From a generic point of view, I was lacking the overall picture when I did my Bachelors (Computer Science), we learnt a lot of disciplines (Databases, programming, software analysis and design...) basically all the aspects but I could not connect it together, this came about my last year of bachelors and throughout my master.

The question is if that is natural or if it came by when combining all these aspects in more advanced subjects - I would say that you first give students pieces of the puzzle and then you connect them in more advanced subjects.

It is even easier to go deeper into these puzzle pieces because you see the connections.

It would be interesting to see if the bottom-up approach is better than the top-down approach :).

Thank you Marek Spányik for your contribution. I'm presently researching, teaching, and assessing systems thinking in first-year engineering education, so I'm interested to see what the arguments for and against are. How do you see this connection you are talking about? What would you expect to see being taught to students in terms of a systems approach, once they've got the pieces of the puzzles clear?

I think teaching this subject to students of last year makes more understanding,for the students got enough thoughts of the subjects they have studied through previous years. Regards.

I trained enlisted and commissioned officers in marine steam propulsion and power generation for several years in the USN.

A systems perspective from day one was emphasized both by the people who mentored me and by me afterwards. Fortunately I worked with people directly in plant and providing a systems perspective of the steam cycle and its components was more than just visible it was visceral - steam pipes directly from the boiler are noticeably very hot, the seawater coursing into and out of the steam condenser at the exhaust side if the turbines is noticeably cold with a change in temperature as well from in to out.

All these observations and sensations then were translated into a systems drawing of the complete steam cycle which was then be abstracted to the very nature of water itself at the atomic level to the meteorological steam cycle that drives/provides biological life on Earth. I could go on and on...

Some took to this systems perspective like a light bulb flash in the brain (enlisted and commissioned btw) while others just wanted me to "tell me what I need to know so I can get out of this hot, sweaty, noisy room"

Yes I think teaching systems level thinking in early undergraduate education is a good idea.

Thank you Edward Vogel for that insightful comment. I believe a systems perspective is important to imbue to students from day 1, even if all they get from it is the understanding that there's such a thing as a systems perspective. That alone is quite the revelation for some of them, while others as you've said "just want the facts". My issue with waiting to teach them systems thinking until they gain more knowledge and experience is that they won't apply the systems perspective to any of their experiences until the point where they are taught such a perspective exists, and how to apply it.

Nearly all of my first-year students have never heard of the term 'systems thinking' (I always ask them and it's always only a few hands that are raised). Those who have heard of the term usually cannot offer a substantial description/definition of it, in contrast to, say, analytical thinking or creative thinking. I'd venture a guess that systems thinking isn't something many people consciously engage in before attending higher education.

Thank you Medhat Elsahookie for your comment. Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by your comment? My concern is that if we wait until later years, then students will not integrate their learnings in a systems perspective until much later. This may slow down the development of their systems thinking, and delay it until much later, so they'll have less time to develop it while doing their degree course.

Dear Lavi: I still believe that giving courses on ways or systems of thinking at third and fourth yr could be better to students for they had enough knowledge about other subjects and they are more mentally matured

.Regards.

Systems thinking is a general research method, so the systems approach (thinking) should always be taught.

Oleksandr Tarasov indeed, but I've heard arguments (like some have argued here) that we shouldn't teach systems thinking in the first year of engineering education, because the students don't have the required knowledge and skills to make sense of it or apply it.

Dear Rea Lavi:

The following definition of systems thinking caught my attention:

From "A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach"

@https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915002860

A new definition is proposed – to define systems thinking as a system by identifying its goal and then elaborating upon both its elements and the interconnections between these elements. The idea of defining a system by its goal is ubiquitous and can be found in myriad systems around us – a water treatment system, a house heating system, a power system or a transportation system – these systems are all named by their purpose. Thusly, systems thinking can also be defined in terms of its purpose. Once this is done, the elements and interconnections between these elements will be elaborated further. First, the objective definition: Systems thinking is a set of synergistic analytic skills used to improve the capability of identifying and understanding systems, predicting their behaviours, and devising modifications to them in order to produce desired effects. These skills work together as a system. The elegance of this definition is in its simplicity and utility. With a bit of background on the nature of a system, this definition could be presented in an understandable way to an audience with no background in systems science.

The terms included in the definition are themselves defined as the following: #Systems: Groups or combinations of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming collective entities.

#Synergistic: Characteristic of synergy, which is the interaction of elements in a way that, when combined, produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements.

#Analytical skills: Skills that provide the ability to visualize, articulate, and solve both complex and uncomplicated problems and concepts and make decisions that are sensible and based on available information. Such skills include demonstration of the ability to apply logical thinking to gathering and analyzing information, designing and testing solutions to problems, and formulating plans.

#Identify: To recognize as being a particular thing.

#Understand: To be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of.

#Predict: To foretell as a deducible consequence.

#Devise modifications: To contrive, plan, or elaborate changes or adjustments.

