Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study focuses on the development of Systems Thinking, which is particularly important for STEM, by examining the visualization of system maps.

In the introductory part, the manuscript summarizes the conceptual contexts and research objectives in a logical system. In the second chapter, the reader can get to know the essential parameters of the research and the applied methodology. Table 1 summarizes the empirical data to provide correct information on sample size and institutional background, and thematic links. Finally, in the Results and Discussion chapter, we read about the practical application of vignettes. Note that the graphic object in Figure 1 could be enlarged, and the map in Figure 2 could be more contoured.

The conclusion summarizes the experience of development work well. However, while acknowledging the originality and methodological novelty of the study, I miss that, although the manuscript refers to the problems caused by COVID-19, it makes minor mention of further goals and research opportunities

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I do applaud the authors for engaging in three different projects which I do see an abundance of potential to write about and share their work. However, I think the authors tried to incorporate all their studies into one paper and that resulted in a paper that, to me, has lack of a focus. I wrote my concerns and presented some suggestions which I hope would not discourage the authors but assist them in revising their work and consider resubmitting. 

Broad comments: Even though the topic sounds interesting, the paper lacks focus; in the abstract of the paper, the authors wrote, “This manuscript presents three vignettes of the classroom use of 8 mapping exercises within separate action research studies, involving diverse school types, curricula, 9 chemistry topics and student groups .” But does not indicate what the main argument of the paper is and the research question on line 108 and 107. “how can mapping be used to represent Systems Thinking skills while visualizing chemical processes? “ does not help the reader to understand how describing three vignettes would answer this question. My main suggestion for the authors is to choose one of the three studies that they described in the form and crystalize their argument and research questions.

Specific Comments

Introduction

-       I suggest the authors briefly introduce the main problem they are addressing in this paper and lead the reader to their main argument and research questions. The recent introduction is a mix of the problem statement, opinion, definitions, and literature reviews. It is hard for the reader to differentiate those.

-       I was unclear the main problem that is being addressed in this paper. Lines 19 through 22 state, “Traditional educational approaches seldom address connections between disciplines and are therefore inadequate to develop the skills needed for 20 young people to prosper in the 21st century [1]. Thus, new teaching strategies are needed that will help students visualize and realize the interconnectedness of modern society [2, 3]”. Then, lines 32 through 35 state, “Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education (STICE) is expected to benefit student learning through developing critical thinking and problem solving skills [7], and equipping graduates to tackle complex problems [8]. In addition, it is a pathway to incorporate consideration of sustainability into education, which is required by national curricula in the US [9] and Australia [10]”. Then the authors talk about the challenges of incorporating STICE in teaching, and then later in the paper, we are reading about students learning. It was not clear to me what the main topic of the article is.

Context and Methodology

-       I did not see any description of the methodology. As I stated in the beginning, three different projects are discussed, and it is unclear how they relate to the research question posed in lines 107 through 109. Vignette 1 is about one teacher in one classroom doing an iterative reflective cycle. The second vignette is about five teachers in a PD and references a pre and post-survey data with students, and the last vignette is about teachers in a graduate course.

-       There are no explicit descriptions and explanations of the data analysis and how the student's quotes were selected.

The authors did not discuss their Theoretical Framework for choosing their methodology and analyzing the data.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper explores the use of systems thinking in chemistry courses in secondary schools. It describes an intervention that consists of asking students/participants to create system maps of the effects of chemical reactions on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a means of deepening their understanding of the context in which the chemistry they are learning operates. The paper describes three interventions in relatively small settings. It provides two types of evidence that including systems thinking in the class benefits students: student maps improve over time and student ability to connect their learning to SDGs improves in pre- and post-tests.

Systems thinking is indeed critical to develop in students at multiple levels, as it prepares them to tackle the many “wicked problems” (Horst & Rittel) that we face in today’s world. Because systems thinking helps uncover both intended and unintended consequences, it will also help students to avoid creating “Black Mirror” (Netflix) outcomes in the future. This is all to say that I strongly support the direction the authors are taking in their work and with this paper.

I have a couple of concerns with the research represented in the paper, however. First, it seems that students were given very little direction in the creation of their systems maps. I understand the concern that there is a lot of material to be covered in the class, and that systems mapping may seem peripheral. But, it is not that difficult to provide students with some basic guidelines (e.g., nodes should be elements that can go up or down, connectors should be “same” or “opposite” – see Introduction to Systems Thinking on thesystemsthinker.com). The lack of guidance is clear in the students’ work. The maps they created are mashups of concept maps, flowcharts, and systems maps among others. While it is clearly beneficial to students to see how what they are learning fits with the bigger context, there is also an opportunity here to teach them some amount of rigor in their thinking.

This is related to the question raised in the paper as to how systems maps might be evaluated. If students were asked to be just a little more rigorous in the creation of their maps, it would be easier to evaluate them (e.g., are the nodes elements that go up and down?, is the logic associated with the connectors correct?). This would allow course faculty to make the systems work better integrate with the course and use it as a means of having students thoughtfully represent what they are learning.

On a different note, the paper mentions concerns from faculty about taking time to teach and have students use systems thinking. It would be great to know how these concerns might be addressed. There are many creative ways to build systems thinking into the class at both the micro level (e.g., as the amount of a reagent is added to the mix goes up, the amount of heat produced goes up) as well as at the macro level, such as is described with the SDG goals. How might you imagine making systems thinking a core learning of the class by embedding it more deeply in the curriculum so that faculty see it as more than peripheral.

In short, the concept of introducing students to systems thinking is great as is helping students appreciate the bigger context in which their learning fits. It seems, however, that this might be done in a more rigorous fashion so that students are learning good principles of systems mapping, including appropriate representations of their logic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf