t know yet,’’ ‘‘this is important for me to remember’’. . . This tendency perhaps can account for
the very good memory she evidences throughout the learning process. When one of the interviewers asked
her, ‘‘when I compare you to other students, I can see that you remember that was said in class, how do you
explain that?’’ She answered, ‘‘I was interested so I listened and took the information into my head, and I also
argued against them so I had things to say and so I became really interested.’’
One central marker of Eli’s excellence is her ability to address systems on both their macroscopic and
their microscopic levels. On the one hand, for instance, she addresses the macro level of evaporation as a
construct in her repertory grid, claiming, with regard to oceans, wells and factories, that ‘‘wells are separate
because the oceans have a large surface area, they have contact with the sun’s rays. Factories have evaporation
pools and wells are under the ground, not a lot of water evaporates from them.’’ On the other hand, Eli also
made much use of the particulate model to explain the evaporation process, contending that, ‘‘in the fridge,
the water will evaporate, the question is how long it would take. . . it depends on the temperature. . .’’ When
asked what the connection is between temperature and the speed of evaporation, she answers, ‘‘when it’s
warm, the water evaporates faster. . . because when the water is warmer the vacuum between the particles is
larger, and then there are less gravitational forces between the particles, so I think that they evaporate
faster. . . But in the fridge they’ll evaporate anyway.’’
Eli’s attainment of the three highest levels of systems thinking in the STH model is indicated by her
environmental consciousness and her continual attention to the status of humans as part of the water cycle.
This comes through in the feeling of responsibility towards the environment Eli expresses in her post-process
interview by assuming the ‘‘first person’’ position of ‘‘we’’ in such statements as ‘‘. . .we are contaminating’’
and ‘‘how should we act in order to preserve our water resources?’’ In response to the interview question,
‘‘what did you find interesting in the story of the investigation committee?’’ she answers ‘‘that in fact it is
humans who contaminate the water, they are actually ‘killing’ themselves, contaminating the water that they
themselves drink. So why not do something. And they don’t only hurt themselves, they hurt us all. That makes
me angry’’. In her post-test concept map, Eli even addressed social components such as government offices,
and their role in protecting the water resource, demonstrating an acknowledgement of the time dimension. In
the ‘‘Factory assignment’’ and in the interviews, she explained environmental phenomena as an expression of
interrelations that took place in the pasts.
The success of Eli’s metacognitive learning strategies, in which she combines inductive and deductive
methods of study, is clear from the complexity of the system model she presents in her post-test concept map
and drawing (Figures 5 and 6). In these products, the environmental story is refined to a high generalization
level (Earth systems) on the one hand, and a high complexity level of many interrelations on the other. As a
result, Eli arrives at an impressive branched map of 45 interrelations, 23 of which indicate dynamic
perceptions of the system. Her drawing is also outstanding in its attempted use of three dimensions,
which allow her multiple perspectives (above and below ground) on the same system. These two
products demonstrate Eli’s cyclic perception and awareness of humanity’s effect on the natural system
Figure 5. Eli post-test concept map (8 months).

