Reframing Interdisciplinary Approaches to Systems Thinking For

Sustainability
F. Badurdeen College of Engineering, fbadurdeen@engr.uky.edu
A. Brown College of Engineering
R. Gregory College of Engineering, robert.gregory@uky.edu
H. Fu College of Engineering
M. Schroeder Department of STEM Education, mmohr2@uky.edu
D. Sekulic College of Engineering, sekulicd@engr.uky.edu
L. Vincent Gatton College of Business & Economics, lvinc2@uky.edu
G. A. Luhan College of Design, School of Architecture, gregory.luhan@uky.edu
all authors are affiliated with the University of Kentucky
Abstract. This paper examines the evolution of an NSF-funded Transforming Undergraduate
Experiences in STEM (TUES) research project entitled Systems Thinking for Sustainability
(STFS): Envisioning Trans-disciplinary Transformations in STEM Education, specifically,
detailing how the project team iteratively translated the course structure and lesson plans from
year one to year two.
Introduction. This paper discusses progress to date in an educational research project to
contribute to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education for
undergraduates, begun in 2011-2012. Preliminary findings for the first run of the course project
(2011-2012) -- including our definitions of the terms "system" and "sustainability" -- have been
reported in Badurdeen et al (2012). The project, a three-year effort, involves creating,
implementing, assessing, and refining a course called "Systems Thinking for Sustainability."
Using this procedural lens, faculty from several disciplines at the University of Kentucky (UKY)
-- engineering, design/architecture, business & economics and education -- introduce students
to systems and sustainability concepts and tools; students are then challenged to investigate,
create, exchange, and integrate these tools with ideas to tackle team projects with a local focus
but global implications, addressing the transition to sustainability, BSD (1999). While the
immediate objective of the project is to create, implement, and disseminate a successful
"Systems Thinking for Sustainability" course at our host institution, an ultimate goal is to create a
course template adoptable by other universities throughout the United States and abroad.
Working toward that goal, what follows offers an account of outcomes from a first run of the
course (Spring 2012), revisions undertaken in response to the outcomes, and preliminary
findings for the outcomes of this second run of the course (Spring 2013, still in progress).
Project Design and Objectives. "Systems Thinking for Sustainability" (STFS) grew out of an
observation of some unintended consequences: by the time our seniors reached a capstone or
senior design course, they had become so successfully educated in their disciplinary framework
that they found it difficult to work with anyone outside their discipline and were skeptical about
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Melissa Bilec and J un-ki Choi, co-editors.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2013 by F. Badurdeen, A. Brown, R. Gregory, H. Fu, M. Schroeder, D. Sekulic, L. Vincent, G. A.
Luhan. Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite As:
Reframing Interdisciplinary Approaches to Systems Thinking For Sustainability. Proc. ISSST, F. Badurdeen, A.
Brown, R. Gregory, H. Fu, M. Schroeder, D. Sekulic, L. Vincent, G. A. Luhan. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.816964. v1 (2013)
seeing problems in any other way than their discipline saw them. At the same time faculty in the
various disciplines were unhappy about the fragmented and sometimes simplistic way in which
sustainability, in general, was being taught, interpreted, understood, and integrated, if it was
being taught at all.
Clearly, sustainable development is a looming issue of great complexity that demands an
interdisciplinary approach in education and in research. Equally clear to us as a local problem
was the narrowing of perspective as students moved deeper into their majors, thus running
counter to the direction needed for tackling interdisciplinary issues. In a more localized and
pragmatic sense, this narrowing was not helpful for seniors about to work in multidisciplinary
teams in senior design and capstone-type courses, nor did it adequately prepare them for the
so-called real world where they would be working in multidisciplinary teams. Nor was it good
preparation for addressing sustainability, which necessarily involves the expertise of different
disciplines that need to work together, and thus must learn to value and to communicate across
the multiple vantage points needed to approach the complexities of sustainability issues.
The STFS team noted that these challenges were also opportunities: could we work out a way
to better prepare the students for interdisciplinary teamwork, provide them the background
needed for a good grasp of sustainability issues and by doing those things discover an
approach that could be formulated into a course design that might have a beneficial impact on
STEM education more broadly? Thus, the STFS project focused on creating an innovative
team-taught cross-disciplinary course for undergraduates (juniors) to help transform STEM
education. Four different UK colleges were chosen as a way to assemble interdisciplinary
student teams to tackle projects in a problem-based learning (PBL) approach, Boyer (1998),
and NSF (1996). The goal was to improve STEM education not only for these disciplines, but
more ambitiously, for all undergraduates. In this sense, our course would have the capability to
bridge the understandable but unhelpful separation between STEM and other disciplines. Thus,
STFS design brought together what might be called "typical" STEM fields engineering and
architecture with quasi-STEM discipline education specifically, mathematics education
and non-STEM discipline business, specifically marketing.
Communication between disciplines with different approaches to problem definition, kinds of
assumptions, and different domains for implementing solutions were anticipated as topics that
would need to be addressed. We emphasize that this formidable challenge was expected and
was therefore integrated into the STFS course design. Creating a situation that brought with it