########################

So Systems thinking expands the range of choices available for solving a problem by broadening our thinking and helping us articulate problems in new and different ways. At the same time, the principles of systems thinking make us aware that there are no perfect solutions; the choices we make will have an impact on other parts of the system. By anticipating the impact of each trade-off, we can minimize its severity or even use it to our own advantage. Systems thinking therefore allows us to make informed choices.

Systems thinking is also valuable for telling compelling stories that describe how a system works. For example, the practice of drawing causal loop diagrams forces a team to develop shared pictures, or stories, of a situation. The tools are effective vehicles for identifying, describing, and communicating your understand.

################

It’s important to remember that the term “systems thinking” can mean different things to different people. The discipline of systems thinking is more than just a collection of tools and methods – it’s also an underlying philosophy. Many beginners are attracted to the tools, such as causal loop diagrams and management flight simulators, in hopes that these tools will help them deal with persistent business problems. But systems thinking is also a sensitivity to the circular nature of the world we live in; an awareness of the role of structure in creating the conditions we face; a recognition that there are powerful laws of systems operating that we are unaware of; a realization that there are consequences to our actions that we are oblivious to.

Systems thinking is also a diagnostic tool. As in the medical field, effective treatment follows thorough diagnosis. In this sense, systems thinking is a disciplined approach for examining problems more completely and accurately before acting. It allows us to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions.

Systems thinking often involves moving from observing events or data, to identifying patterns of behavior overtime, to surfacing the underlying structures that drive those events and patterns. By understanding and changing structures that are not serving us well (including our mental models and perceptions), we can expand the choices available to us and create more satisfying, long-term solutions to chronic problems.

In general, a systems thinking perspective requires curiosity, clarity, compassion, choice, and courage. This approach includes the willingness to see a situation more fully, to recognize that we are interrelated, to acknowledge that there are often multiple interventions to a problem, and to champion interventions that may not be popular (see “The Systems Orientation: From Curiosity to Courage,”V5N9).

################

Finally, in my opinion you can teach it at any time....

I hope it will be helpful...

Best regards...

Saad Javed - thank you very much for suggesting we look at the work of Frederick Soddy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Soddy) His economic theory developed from his understanding of thermodynamics is a great illustration of system thinking.

@saad javed thank you for introduction me to a thinker I wasn't aware of!

Dear Rea Lavi:

In response to the question you raised, I think education in systems thinking should start early in engineering education. As a student studying engineering at the undergraduate and master's level, I am thinking that if I had a systems thinking approach early on, I would have a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of some projects or areas, etc. One thing to consider is that systems thinking could also be taught throughout the four years of undergraduate studies, just like courses such as ethical thinking, with the content taught in the first year, second year, etc. showing a hierarchy of elevated characteristics.

Best wishes.：）

Wenjuan Mao thank you for your contribution! My thinking on this topic is very much aligned with yours, and hearing different points of view helps me to better articulate my own position, and also add more nuance to it. In my own work as curriculum designer for a three-year undergraduate engineering program, I certainly try and create this learning progression you mentioned.

Saad Javed, thank you for bringing up this topic.

As I read your question, I recall my encounter with my 12-year-old son.

We set out to assemble a piece of furniture. It was supplied with five screws, but six screws were indicated in the instructions leaflet. He suggested that we could go ahead since it's only one screw that is missing out of six. Well, that is an innocent and ideal thought. However, from a System Thinking perspective, six screws are needed for the furniture to function. After a brief argument, he agreed that we return the piece of furniture and get it replaced with another. We took delivery of the new piece of furniture, which has six screws and assembled it. It worked perfectly!

If he knew that everything is purposefully connected, he would understand why nothing is more important than the other - if they were designed to work together for a greater good.

I believe that children should be taught System Thinking as early as possible.

Jude Orazuike, PhD

Maybe I am getting a little off topic here but I thought this might be a good forum for discussing this.

The invention of the transistor and its application to nearly everything as integrated circuits is an interesting topic for system level thinking. Incredibly tiny devices made in high tech factories that we rely on for everyday personal communication and transportation to global logistics and finance. All very cool stuff to discuss but the relative inaccessibility of the inherent technology to my mind makes it a kind of dry and largely academic investigation/discussion. Daunting even - "Yeah great, but what could I ever do to affect change in this arena short of a graduate degree, far far in the future?"

Organic material electronic circuits are beginning to find commercial applications in the biological sciences and their fabrication is possible with resources available to even a modestly equipped undergraduate or high school laboratory.

An example of making an OECT (Organic Electrochemical Transistor) is provided here:

Lab 12/13: Organic Electrochemical Transistors (OECTs) I & II – Fab component

https://canvas.colorado.edu/courses/54704/assignments/586555

The attached paper provides further detail on OECT fabrication in the Experimental Section.

I think students making their very own transistor, albeit one of limited application could add a very lively component to a system level discussion of transistors and integrated circuits.

Again my apologies if I am taking this thread in an unintended direction.