Figure 6. Eli post-test water cycle drawing (8 months).
through over-pumping, desalination, and contamination. On the generalization level, both are also expressive
of the system’s scopes and sizes.
Six Years Later. Six years after completing the unit, Eli stands out in that, of the four, she is the only one
to make use of knowledge acquired after the Blue Planet study unit, in her high school studies of biology. She
proposes the construct: ‘‘water as part of the process or not,’’ in which plants are separated from sea and
ground water ‘‘because in plants, the water participates in many processes, as in the photosynthesis process,
but ground water and the sea are water sources that contain the water.’’ The molecular basis of photosynthesis
is part of the tenth grade biology curriculum.
She also continues to strongly emphasize, as she did in eighth grade, the dependence of water resources
on human activity. Presented with the concepts, ‘‘Earth, green groups and ground water,’’ she separates Earth,
and explains, ‘‘there are interactions between green groups and ground water. . . green groups fight against
pollution of the environment and ground water is affected by pollution of the environment. . . to a certain
extent, the quality of the water in the ground water depends on the green groups.’’
Tal—The Gatherer
Overview. Tal is a hard-working student who was highly involved in the learning process. She stands out
as another student for whom teachers typically wish—handing in all of her knowledge organization activities,
homework, and field trip reports. However, her dedication to her studies did not stem from love of the subject.
Tal expressed a general dissatisfaction with science studies and with the topic of earth systems in particular. In
her own words: ‘‘I think it’s boring. It seems important but it doesn’t interest me to learn about it.’’
Tal invested much effort in memorizing the different components and processes learned in class. The
data analysis of Tal’s drawings, observations and interviews indicated that Tal constructed her system
inductively: she gathered details and characteristics of systems and inductively built up the system from them.
Her earth system representation is constructed like a puzzle, where each part of the puzzle is one of the
system’s components and processes. Strictly following the class instruction, Tal memorized these
components and processes and then weaved them together with earlier learned material to form a web of
relations. While the effort Tal invested in memorizing the different components and processes did bear fruit, it
seems on the other hand that this emphasis on memorization did not allow her to move on to a more
abstract level of generalization, for while each cluster of interrelations she identifies expresses scientific
characteristics, these clusters are disconnected from each other and thus do not add up to a dynamic system.
Initial Systems Thinking Abilities. The cycle presented by Tal at the beginning of the learning process is
very partial. At the beginning of the learning process, she stood out in her difficulty to represent interrelations
in the system, and tended to emphasize components and processes related to the atmosphere, largely ignoring
the geosphere and biosphere.
Progress Throughout the Study Unit. The first field trip (month 5) was something of a catalyst for Tal,
marking a significant step forward in her systems thinking, as evidenced by her post field-trip drawings
(Figure 7). Following this field trip, Tal placed great emphasis in her drawing on the geosphere system with all
its details, down to the level of rock type. On the biosphere level, the drawing also showed water evaporation
from plants, and accurately reconstructed the exposed rock that was examined in the field trip through
geological observations.
The knowledge integration activities summarized the interrelationship and the transition of water within
Earth’s systems exemplified in the filed trip, encouraging a dynamic systems perception that is evident in Tal’s
post-test repertory grid. At the end of the learning process 4 of Tal’s 6 constructs reflected dynamic
interrelations between processes, an element that was wholly lacking in her pre-tests. For example, one post-
test construct refers to high versus low rates of evaporation, as Tal separates icebergs from rivers and ocean,
saying that the iceberg’s ‘‘evaporation is very slow, there are a lot of gravitation forces between the particles
because the water is in a solid state.’’ In another construct, she divides ‘‘spring, atmosphere and rivers’’
according to delivery versus reception of water, claiming that ‘‘water comes out of the atmosphere and rivers
and they also receive water, while from a spring the water erupts.’’ This latter stands in contrast to one of Tal’s
pre-test constructs, in which she separates atmosphere from spring and river by location—stating that the
former is located above and the latter below.
Despite her areas of significant progress, Tal’s adherence to an overwhelmingly inductive study method
nevertheless constrained her within certain limitations. For example, while Tal’s post-test drawing did present
several particular examples of interrelations between humans and the environment remembered from the filed
trips (such as contamination by pesticides), her repertory grid constructs suggest—by their total lack of
evidence of environmental influence—that Tal had not yet achieved a more generalized environmental
perception. Moreover, Tal found the factory assignment—whose focus was wholly environmental—very
difficult. In another example of limitation, Tal’s collection of details and processes did not create a picture that
Figure 7. Tal post-field trip water cycle drawing (5 months).
fully presented the cyclicality of the water cycle in nature. Although in the questionnaire interview Tal
claimed that there is no end and beginning because it is a cyclic process, it was important to her to find a
starting point. Her drawing presented the transition from an atmospheric cycle alone at the beginning of the
learning process to a fuller cycle in which there is underground flow but the water erupts as a spring and
reaches the ocean. However, the cyclic nature was completely absent from the concept map, in which there
were very few processes (only about 10%) and the cycle was closed through percolation alone. It is important
to note that Tal was the only student to not significantly improve her understanding in regard to the cyclic
aspect of the system.
Tal’s partial attainment of the implementation level skills characterizing the top tier of the STH model is
evidenced by her acknowledgement, following the learning process, of the system’s hidden dimensions.
These dimensions were not manifested at all at the beginning of the learning process, but Tal’s post-test
products address such hidden dimensions as the ground water system. Tal’s implementation does not,
however, extend to a manifestation of temporal thinking, as she shows no evidence of thinking retrospectively
or making future predictions.
Six Years Later. The inductive approach, coupled with the wish to excel, still characterizes Tal 6 years
later in her description of her military service. For example, she says: ‘‘Military intelligence is interesting
because it’s a lot of small details. I like it; it’s really interesting what I’m doing now’’. Tal continues to explain
why the details are so important: ‘‘Because I’m thorough and I like being thorough, it works—this
perfectionism, this way everything’s perfect, the picture is complete and there are no mistakes, that’s most
important. . .’’
What is striking about the results of Tal’s final interview is the dramatic decline in the dynamic
perception she manifests, and her return to the constructs with which she began the learning process. For
example, two of her ‘‘6 years later’’ constructs referred to animate/inanimate creatures, four referred to