the difficulty in communicating between team members from different disciplines was a way to
test a pair of hypotheses: that a common language (translated where possible into rigorous
mathematical formulation) and vocabulary could be used by the student teams to overcome the
challenges in communicating and that "systems thinking" in the broad sense, relying on "system
dynamics," Forrester (1968), NRC (1996), Meadows (2008) was another common language, at
least potentially, that could also be used by the teams to help bridge differences in ways of
framing and solving problems. It was hoped that these two common languages might help the
faculty team communicate as well, since this kind of team-taught course presents notable
challenges there as well. If students find themselves adopting a disciplinary perspective after
only a few years, it can be assumed that faculty over the course of many years have likely
adopted their discipline's perspective even more strongly, Schn (1987).
Thus, effective cross-disciplinary collaboration necessitates making ones assumptions explicit.
The STFS course design foregrounds opportunities for its students: (1) problem-solving and
problem-framing methods differ, sometimes radically; (2) these methods involve assumptions,
constructs, and models that are human creations that can approximate but can never fully
substitute for the realities that they help us study and (3) learning is in great part a process of
discovering and examining ones assumptions (and those of others). Systems thinking supports
these goals by highlighting problem and system definitions as active constructs made by the
analyst rather than as a set of givens that are simply "there" for the students to respond to.
Our approach was to make the essential concepts and their definitions a central topic for
discussion because interdisciplinary communication would require some basic agreements,
such as adoption of an agreed-on definition of system and sustainability. Once defined, these
basic concepts would be useful domains for identifying a problem; unified definitions would
enable using different sets of metrics, adopted from different disciplines to explore possible lines
of inquiry quantitatively. In our approach, the course defined a system as a collection of
constituents, featuring internal and external interactions within a given boundary, separating it
from the surroundings and allowing it to be open. In addition, the course defined sustainability
as a desired state of the open system interacting with the environment. With these definitions as
foundations, different disciplines (and their synergies) may then use (or create if necessary)
different metrics as indicators of an approach to sustainability that could be clearly expressed by
describing a desired state of a system, a description that might originate within a single
discipline but could grow to include others.
The learning goals for STFS students and faculty include (a) a better understanding of the
complex cross-disciplinary sociotechnical issues of sustainability, (b) an understanding of and
ability to use systems thinking approaches to better explore these complexities, and (c) an
enhanced ability to communicate and collaborate successfully across multi-disciplinary projects.
To achieve these ambitious goals, the STFS course topics and learning approaches work
seamlessly to be mutually reinforcing. Combining systems thinking and sustainability supports a
PBL (problem-based learning) approach that stresses self-reflective learning, team problem
solving, communication skills, and cross-disciplinary collaboration. PBL demands active
engagement by students, something sustainability provides through ill-structured messy or
"wicked" problems where scientific, technical, cultural and political areas overlap and act upon
each other. Students discover through assignments and project-based teamwork how and why
a cross-disciplinary viewpoint is the appropriate strategy for addressing sustainability issues.
The STFS project has multiple pedagogical goals, but the ultimate intention of this research is
the wider adoption of the STFS course template. We intend to pursue this by disseminating data
on student learning improvements as persuasive evidence of the value of this type of strategy
for improving undergraduate STEM education. Thus, the critical importance of developing a set
of learning outcomes usable in cross-disciplinary courses that bring together core STEM fields
with neighboring domains, where few if any such objectives are currently available.
Course Syllabus (Initial Design, 2011-2012) The design for the first run structured the course
in two parts: part one provided concepts, strategies, tactics, tools, and assignments to deepen
that learning and part two provided an umbrella project (offering a number of subprojects) where
topics and techniques could be deployed.
In part one, all of the instructors attended the class sessions, but individual instructors took turns
leading the daily presentations and discussions. The class also toured known sustainably-
oriented practices and invited guest lecturers and panelists to participate in the class structure.
Each discipline provided concepts and tools; for example, architecture provided an iterative
design-thinking framework. Examples included innovative "green" building designs, case studies
where a business or industry struggled with sustainability or historical situations where a society
collapsed and disappeared, apparently from exhausting its resources. After the brief
presentation that began each session, students were asked to respond to the issue or directly
use the particular tool. In an effort to better understand the mix of skills and knowledge sets,
students were paired randomly to respond to the weekly assignments. The two-person teams
changed for each class assignment. A sequence of assignments challenged students to define
a system, to communicate that system simply and clearly in narrative form, to broadcast
awareness of the system in the context of a public service announcement (PSA), and to employ
modeling software (Vensim) to analyze system behavior and performance that included the
relevant stocks, flows, feedback loops, and delays.

