Article

Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education: Theoretical Challenges

and Opportunities
Samuel Pazicni*,† and Alison B. Flynn*,‡
†
Department of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin−Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, United States
‡
Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada

ABSTRACT: Systems thinking approaches underscore a holistic view

of the components comprising a dynamic system, including their
Downloaded via UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO on November 8, 2019 at 06:53:09 (UTC).
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

connections and interdependencies as well as their interactions with

other systems. Compelling international calls have been made recently
to infuse chemistry education with systems thinking so as to not only
better illustrate chemistry’s connection to other disciplines, but also
explain and address emerging global challenges. Doing so presents
exciting opportunities for chemistry educators to incorporate creative
new activities into their courses. However, to employ systems thinking
effectively in the chemistry classroom, we argue that considering the
learner must take precedent. Relatively little is known regarding how
chemistry learners interact with systems thinking, or the knowledge and
skills necessary for chemistry learners to productively engage in systems
thinking. In this article, we begin to address the discipline’s knowledge
gap about learning using a systems thinking approach. Our goal is to explore systems thinking from the perspective of the
chemistry learner using current learning frameworks relevant to chemistry education (i.e., information processing theory,
meaningful learning, sociocultural theory, and three-dimensional learning). Using this analysis, we highlight opportunities and
challenges for employing systems thinking in chemistry education, to encourage further educational research and development
using this approach.
KEYWORDS: Constructivism, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Learning Theories, Upper-Division Undergraduate,
Systems Thinking

■ INTRODUCTION
This contribution aims to describe potential opportunities and
thinking,3,4 examples of classroom activities, courses,5 con-
nections with green chemistry,6,7 secondary school education,8
challenges for system thinking from a learning framework assessment,9 and future directions.10
perspective. To employ systems thinking effectively in the A systems thinking approach in chemistry education moves
classroom, considering the learner is paramount. To date, little beyond providing context in pursuit of deeper insight.
empirical work has been done in employing systems thinking Chemistry is closely connected with other scientific disciplines
in chemistry assessment, learning, and teaching as part of the and is often referred to as “the central science”.11 However,
IUPAC funded Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education traditional chemistry courses rarely afford students the
(STICE) project. Therefore, we offer a theoretical analysis that opportunity to explore the interface of chemistry and other
outlines opportunities and challenges to consider for learning
concepts, disciplines, and global issues. Additionally, due to the
chemistry using a systems thinking approach. To perform this
analysis, we chose four leading constructivist learning frame- reductionist approaches often employed in chemistry in-
works that are commonly leveraged in chemistry education: struction and assessment, the scope of many chemistry courses
meaningful learning, sociocultural theory, modern information is often regarded as “a mile wide and an inch deep” (ref 1, p.
processing theory, and three-dimensional learning.1,2 To 6062). A systems thinking approach has the potential to
consistently and robustly consider a learner engaged in a present a more holistic view of chemistry when employed in
systems thinking approach in accordance with each learning complement to existing curricular approaches.12
framework, we framed the analysis using two intended learning
outcomes for applying systems thinking to chemistry
Special Issue: Reimagining Chemistry Education: Systems Thinking,
education, an empirical model of systems thinking character-
and Green and Sustainable Chemistry
istics, and one system as an illustrative example. We hope that
this focus on learners and learning will complement the other Received: April 27, 2019
contributions to this Journal’s special issue on systems Revised: August 9, 2019
thinking, including the history and context of systems
© XXXX American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc. A DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