processes taking place above/below the ground, and one to the property of high/low water salinity.
Ofer—The Generalizer
Overview. Ofer is a good student; he is focused, quick, and practical. He is also energetic and is an avid
lover of nature who often goes hiking, which accounts for his enjoyment of the fieldtrips. In the course of the
lessons, however, Ofer went about his own business a great deal of the time and rarely summarized the
activities in his workbook. In fact, Ofer said at the end of the program that ‘‘My level of interest in the ‘Blue
Planet Book’ was middling because we didn’t delve into interesting topics.’’
Ofer approached the study unit with a tendency to focus on patterns. Interviews with Ofer before the trip
and observations of him in the classroom both presented a learner who organizes the system on a generalized
abstract level, with an overarching cyclic-dynamic pattern into which he ‘‘pours’’ the details. Ofer constructs
his representations of systems from the outside in, by fitting everything he learns and experiences into this
cast. During the learning program, he internalized only details that served the pattern he was creating. Of all
the research tools, Ofer liked the repertory grids best because, as he said, they allow him to present his ideas in
an ordered and logical manner. This was also expressed in the emphasis he placed on categorizing things. For
example, as a construct in his repertory grid he said: ‘‘Hydrosphere rivers and plants—hydrosphere marks all
the water on Earth and rivers is actually a sub-category of the hydrosphere.’’ Further examples of categorical
division include: ‘‘The atmosphere and the hydrosphere are two important systems and plants are not a whole
system in itself but just a type of something;’’ ‘‘A system is the extent of complexity, how many categories
something has;’’ and ‘‘Atmosphere I marked 5 because it’s a whole system that includes the oceans. The
oceans are not a system, there’s too few of them, they’re very big but it’s not a system.’’ This focused, highly
abstract, and linked aspect of Ofer’s learning habits has its downsides. One of them is his difficulty to cope
with the interdisciplinary aspect of the learning unit. He said that he would have preferred to receive a lot of
information about one topic: ‘‘. . .the problem was that it seemed a little superficial, we didn’t go too deep. We
saw a lot of things but we didn’t really delve too deeply into any one topic. In fact, there were a lot of
beginnings of topics. I liked learning about the types of rocks, I think you could learn a lot more just about that
subject.’’
Initial Systems Thinking Abilities. Already at the beginning of the learning process Ofer presented the
system as very dynamic, an aspect that interests him greatly. The system is characterized by a variety of
processes, such as evaporation, condensation, seeping/percolation, precipitation fall, and underground flow.
Ofer also showed a good initial acquaintance with the system’s components but, perhaps because of his many
nature hikes, tended to focus on components related to the biosphere and environmental issues. For example,
in the interviews, he presented many interrelations as carnivore-prey relations. Ofer’s interest in animals
extends to their preservation; he talked a great deal about the hydrosphere’s effect on the biosphere and living
creatures’ need for water.
Progress Throughout the Study Unit. Ofer’s deductive method, of fitting all new information into his
preexisting paradigm, meant that his progress throughout the study unit consisted of a broadening and
consolidation of the framework with which he entered it. For example, the dynamic flowing aspect of the
water cycle is central to Ofer’s thinking, and accordingly, throughout the interviews, Ofer deliberated often
over the order of processes in the water cycle and about the amounts of water that pass through each of the sites
seen on the fieldtrips. In the repertory grid too, Ofer used the direction of flow as a construct: For the triad of
Ground water, rivers, and reservoirs of subterranean water—he marked ground water is the odd one out
because rivers flow, reservoirs of subterranean water flow until they reach the reservoir itself, but the flow of
ground water is vertical, from the top downwards, until it is absorbed.
One of the characteristics of cyclic thinking (characteristic # 5 in the STH model) is an understanding of
the conservation of matter. Ofer began the learning process with a strong but vague perception of substance
preservation in relation to water, resources, and waste: ‘‘I don’t agree that it’s an equal quantity, because what
comes up will eventually reach some place and will then go down. Maybe it won’t happen in a year or two but
eventually it will go down’’. Still, his explanation of matter preservation was much more detailed at the end of
the learning process: ‘‘The water that comes back to the sea is actually the water that evaporated from it, but
the problem is that each time a smaller amount of it comes back, and if let’s say 2,000 liters evaporates, only
about 1,800 will come back. Where does the rest of it go? Animals drink it, it is absorbed into the rock, or it
goes into the ground water’’. Perhaps surprisingly, the matter preservation principle—as pertaining to the
water cycle—was quite important to Ofer. As an answer to the question ‘‘Can you tell me, when you finish this
year and a student younger than you asks you what you’ve learnt in the eighth grade, what are the most
important things you would tell him?’’ he answers, ‘‘Perhaps that the amount of water in the world hardly
changes.’’
Like Eli and Tal, Ofer’s attainment of the highest systems thinking levels was expressed through his
attention to environmental issues, with which he took a practical stance. He saw dynamic interrelations
between rock and water—one of the topics that grasped his attention in the program—in the initial factory
assignment as a mechanism that underlies environmental contamination. His earlier and more generalized
portrayal of these interrelations was replaced by more detailed ones at the end of the learning process. In the
later factory assignment he explains: ‘‘I asked the geologists whether there are areas that are impenetrable to
water, so that if we build the factory on these areas there will be a smaller level of contamination in the water.’’
To the researcher’s question ‘‘Do you think there are places in which there is no ground water?’’ Ofer answers
‘‘Yes, depending on the rain that comes down and on the type of rocks in the system. If there is Marlstone it
will block the contamination. I would expect there to be red soil underneath the factory, so that it wouldn’t
absorb water. . . There are contaminating organic substances that do not break down in the environment, you
have to ask the ecologist, because the animals will be hurt, you can’t give them mineral water to drink’’.
Ofer’s practical attitude to the factory inventory is an example of his natural aptitude as a problem
solver—one who uses logical deductions; makes analogies; strives to see things from more than one angle;
looks for underlying principles; and one who can see cause and effect connections, not just immediate ones
but long term ones as well. Ofer said of himself, ‘‘I say to myself—try to see how the same thing can be learnt
in different ways. I like to listen and to ask questions, if you don’t understand something you should
immediately ask. It’s important to keep making comparisons; I’ve learnt that already, to try to understand the
basis of things, the principles. . .’’ Ofer’s interviews show his deductive thinking. For example, ‘‘The factory
can destroy the natural environment, a factory can affect animals’ reproductive system and then they will
become extinct.’’ Ofer made generalizations and he tried to explain them. He also showed simple common