In part two, starting roughly midway through the semester, the students were assigned to teams
with ideally at least one member from each discipline. The True Colors personality tests helped
faculty define student leadership characteristics; the initial class assignments also helped
identify problem-solving skills. In their teams, the students chose and then worked on their
project. Their choices were constrained only by the need to be relevant to "campus living" - the
"umbrella project" - and to use systems thinking to explore sustainability aspects of their choice.

Umbrella Project. A well-chosen umbrella project was important for unifying the coursework and
for motivating the student project teams with real world problems. Working in interdisciplinary
teams, the students focused on improving the academic experience of students through
application of sustainability principles. For example, one project identified a problem with
traveling across campus inexpensively and efficiently; alternatives (automobiles, campus shuttle
service, rental bicycles) were assessed for convenience, cost to students and to the university,
resources use, health/safety of students and the larger community and environmental impacts.

Showcase Exhibition and Dissemination. As noted above, dissemination through a variety of
means is critical to the success of a systems thinking approach to sustainability. To increase
public awareness, the various faculty wrote media blasts for distribution through their College
listservs, articles were written in the university and local papers, and papers submitted to peer-
reviewed conferences. The ultimate event was a University-wide project review showcase in the
Main Administration Building hosted by the Universitys Central Administration. During this
event, the students presented their findings and proposed solutions and lessons learned from
the experience of the course. Presentations were made using posters, brochures, PowerPoint
presentations, and Public Service Announcements.


Figure 1: Syllabus Delivery. Outline depicting course delivery changes between Spring 2012 and Spring
2013 and the discipline overlaps while presenting course content.

Outcomes. To no experienced teacher's surprise, the first iteration (Spring 2012), while
successful on the whole, revealed a number of areas for improvement. For simplicitys sake,
the STFS team grouped these issues as administrative/logistical, teamwork, syllabus redesign,
and assessment. What follows briefly describes the issues, the subsequent course iteration in
Spring 2013, and our proposed next steps for Spring 2014.