We conjecture that the unique set of skills associated with Cooper and Klymkowski.16 The third is insight into how
systems thinking, when leveraged appropriately, can provide chemical substances and processes contribute to and interact
students deeper insight into chemistry. A system is model with the economic, environmental, societal, etc. factors of the
which possesses at least three characteristics: (i) components/ broader human experience. For example, systems thinking
parts, (ii) interconnections between the components, and (iii) would permit students to apply chemical bonding concepts to
a purpose.13 Systems thinking, therefore, is “the ability to explain various aspects of toxicity, climate change, or the
understand and interpret complex systems” (ref 14, p. 655). energy economy.17
Systems thinking enacts a variety of skills3 to holistically Although Figure 1 relates chemistry, its allied disciplines,
interrogate systems, and ultimately to enhance our under- and the human experience through systems thinking, the
standing of complex behaviors and phenomena within and reader is cautioned not to interpret systems thinking
between systems. Systems thinking also enables one to see instructional approaches as only providing context to chemistry
emergent systems-level phenomena that may not have been concepts (e.g., the SENCER project,18,19 or Chemistry in
predicted to arise from the sum of the system’s component Context20). As Talanquer argues in another contribution to this
parts. Thus, engaging systems thinking skills (described in special issue, context should constitute only one aspect of
more detail below) may help students gain deeper insight into chemical systems thinking.9 For example, a systems thinking
chemistryin three potential ways (Figure 1). The first is approach that leverages the United Nations sustainable
development goal of Climate Action21 would use models
with specific boundaries that permit focus on the dynamic
interrelations and connections between chemistry concepts
and specific climate science ideas so that students can build
and demonstrate understanding of not only chemistry, but also
chemistry’s complex relationships with climate. Such an
approach would encourage movement from students possess-
ing a fragmented knowledge22 of chemical bonding, for
example, to students using bonding concepts to explain why
so much attention is given to atmospheric levels of carbon
dioxide, even though many other “greenhouse gases” exist. In
contrast, presenting examples related to climate change when
teaching chemistry concepts would not engage students in
Figure 1. Potential insight provided by applying systems thinking to systems thinking behaviors and would not be considered a
chemistry education. systems thinking approach.

insight into the discipline itself: as an organized system of

substances and processes, modeled and explained using
■ PERSPECTIVES ADOPTED FOR ANALYSIS
The Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model Describes
physical principles and core ideas, and represented with
Systems Thinking Skills from a Learner’s Point of View
specialized language and symbols. For example, systems
thinking approaches could be used to conceptualize the To robustly address theoretical challenges and opportunities
dynamic relationships between chemicals and/or chemical for employing systems in the chemistry classroom, under-
processeskey to using, for example, theoretical computations standing what a learner is doing when engaged in systems
of reactive intermediates to optimize a synthetic yield. The thinking is imperative. However, relatively little is known
second is insight into how a knowledge of chemistry can be regarding how chemistry learners interact with systems, or the
used to understand atomic- and molecular-level processes in knowledge and skills necessary for chemistry learners to
other disciplines. A systems thinking approach could help productively engage in systems thinking. As discussed by
students more coherently navigate the structure−function Orgill, York, and MacKeller in another contribution to this
emphasis of chemistry and the structure−function emphasis of special issue,3 various collections of skills that define systems
biology, realizing the united structure−property-function thinking have been put forward. For this analysis, we chose
framework proposed by Kohn and colleagues,15 or develop Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and Orion’s Systems Thinking Hierarchical
an interdisciplinary understanding of energy, as suggested by Model23 (summarized in Scheme 1). While further work is

Scheme 1. A Summary of the Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model

B DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

needed to validate any systems thinking skills framework in an to use their chemistry knowledge to perform systems thinking
undergraduate chemistry context, we found the Systems tasks. Although the learning outcomes stated here will likely
Thinking Hierarchical Model valuable to this analysis for two evolve as work in this area matures, such statements are crucial
reasons. First, the Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model was as we consider introducing systems thinking into chemistry
developed empirically and in a STEM context, using research learning environments. We must consider the learner as we
with junior high school students and the water cycle. Other navigate teaching chemistry through a systems thinking lens
commentaries on systems thinking skills (including Rich- and systems thinking skills through a chemistry lens.
mond’s seven systems thinking skills24 and the systems A System Involving Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change
thinking skills included in the American Public Health Was Chosen To Illustrate Analyses
Association’s Public Health Core Competencies25) are neither Many chemical systems can be identified and explored using a
empirically derived nor intended for STEM education. Second, systems thinking approach, including those that present mostly
the organization of the Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model chemical phenomena and those that connect chemistry to
as a hierarchy of skills developed in a sequential manner broader human experiences. For this analysis, we chose a
provides additional insight into a learner’s ability to engage in chemical system focused on CO2 and climate change that has
systems thinking. While beyond the scope of this contribution, been described previously (Figure 3).26 This system was
anticipated challenges and opportunities could be mapped
onto this hierarchical framework to establish testable learning
progressions and classroom design principles. Such extensions
are not possible with other lists that treat each individual
competency or skill as singular components of systems
thinking.
Two Intended Learning Outcomes Emerge from
Considering Chemistry and Systems Thinking
To further frame this analysis, we were compelled to consider
what learners should be able to do following chemistry
instruction using a systems thinking approach. Talanquer
outlines three competencies that could be used in the
assessment of chemical systems thinking.9 The two learning
outcomes we constructed for this analysis (Figure 2) are