sense, for example, in his explanation that most of the rain comes down on the sea because there is more sea
than land on Earth.
Ofer also showed an acute sense of the temporal aspect of present causes and their future effects. He
came to the learning process with a perception that processes in nature may be long-term ones. This can be
seen in the later factory assignment, where he noted that ‘‘The factory may have long-term effects, it may even
affect our children’’. In the explanations that he provided in this assignment, he used the hidden ground water
system to explain, in great detail, environmental contamination. What is striking though, in Ofer’s abilities in
this regard at the end of the learning process, is his complex and realistic understanding of the human
influence on nature from both an economical perspective—‘‘What’s important is the price in comparison to
the production of the purification plant, how much sewage it cleans a year, how much it costs,’’ and a political
perspective—‘‘What are the standards that are appropriate for the factory? Can the Ministry of the
Environment make it improve its conditions, in order to prevent it from destroying the environment?’’ and
‘‘What levels of substance are allowed, how can we reduce these levels?’’ At the end of the learning process,
Ofer used the rock-water interrelations as a pattern that characterizes the system. He regarded the effect of
human beings as a central axis in the story of the water cycle and placed strong emphasis on it, especially, as
mentioned, in the factory assignment.
Six Years Later. Six years after the learning process, it is the dynamic aspect which interested Ofer
greatly. This fits with Ofer’s tendencies both to focus on the abstract level and disregard the ‘‘mere’’ details,
and on the other hand, to excel in what interests him. Furthermore, Ofer’s confidence in himself and what he
knows appears to be justified: the characteristics he significantly improved in were retained over time.
However, on the lower system abilities, deemed less important and less abstract, Ofer did not focus during the
learning process, and these are less remembered over time.
For example, the preservation of Ofer’s awareness of the water system as a closed cycle becomes clear
when he takes care to state, before commencing to draw the water cycle that ‘‘basically, lots of things happen
to water, because it is a kind of circle, OK, I’m starting with the ocean, but basically I could start anywhere.’’
His dynamic perception comes through in a construct in which he separates evaporation from aquifer and
aquiclude ‘‘because evaporation is a process and Aquifer and aquiclude are rock layers that the water
penetrates’’. Generalization also remains very important to Ofer after 6 years, as he uses Earth’s systems as
defining characteristics in a construct, separating plants from streams and ground water ‘‘because plants are
from the biosphere and streams and ground water are from the hydrosphere.’’
Jerry—The Dynamic-Procedural Learner
Overview. Jerry’s story is unique in that he is not the typical student. As a child he emigrated from
Russia, and he had severe dyslexia, which made it difficult for him to read and to absorb learning material
from reading. Jerry found it difficult to write and in general preferred activities that did not require any
writing. Of the students presented here, Jerry is the only one who did not take an active part in the knowledge-
organization activities. Jerry sat next to Ofer most of the time and received a lot of help from him in the
learning process, in writing papers and in completing the knowledge-organization activities. During lessons
he often complained of being bored.
Jerry was very economical minded in his studies. In his interviews, he took care to point out that he only
learns what interests him, and chooses to take away with him only the things that he feels are beneficial to him:
‘‘I don’t study if I don’t receive some kind of clear compensation; it has to be worth my while.’’ As mentioned
previously, Jerry was classified as a medium-level student by his teacher, and indeed, Jerry’s initial abilities
were quite low; however, what is interesting about Jerry is the substantial progress he made throughout the
learning program in a number of the system thinking skills.
Jerry’s results are split in regard to the STH implementation level skills, where some are retained over
time and some decline. Perhaps Jerry’s history as a new immigrant, as well as his special individualistic
outlook on learning—learning only what interests him and only in the ways that interest him with little
thought for grades—yield less clear cut results. However, it is clear that Jerry focused throughout the learning
on the dynamic aspect of the water cycle; in the process of the water moving through one site to another. He
focused less on the details and, like Ofer, did poorly in the low level skills (characteristics 1 and 2). However,
Jerry differs from Ofer in that while Ofer focuses on abstract patterns and the big picture, Jerry’s focus is one
level lower—on procedures and processes. He is captivated by how water moves throughout nature; how it
transforms and moves from site to site, but does not seem to be aware of the whole pattern. In addition, Jerry’s
interest in how water travels in cycles throughout nature is enhanced mainly by the concrete field trips, where
he can feel and see the actual world, rather than classroom learning and knowledge organization activities.
For such students, the field laboratory and the use of tactile and visual aides is indispensable to their
construction of system mental models. A model of Jerry’s progress, based on his repertory grid constructs is
available in Table 3.
Initial Systems Thinking Abilities. Jerry began his learning process with only little knowledge of the
system’s components and their characteristics. He also demonstrated almost no awareness of interrelations
beyond the processes themselves, and in his repertory grid constructs there was no expression of the
interrelations and their connection with the properties of the water cycle sites. Jerry built his system
representation from a fragmented perception to a whole picture. His drawing is divided, like comics, into
three separate and simultaneously occurring panels—one showing evaporation from the ocean, another
precipitation from clouds, and the third a stream and ground water, but the three episodes do not interact with
one another. Jerry over-intensified expressions regarding the hydrosphere for both the processes and system
components. His pre-drawing also referred to the ground water system, but the water system was
disconnected and appeared as a sub-surface lake.
One of Jerry’s strong points, already notable at the beginning of the learning process, is a dynamic
perception of matter transference within the water cycle. For example, 50% of the links in Jerry’s initial
concept map were attributed to processes, in which a great deal of dynamicity was expressed. In his repertory
grids he also dealt, in over half of his constructs, with the system’s dynamic nature and the manner in which
the water moves from place to place (see items 2, 4, 6 in Table 3). Like Ofer, Jerry utilized a dynamic
perception to try and build a whole picture, but his cyclic perception was not as profound. Jerry came to the
Table 3
Jerry’s constructs throughout the learning process
At the beginning of the learning process (1 M)
(1) Percentage of total water on earth: ‘‘Humans are separate from rivers and streams because there is less water in
them out of the total water on Earth’’
(2) Water retention: ‘‘Humans are separate from atmosphere and ground because most of their body is water, the rain
comes out of the atmosphere and humans draw water from the ground water, so there’s not a lot left.’’
(3) How many species it contains: ‘‘Streams are separate from Ocean and humans—in the ocean there is the largest