Administrative/Logistical Issues. Faculty eager to work out the intriguing conceptual aspects of
such a course can be tripped up by difficulties coming at them from this not-so-intriguing area.
There were a number of issues to resolve concerning how teacher evaluations would be done
(a separate evaluation for each instructor? Some kind of combined evaluation of all
instructors?) and how students from different colleges could register for the course. The most
serious of these was difficulty in having a team-taught course recognized for faculty distribution
of effort. Not only does this add an uncredited invisible course overload to faculty, it is not
helpful for morale since it suggests that mounting such an ambitious interdisciplinary effort is --
all university webpage speechifying and marketing to the contrary -- not of value. This is a
challenge that has yet to be administratively resolved, NAS (2004). Less serious but still
troublesome were issues such as who the students should address with concerns or questions
outside of class and how the flow of duplicate cc'd emails can be kept to a minimum. While it
may seem a minor point, this uncertainty about who to contact made the students unnecessarily
uneasy with the team-taught format. A relatively simple adjustment, making one faculty
member the point of contact for all administrative student emails, solved this problem. Students
continued to direct subject matter-related emails to relevant faculty. Other issues with the length
of class and the classroom layout will be discussed below.

Teamwork Issues. Both the student teams and the faculty team had their difficulties. For
faculty, these included disagreements based on different disciplinary expectations and
assumptions; although it had been anticipated that these might arise, it did not make them any
easier to cope with. Not only did faculty need to work these out so as to get the project work
done efficiently, they also needed to model interdisciplinary teamwork to the students. So
among other changes, co-lecturing was introduced. In the first run, faculty had delivered
content presentations as solo efforts; in this second run, the presentations were done by two
faculty, who therefore had to work out in advance what the content would be, what would be
emphasized, and so forth. Although this approach was more work than doing a solo
presentation, the preparation process for these presentations helped faculty understand and
appreciate each other's areas of expertise and clarify where the areas of disagreement were
and what were only apparent disagreements. Students were able to witness faculty finding
areas of agreement and working out a clear communication strategy in order to convey the
necessary information. It was clear from the students exit interviews that this approach had a
profound impact on student teamwork. At the same time, teamwork was made more visible as
a topic for the course; students were briefed on the difficulties to expect when working as a
team and given strategies for coping, based on guidance in writing and revising a team charter
to lay out roles and responsibilities. Instructors and TAs made themselves available for
coaching on how to get past team issues such as freeloading students who did not adequately
participate or how to address issues where a single voice was too prominent.

Syllabus Re-Design Issues. A number of changes in the syllabus gave the students more time
to develop the new skills they were learning and to practice working in teams. Spring 2012 was
based on three 50-minute class periods per week and located in a classroom too large for the
group. Spring 2013 shifted to two 75-minute periods per week in a smaller classroom whose
desks were easily moved into different configurations. This change provided a weekly rhythm
for the first month: faculty presented material in the first class of the week and students
discussed, asked questions and practiced using the material in the second class. The
"application" class was also an introduction to an assignment due a few days later, where
students were expected to demonstrate understanding of the week's material. Thus, in this run,
students felt better prepared to tackle each assignment because the practice/discussion
sessions deepened the lessons learned in the faculty-led lectures. After the first five weeks,
faculty assigned students to teams, and the students selected their team projects. Hereafter, the
first class day of the week was used to present relevant skills for their showcase projects now
underway -- for example, team dynamics, issues in survey design, and so forth. Students saw
how the course assignments prepared them for the projects because in this iteration the
outcomes from the last year's student projects were displayed and explained during the first
week of class, giving students a sense of where they were going and what skills or approaches
they might need.

The deliverables for each project were (i) a PowerPoint presentation, (ii) a brief PSA video, (iii) a
trifold brochure, and (iv) a poster, each presenting the project results in a different format, with a
different audience, a different focus, and more importantly, different skills needed to complete
the deliverables. This approach is consistent with the university's "PresentationU" initiative, UK
(2013), which emphasizes educating students to communicate orally, in writing, and also in
digital video format. An advantage here was that individual team members were expected
provide the team with multiple technical strengths and skills, some used for contributing to the
conceptual underpinnings of a particular issue and some used for communicating solutions
clearly and persuasively. An outcome of this demand for all to understand and to communicate
was that no one could simply offer a contribution to one aspect of the task and then step back;
being forced to communicate the project meant all had to understand the whole project, not just
the part their discipline typically worked on.