Figure 3. A system focusing on CO2 and climate change. This figure

is adapted with permission from ref 26. Copyright Nature 2019.

particularly attractive for this analysis because it highlights the

diverse chemistry of CO2 and exemplifies the ideals of Jegstad
and Sinners in that it features the “environmental, social, and
economic factors in addition to the chemical content of a
specific case” (ref 27, p. 667).
Figure 2. Overarching intended learning outcomes used to frame this
theoretical analysis: (1) Develop systems thinking skills using We Chose Four Constructivist Learning Frameworks To
chemistry and (2) demonstrate chemistry knowledge via systems Use in Identifying Theoretical Challenges and
thinking. Opportunities for Systems Thinking in Chemistry
Education
similar in nature, although stated more generically. The first Constructivism is an educational philosophy that emphasizes
outcome is that students are able to engage in systems thinking that “knowledge is constructed in the mind of the learner” (ref
through chemistry. Here, we consider engagement with 28, p. 873), as opposed to being given or imparted to a student
systems thinking as developing and using the skills outlined by a more learned individual. Thus, learning frameworks that
in the Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model. However, adopt this philosophy are suitable for considering the learner in
different and/or more nuanced skills may emerge as chemistry the context of a systems thinking instructional approach. We
learners engage with systems thinking tasks. The second have chosen four such frameworks that are commonly used in
outcome is that students are able to demonstrate chemistry chemistry education,1 each of which provides a unique and
knowledge via systems thinking. The central premise of this practical learner perspective: Meaningful Learning, Modern
second outcome is that students should be expected to do Information Processing Theory, Sociocultural Theory, and
something with their chemistry knowledge, rather than merely Three-Dimensional Learning. The former two frameworks
possess it. In a systems thinking approach, we expect students provide cognitive insight from large (Meaningful Learning)
C DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

and individual (Information Processing Theory) grained lower-level skills of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy Model
perspectives, while the latter two frameworks provide and begin to demonstrate their chemistry knowledge using the
perspectives on learning environments that support cognition system at hand. An instructor could use this information to
(Sociocultural Theory) and movement toward expert ways of inform instruction, perhaps revisiting the activity throughout
understanding (Three-Dimensional Learning). What follows the term in order to receive continual formative feedback.
are four vignettes, each providing a brief description of the Instructors Can Harness Other Types of Prior Knowledge
learning framework (all of which have been described in Systems Thinking Approaches
extensively elsewhere) and our analysis of systems thinking
employed in chemistry education through the lens of that Learners also bring more than chemistry and phenomeno-
framework. logical “real world” content to a learning environment. Each