number of species of living creatures, but human beings also carry a lot of germs and streams have less species, so
they are the odd ones out’’
(4) The speed at which the water moves within the site: ‘‘Humans are separate from oceans and ground water because
in ground water and oceans the water hardly moves’’
(5) Affected/unaffected by high and low tide: ‘‘Oceans are separate from icebergs and ground water because they are
the only ones affected by high or low tide’’
(6) Does the water come out naturally or not: ‘‘Ground water is separate from rivers and lakes because it doesn’t
come out without human help’’
After the field trip (5 M)
(1) Is the water at the site salty: ‘‘Ground is separate from ocean and streams because in the oceans and streams the sun
evaporates the water and it is filtered, while in the ground the water remains salty’’
(2) How much rain and precipitation comes down on the site: ‘‘Ocean is separate from ground and plants because the
water evaporates from the ocean and more rain comes down on plants and the ground’’
(3) Usability by humans: ‘‘Rivers are separate from lakes and ground water, because the water there is more polluted
and human beings can’t use it’’
(4) Receives or delivers water: ‘‘The ocean delivers water into the atmosphere and the ground water delivers water to
the ocean in underground streams, but human beings are the odd ones out because the water comes out only
through body wastes’’
(5) Does the water pass on easily: ‘‘Streams are separate form icebergs and plants because they pass the water on to the
ocean easily, while water hardly comes out and moves on from icebergs and plants’’
(6) Extent of water movement: ‘‘Ground water is separate from oceans and streams because in oceans and streams the
water is constantly moving, while in ground water it depends on the type of rock, if it’s perforated’’
At the end of the learning process (8 M)
(1) Extent of water evaporation: ‘‘Plants, oceans and icebergs: the oceans cover most of the surface of the Earth, so
the most water evaporates from them. In the poles the water also evaporates, we learnt that in class, and in class
the water evaporates the least, they lose water through the pores’’
(2) Continuation of water in the water cycle: ‘‘Oceans, streams and ground water—the water continues in the cycle
from the streams and the ocean, but it gets stuck in the ground water—it can only be discharged through great
pressure that creates a spring or earthquakes that create underground streams’’
(3) Pace of change that the water’s properties go through in the site: ‘‘Ocean, streams and ground—in the ocean there is
the most change because when the water evaporates it remains with the salts, and in the streams the water takes the
minerals from the rocks in the ground, but that’s a very slow change’’
(4) Quantity of water returning to it in the cycle: ‘‘Oceans, streams and lakes—not all of the water returns to the
streams and lakes, but most of the water that evaporates from the ocean returns to it in the water cycle’’
(5) Affected/unaffected by climate: ‘‘Atmosphere, rivers and streams—the atmosphere is highly affected by the
climate, while the streams and rivers are hardly affected by it in the short range, only after many years, for instance
if there’s a drought’’
(6) Receives or delivers water into the water cycle: ‘‘Plants, ground and atmosphere—the atmosphere loses the water
that it receives in the form of precipitation very quickly, while plants and the ground receive more than they
deliver’’
learning process with a cyclic perception of the water cycle but with no water preservation regarding the
quantity of water on Earth and the amount of minerals.
Progress Throughout the Study Unit. Jerry was not able to achieve the highest levels of systems
thinking described in the STH model, but his learning process was prolific in that it served to greatly reaffirm
his dynamic-cyclic perception. Because Jerry did not expand his framework of relationships, his ‘‘story’’ in
the concept maps from the beginning and the end of the learning process, remained identical: it included the
atmospheric cycle, the rivers’ flow to the ocean, percolation, and water pumping. Hardly any components and
links between components were added. Midway through the learning process, the basic dynamic model
remained and Jerry tried to design it scientifically, but this was not done in a wholly correct way, and he still
held on to many erroneous perceptions. For example, in a construct after the first field trip, Jerry separates
Ocean from plants and ground based on the amount of precipitation they receive, claiming that ‘‘more rain
comes down on plants and the ground’’ (item 8 in Table 3). By the end of the learning process, however, some
improvement is nevertheless noticeable, as in two constructs from the post-test repertory grid, Jerry mentions
that ‘‘most of the water that evaporates from the ocean returns to it’’ (item 13, 16 in Table 3).
Jerry did improve his ability to perceive the water cycle in nature as a system. His cyclic perception was
based on explanations that were more scientific, and was capable of presenting substance transitions in the
various Earth systems. As a result, he closed the cycle in his drawing through underground flow of water to the
ocean. In addition, at the end of the learning process he used the evaporation processes in order to explain
substance preservation: ‘‘The system of the water cycle is like a circle, if you’ve started at one point you will
always end at that same point’’. Nevertheless, despite the improvement in this regard, the initial lack of a
cyclic mold makes it difficult to connect all of the components and processes. In addition, as a dyslexic child,
it is difficult for him to read and gain knowledge from reading, so the assimilation is selective to events in
which he was active and the phenomena tangible—from the experiments and from the natural environment.
Accordingly, his drawing at the end of the learning process indicated some relations between components, but
the web he created was still meager in detail and interrelations. Again, his story did not essentially change in
the course of the learning process.
The end of the learning process also showed a significant improvement in Jerry’s ability to see
interrelations between rock and water—in all the research tools. In the repertory grid, Jerry referred to
substance transitions in the stalactite cave. However, he rarely referred to the interrelations between humanity
and Earth systems (Table 3). In the interviews, Jerry also saw interrelations between the Earth systems,
beyond the food chain that appeared in his initial assignment. Jerry did become aware of the effect of
humanity through the factory assignment, and of the interrelations between rock and water, but he still had no
scientific mechanism to explain his ideas. While Jerry identified some system components that were hidden
from the eye, such as the ground water system, these components did not take part in his interrelations. Only at
the end of the learning process did the hidden components begin to ‘‘communicate’’ with the other
components of the system for him. The geosphere received a central role in the fieldtrips, and is manifested in
all of Jerry’s research tools and in the interviews at the end of the learning process. In the last interview, Jerry
choose ground water as the concept that he understood best; however, he still evidenced an erroneous
scientific model of ground water, presenting it in his post-test drawing as an underground lake. The movement
model above ground was horizontal, but underneath the ground it was only vertical.
Six Years Later. Of the four students presented here, Jerry is the only student who manages to actually
improve his web of interrelations 6 years after learning. His interview made use of a great many elements that
had not been included in the ‘‘Blue Planet’’ study unit (such as biodiversity and industrial solutions), which he