An innovation introduced this year was the integration into the course of the University of
Kentuckys "eStudio." Modeled on a standard "writing center" framework familiar to many, the
eStudio unit also had coaching and feedback capabilities in both technical and rhetorical
aspects of using digital video tools and equipment, and software such as iMovie, Moviemaker,
PowerPoint and other software not every student was familiar or comfortable with.

Assessment Issues. An early assessment of the course's success in helping students learn the
basic concepts, system and sustainability, was conducted through a preliminary evaluation of
their depth of understanding of these concepts. All participating students were tested on the first
day of class before the course proper started and tested again after the first phase of lecturing,
approximately one month later. The taxonomy of cognitive levels adopted is summarized in
Table 1 and represents a modified version of the SOLO taxonomy, Biggs and Collis (1982),
Carew and Mitchell (2002).

The results of the testing are summarized in Fig. 2. The distribution of the cognitive levels
(Table 1) of understanding of concepts of sustainability and system before lecturing (a) and after
4 weeks of team lecturing (b) are shown.

The results presented in Fig. 2 document a distinct but not sizable change (improvement) in
understanding of the concept of system, with a similar but somewhat less favorable outcome for
the concept of sustainability. Confirming our experience in Spring 2012, it appears that these
key concepts are quite difficult for students to fully grasp.


Table 1. Taxonomy: System and sustainability concepts


































(a) Definition of Sustainability (b) Definition of System
Figure 2: Quiz Results. Summary of Results from Concept Knowledge Testing Quizzes - Pre-knowledge
Quiz In and Post-lecture Quiz Out.

Conclusions. A consensus regarding definitions of the system and of sustainability proved to
be of increasing importance. In addition the STFS team formulated the following conclusions:
(i) Change in the amount of faculty presentation and student team work is beneficial
(ii) Co-lecturing is beneficial
(iii) Intense coaching of students by digital media professionals is beneficial (eStudio)
(iv) Better student-teacher communication is motivating
(v) Insistence on grasping the basic concepts is very important

Acknowledgements. This work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation
under Grant TUES 1044232. Additional funding for Research Assistants Mr. Hai Fu and Mr.
Adam Brown has been provided by the College of Engineering, University of Kentucky.
References
BSD (1999) Board on Sustainable Development, National Research Council, Our
Common J ourney: A Transition Toward Sustainability, Washington, D.C.: National
Academies Press, p. 19 and passim.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9690, Accessed on May 5, 2013
Badurdeen, F., Gregory, R., Luhan, G.A., Schroeder, M., Vincent, L.V and Sekulic, D.P.,
(2012) Systems Thinking for Sustainability: Envisioning Trans-disciplinary
Transformations in STEM Education, International Symposium On Sustainable
Systems & Technology 2012, Boston, MA, May 16-18, 2012, pp. 1-6.
Forrester, J . (1968) Principles of Systems, Waltham, Mass.: Pegasus.
Boyer (1998) Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for Americas Research
Universities,
http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/673918d46fbf653e852565ec0056ff3e/
d955b61ff ddd590a852565ec005717ae/$FILE/boyer.pdf, Accessed on May 5, 2013
NSF (1996) National Science Foundation, Shaping The Future: New Expectations for
Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology,
http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/ehr/due/documents/review/96139/start.htm, Accessed on
May 5, 2013
NRC (1996) National Research Council, From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate
Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Report of a
Convocation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
http://search.nap.edu/html/ analysis/analysis.pdf, Accessed on May 05, 2013
Meadows, D. (2008) Thinking in Systems: a Primer, ed. Diana Wright, White River
J unction, Vt.: Chelsea Green.
Schn, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. NY: J ossey-Bass.
NAS (2004) National Academy of Sciences. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html, Accessed on May 05, 2013UK (2013)
PresentationU Initiative UKs Quality Enhancement Plan.
http://www.uky.edu/presentationu/ Accessed on May 05, 2013
Biggs, J . B. and Collis, K. F. (1982) Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO
Taxonomy (New York: Academic Press).
Carew, A.L. and Mitchell, C.A. (2002). Characterizing undergraduate engineering
students understanding of sustainability. EUR. J . ENG. ED., VOL. 27, NO. 4, 349
361.