claimed to have ‘‘picked up’’ from the media. For example, he proposes a construct in which he separates
humans from plants and streams, because they are not part of the natural water cycle, but influence it from
without, being ‘‘the only ones who can change the water cycle in nature. . .can pollute the environment and
pour sewage into streams and then the plants don’t have a habitat in the stream.’’ Furthermore, 6 years later
Jerry is still primarily preoccupied with the cyclic aspect of the water system. He separates lakes from
icebergs and ground water based on the continuity of their water’s movement to the ocean, claiming that ‘‘the
water from icebergs and ground water will eventually reach the ocean through melting down, evaporation or
water movement above ground, and lake is the odd one out because the water in the lake is mostly used by
human beings.’’
Discussion
Felder and Silverman (1988), categorized a student’s preferred learning style along a sliding scale of five
dimensions: sensing-intuitive (how information is perceived), visual-verbal (how information is presented),
inductive-deductive (how information is organized), active-reflective (how information is processed), and
sequential-global (how the information is understood). Each of our four case studies might be characterized
according the above five categories. For example, Eli is a more reflective learner (one who tends to say, ‘‘let us
think about this first’’), while Jerry is more active (saying ‘‘let us try this and see if it works’’). Tal seems to find
words—whether written or spoken—more useful (verbal), while Ofer and Jerry were more responsive during
lessons to pictures, diagrams, and flow charts (visual). Eli, meanwhile, addressed both the visual and the
verbal aspect, as is clear from the drawing she produced at the end of the learning process. In terms of
sequential and global learning styles, Tal shows more sequential tendencies, tending to learn a subject in
linear steps, each step progressing from and building upon the next, while Jerry, a more global learner,
progresses in great leaps, first absorbing information almost at random without seeing connections, and then
suddenly comprehending.
However, the analysis of the data of each student we cannot identify clear-cut distinctions as suggested
by the dichotomist model of Felder and Silverman. For example, Ofer exhibits qualities associated with both
poles of the second distinction (between a sensing and an intuitive learner). He seems, on the one hand, to
utilize a very practical approach, seeking facts and processes in their connection to the ‘‘real’’ world, but also
to show an orientation towards the theoretical. On the one hand he is usually drawn to solving problems in a
structured way, avoiding complications and surprises (sensing), while on the other he shows an aptitude for
absorbing new concepts and a preference for abstract topics and mathematical formulas (intuitive). This
notion is aligned with Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004) who pointed that there may be as many
as 71 learning style models currently in use, and it is not always possible to categorize students’ learning
styles according the above five dimensions.
Therefore, from our grounded theory based study we preferred to characterize the learning styles
according to the dominant voices that came out of the data, and that are relevant to the development of system
thinking skills. This ‘‘tracing’’ is what has been attempted here, with the hope that a better understanding of
how these four students ‘‘create meaning’’ will help us understand the processes that facilitate the
development of higher order systems thinking in the context of Earth systems. The four dominant types that
we identified as emerging from the data analysis are the Metacognitive learner, the Gatherer, the Generalizer
and the Dynamic-Procedural Learner. The following is the description of each type and its meaning to the
development of system thinking skills.
Eli—The Metacognitive Learner
Eli’s success in attaining the highest levels of systems thinking defined by the STH model is marked by
her metacognitive tendencies, and by her combination of inductive and deductive learning strategies.
Learning how to utilize such metacognitive processes is critical and thus, teachers’ should encourage their
students to analyze their thought processes personally and in groups (Hmelo-Silver & Asavedo, 2006; Sungur
& Tekkaya, 2003; Verhoeff et al., 2008). Eli’s metacognitive skills enable her to maintain a systems level view
while moving between the levels of analysis, synthesis, and implementation of the system thinking skills,
while creating interrelations between them. Such an outlook, from the components to the system and back,
allows for a better understanding of the interrelations between the components, seeing the abstract whole, as
well as understanding the layered characteristic of the system (Knipples, 2002).
Tal—The Gatherer
Tal is a hardworking and devoted student, who uses a highly inductive study method, memorizing many
small details and then trying to piece them together like a puzzle. This leads, on the one hand, to a significant
rise in the number of individual elements with which she is acquainted, but has the disadvantage of rendering
them in the form of disconnected ‘‘clusters’’ of information that do not add up to a dynamic system. This
‘‘islands of knowledge’’ phenomenon has been reported extensively in previous research. Ben-Zvi Assaraf
and Orion (2005) found similar islands of knowledge among their research subjects. Most of the students
were not able to tie the various water cycle components into a coherent framework of processes and stages.
Some of them demonstrated an ability to connect a number of components but not to create a whole
framework of interrelations. This accords with the findings of Kali et al. (2003), who studied rock cycle
perceptions among 7th grade students undergoing a systems-based learning program on this topic. Reiss and
Tunnicliffe (2001) reported that most students, when studying the human body, grasp organs as discrete
objects without interrelations and have difficulties seeing the body the ‘‘whole.’’ Verhoeff et al. (2008) found
that students evidence difficulties creating links between cellular level information to that of the whole
organism; thus their knowledge remains de-contextualized as disconnected pieces of knowledge. Similarly,
Booth-Sweeney and Sterman (2007) find that neither students nor teachers show much evidence of native
dynamic intuition.
Ofer—The Generalizer
If Tal is an example of a student whose learning methods are primarily inductive, Ofer stands at the
opposite pole with a learning pattern that is overwhelmingly deductive. For such a student, Reiss and
Tunnicliffe (2001) suggest the ‘‘deconstruction model,’’ where the whole is first presented and only then the
parts. Such an approach might facilitate the understanding that each of the system’s components has a role
which constitutes a part of the system’s operation as a whole. Students like Ofer need to always have the ‘‘big
picture’’ in the background; they always need to know how the details they are learning relate to the overall
pattern. This can aid them in remembering the details as they go along and not just the more abstract patterns.
Jerry—The Dynamic-Procedural Learner
Like Ofer, Jerry’s learning pattern leans toward the deductive, but his deduction, unlike Ofer’s, is largely
limited to the procedures and processes of the water cycle itself. For such students, the field laboratory and the
use of tactile and visual aides is indispensable to their construction of system mental models. Özmen,
Demirciolu, and Coll (2009) adds that the hands-on aspect of laboratory work can also improve student
motivation and promote conceptual change, an implied connection that is supported by She and Liao (in
press), who posit that various motivational beliefs about the learner and about learning can serve as
facilitators or constraints for conceptual change. For a student like Jerry, the learning materials must not only
be authentic, but also relevant. If authenticity refers more generally to the degree of a topic’s relation to the
students’ current reality, its relevance depends on the personal idiosyncratic perspective of each learner. The
constructivist approach emphasizes the advantage of connecting the study topics to students’ everyday lives
(Osborn & Collins, 2001; Osborne, Ratcliffe, Collins, Millar, & Duschl, 2003).
We suggest that the analysis of the four case studies can contribute to the understanding of three aspects
of science education research: the STH model, learning styles and curriculum and teaching strategies.
Generally speaking, all four of these case studies support the hierarchical systems thinking development
structure suggested by the STH model, in that none of the four achieved higher-level thinking skills without
first going through the lower ones. This suggests that each specific skill was in fact used as the basis for the
development of the next level’s skills. However, these four students also suggest that the attainment of lower
level skills, while necessary, is not sufficient for advancement to higher levels such as generalization and
temporal thinking. A student like Tal, for instance, was unable to fully achieve these levels, despite her hard
work and mastery of lower levels such as identifying relationships and organizing them into a framework
(levels 1–3).
The success of students like Ofer and Eli suggests that deductive reasoning is a potentially beneficial
element in the achievement of higher order systems thinking skills, a point supported by She and Liao (in
press), who connect deductive reasoning to Evaluation skill. Their description of evaluation is suggestive of
the temporal thinking skill positioned in level 7 of the STH model, as they claim that evaluation ‘‘involves
deciding what ought to happen next and formulating hypotheses about future events’’ (in press). The
generalized and temporal views afforded by deductive reasoning can be deemed particularly important for the
study of Earth systems, since, as Tran (2009) points out, if we are ‘‘to recognize how and why the water cycle
is important, especially for ocean and climate literacy, we must also understand that this water moves across
temporal and geographic scales where there are implications for geology, living organisms, weather, and
climate’’ (p. 5).
One of the interesting findings of this study is the stability of both learning styles and the system thinking
skills that were presented by the case studies 6 years later. One of the questions this may raise is whether the
outcomes of the case studies 6 years later are evidence that the students acquired system thinking skills and
reused them to generate new models of the water cycle, or rather, that they merely replicated a long-term
memory of the models they had made 6 years before. This question put us in the heart of long discussion about
whether or not the development of system thinking is a context based process—what Riess and Mischo (2009)
call domain specific knowledge or knowledge about complex systems. Ossimitz (2000), for instance, argues
that system thinking is not context based, stressing the importance of procedural knowledge in the
development of system thinking skills, in opposition to Riess and Mischo (2009) who rather stress the role of
declarative knowledge in this process.
We suggest that in the context of the STH model, we cannot differentiate between the procedural and the
declarative components. On one hand, all four of the case studies were able to present the water cycle system
6 years later through concept maps that were not identical to their previous maps, and through repertory grids
containing a different set of constructs. These findings highlight the role of procedural knowledge, such as
network thinking and dynamic thinking in the students’ 6-year later reconstruction, as suggested by Ossomitz
(2000). However, in addition to these apparent procedural elements, the basic stages of the STH model (i.e.,
stages 1 and 2—analysis) are nevertheless founded upon declarative knowledge which is a result of
conceptual change.
What, then, is the function of the ‘‘Blue Planet’’ curriculum in the development of these students’
procedural knowledge of systems? We propose that it was a necessary instrument of meaningful learning,
which triggered in these students the conceptual change regarding the water cycle system that enabled them to
advance to those higher levels of system thinking that are dominated by procedural knowledge. Hmelo-Silver
and Azevedo (2006) claim that students must be ‘‘scaffolded’’ for systems thinking if they are to think
systemically. The ‘‘Blue Planet’’ unit serves as such a scaffold, using the water cycle as a concrete starting
point for system’s thinking in the manner that Riess and Mischo (2009) and Wilensky and Reisman (2006)
suggest the use of simulations, and that Yoon (2008) suggests using the educational system itself for
understanding system-based global phenomena. The same principles guided Kali et al. (2003), and Ben-Zvi
Assaraf and Orion (2005) who enhanced students’ systems thinking concerning Earth systems (the rock cycle
and Water cycle) using several types of knowledge-integration activities.
The constructivist approach describes learning as a process of constructing concepts while
combining the student’s previous knowledge with new knowledge. Therefore, awareness of the
students’ initial knowledge and perceptions is crucial for curriculum developers and for teachers
(Méheut & Psillos, 2004). Our identification of different learning patterns should lead to the development
of earth systems based curricula that provide rich learning environments and learning experiences, addressing
a wide variety of learning styles or patterns and will enable different students build their models in different
ways.
The present study indicates that in addition to awareness of the learner’s knowledge and conceptual base,
students’ learning patterns, which accompany them from the beginning of the formal learning and which
seem to be resilient to change over time (even years after the completion of their formal education) are
significant, at least with regard to the acquisition of system thinking skills. The findings indicate that what
characterizes students’ learning throughout their learning process remains stable 6 years later, and
furthermore that these learning patterns—the way students go about handling and consuming new
information and learning materials—determine, to a large extent, what they will remember in the long term.
References
Azevedo, R., Moos, D.C., Greene, J.A., Winters, F.I., & Cromley, J.C. (2008). Why is externally-regulated learning
more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56,
45–72.
Bencze, L., Bowen, G.M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects:
Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90, 400–419.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth systems
education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2009). A design-based research of an earth systems-based environmental
curriculum. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5, 197–214.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (in press). How Can Elementary School Students Deal with Complex Systems?
Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Bezzi, A. (1999). What is this thing called geoscience? Epistemological dimensions elicited with the repertory grid
and their implications for scientific literacy. Science Education, 83, 675–700.
Booth Sweeny, L., (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Web mail: http:/ /
web.mit.edu/ jsterman/www/bathtub.pdf.

Booth-Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J.D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and
social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23, 285–312.
Chi, M. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of
Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.
Coffield, F.J., Moseley, D.V., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles for post 16 learners: What do we
know? Technical report, Learning and Skills Research Centre/University of Newcastle upon Tyne, London.
Dove, J.E., Everett, L.A., & Preece, P.F.W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept through children’s drawing.
International Journal of Science Education, 21, 485–497.
Duncan, R.G., & Reiser, B.J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of
molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 938–959.
Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive
simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders.
Felder, R.M., & Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering
Education, 78, 674–681.
Frank, M. (2000). Engineering systems thinking and systems thinking. Systems Engineering, 3, 63–168.
Goldstone, R.L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the
Hawk, T.F., & Shah, A.J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 1–19.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Holton, D.L., & Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Designing learning about complex systems. The Journal
of the Learning Science, 9, 247–298.
Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice
understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Science, 16, 307–331.
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, 127–138.
Jacobson, M.J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and
implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11–34.
Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. (2003). The effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the
earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 545–565.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. I.). New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc.
Kim, D.H. (1999). Introduction to system thinking. In System Thinking Tools and Applications. Pegasus
Communications, Inc.
Knipples, M.C.P.J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education: The yo-yo
teaching and learning strategy (thesis). Universiteit Utrecht: Netherlands.
Latta, G.F., & Swigger, K. (1992). Validation of the repertory grid for use in modeling knowledge. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, 43, 115–129.
LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of
Educational Research, 52, 31–60.
Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling students modeling abilities: The teaching and learning of complex systems in education.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 45–52.
Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual
representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1024–1040.
Mandinach, E.B. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 5, 221–243.
Martin, B.L., Mintzes, J.J., & Clavijo, I.E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and
metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 303–323.
Mason, C.L. (1992). Concept mapping: A tool to develop reflective science instruction. Science Education, 76, 51–
63.
Méheut, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Teaching-learning sequences. Aims and tools for science education. International
Journal of Science Education, 26, 515–535.
Nicholls, G. (2005). New lecturers’ constructions of learning, teaching and research in higher education. Studies in
Higher Education, 30(5), 611–625.
Novak, J., & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Orion, N. (2002). An earth systems curriculum development model. In Mayer V.J. (Ed.), Global science literacy
(pp. 159–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Orion, N., & Ault, C. (2007). Learning earth sciences. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning (pp. 653–688). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Osborn, J., & Collins, J. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A Focus-Group Study.
Osborne, J.F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught
in school science? A Delphi Study of the ‘Expert’ Community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Ossimitz, G. (2000) Teaching system dynamics and systems thinking in Austria and Germany. Proceedings of the
18th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Bergen, Norway.
Özmen, H., Demirciolu, G., & Coll, R.K. (2009). A comparative study of the effects of a concept mapping enhanced
laboratory experience on Turkish high school students’ understanding of acid-base chemistry. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 1–24.
Penner, D. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806.
Reiss, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in
Science Education, 31, 383–399.
Rennie, L., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Children’s choice of drawings to communicate their ideas about technology. Research
in Science Education, 25, 239–252.
Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2009). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of
Science Education, 1–21.
Roth, W.M. (1994). Students views of collaborative concept mapping: An emancipator research project. Science
Education, 78, 1–34.
Schlesinger, W.H. (1991). Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
She, H.C., & Liao, Y.W. (in press). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2003). Students’ achievement in human circulatory system unit: The effect of reasoning
ability and gender. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 59–64.
Tran, L. (2009). Children and adults’ understanding of ocean and climate sciences. Paper prepared for the
Committee for the Review of the NOAA Education Program. Available: http:/ /www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/
NOAA_Education_Review_Homepage.html.
Verhoeff, R.P., Waarlo, A.J., & Boersma, K.T. (2008). Systems modeling and the development of coherent
understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 543–568.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Palmer Press.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing
and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171–209.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3–19.
Wu, H.K. (2010). Modelling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-
enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195–219.
Yoon, S. (2008). Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influences on student
understanding about complex socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 900–921.

Ben Zvi Assaraf2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ben Zvi Assaraf2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 47, NO. 10, PP.

Four Case Studies, Six Years Later: Developing System Thinking

Received 17 May 2009; Accepted 22 February 2010

Correspondence to: Orit Ben-Zvi-Assaraf; E-mail: ntorit@bgu.ac.il

ß 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

System Thinking and the STH Model

Groundwater Dynamic Nature Questionnaire (GDN)Identiﬁes students’ previous knowledge and

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Figure 1. Development of ability to

Figure 2. Development of ability to

The Students’ ‘‘Stories’’

Figure 3. Development of ability to

Figure 4. Eli pre-test concept map (1 month).

Figure 5. Eli post-test concept map (8 months).

Figure 6. Eli post-test water cycle drawing (8 months).

Figure 7. Tal post-ﬁeld trip water cycle drawing (5 months).

Jerry—The Dynamic-Procedural Learner

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

You might also like