■
student also possesses a host of noncontent factors (e.g.,
attitude, cognitive expectations, motivation, self-concept, self-
MEANINGFUL LEARNING
regulatory strategies, understanding the nature of science, etc.).
Meaningful Learning distinguishes meaningf ul from rote While not all of these factors are relevant to the present
learning in part by proposing a knowledge construction discussion, many are connected by a relevancy motif that
mechanism: learners construct knowledge on the basis of systems thinking approaches can engage. As described in more
their pre-existing knowledge frameworks. In addition to the detail below, harnessing these factors can potentially effect a
learner possessing relevant prior knowledge, Meaningful student’s ability to demonstrate chemistry knowledge through
Learning requires satisfying two additional conditions: (1) systems thinking (learning outcome 2).
new information must be presented to the learner in a Expectancy-value theories of motivation posit that behavior
meaningful way29−32 and (2) the learner must choose to depends on one’s expectancy for attaining a particular outcome
associate new information with existing knowledge.33 Because and how much one values that outcome.2 Measures of
two of the three Meaningful Learning factors (prior knowledge motivational beliefs (e.g., the Intrinsic Value subscale of the
and choosing to learn meaningfully) are controlled by the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, MSLQ35)
student, the only variable remaining for the instructor to contain items such as “It is important for me to learn what is
consider is the way the information is presented.30 being taught in this class” or “I think what I am learning in this
Instructors Must Leverage Wide Prior Knowledge class is useful for me to know”. A systems thinking approach
Landscapes When Employing a Systems Thinking offers opportunities for learners to explicitly connect chemistry
Approach with issues that matter to them, from local to global levels
The overall goal of presenting chemistry as a unified system of thus increasing the value of learning chemistry, and the
ideas that connect to the broader human experience may help motivation to do so, for many students.
learners better connect new information with prior knowledge. The opportunities afforded by systems thinking to move
As David Ausubel stated in 1968, chemistry education away from the fragmented and siloed
“The most important single factor in influencing learning is approach that it so often becomes may help to reverse a
what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach negative trend in cognitive expectations that has been
[them] accordingly” (ref 34, p. vi.). previously been observed in general chemistry students.
Although we often take it for granted, learners know a good Cognitive expectations describe a collection of attitudes and
deal (about chemistry specifically and the human experience in beliefs about learning. The Chemistry Expectations Survey
general) and each learner brings a different knowledge base to (CHEMX) was used to uncover a significant difference
the classroom. If we are to help learners connect new between the cognitive expectations of general chemistry
information with this existing knowledge, we need to identify students and chemistry faculty and a decline in expectations
and engage with learners’ pre-existing knowledge frameworks. across two semesters of general chemistry.36 In particular,
While this idea is generally applicable to any learning context, results were notable in the Reality Link section of the survey,
we argue that it is especially important when applying systems where students who hold favorable views believe that “ideas
thinking to the chemistry classroom. Consider using Figure 3 learned in chemistry are relevant and useful in a wide variety of
in a learning activity. A wealth of prior knowledge beyond real contexts” (ref 36, p. 1525). A systems thinking approach
chemistry will be activated as students engage with this system, would allow students to explore the dynamic interconnections
and a different prior knowledge landscape will likely be between chemistry and their everyday lives and stand to make
activated in each student. This phenomenon presents more positive connections between chemistry and “reality”.
challenges for even the most rudimentary skills of the Systems Given the complex nature of systems and systems thinking, a
Thinking Hierarchical Model (learning outcome 1), as prior potential challenge for chemistry instructors using systems
knowledge will dictate what learners consider part of the thinking concerns student attitudesengaging students’ emo-
system and what learners do not. Instructors must therefore tional satisfaction without sacrificing intellectual accessibility.
consider strategies for engaging learners’ prior knowledge Prevailing definitions of attitude encompass affective, behav-
effectively. For example, using a beginning-of-term sorting ioral, and cognitive factors.37 As stated by Xu and Lewis:
activity in which the ideas of Figure 3 are presented (perhaps “Just as a person’s attitude toward ice cream has a cognitive
electronically), learners could construct a system according to component (unhealthy, not part of a balanced diet) and an
their own experiences. Using this approach, educators could affective component (yummy!), so do students often say
survey their students’ prior knowledge landscapes, and how science is challenging (cognitive) yet interesting (affective).”
students are connecting the ideas in this system. What initial (ref 38, p. 562.)
connections do students make? Are those connections One may expect an increase in emotional satisfaction toward
chemically viable? Where do students define the system’s chemistry using systems thinking, as this approach requires
boundaries? In this way, learners would be engaged in the reconceptualizing chemistry content, rather than just employ-
D DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

ing different teaching methods. Engaging emotional satisfac- they are actively constructing their own knowledge.42,43
tion is important, as Xu and Lewis (using the ASCIv2 Historically, IPT was considered a mechanical learning theory,
instrument) observed that this construct was more predictive likening human learning to robotics. Modern IPT both
of achievement in general chemistry than was intellectual acknowledges that humans are not robots and deepens the
accessibility.38 However, doing so at the expense of intellectual theory by integrating the learner’s characteristics, including
accessibility will be problematic for the learner nonetheless. Of decisions, self-regulation, culture, and affect.41 The learning
course, additional chemistry education research in this vein will environment also plays an integral role in cognition.44,45
be needed to thoroughly investigate the impacts of a systems Although many aspects of IPT are potentially important to
thinking approach on the many facets of chemistry learners’ consider in the present discussion (including affect and culture,
attitudes. discussed elsewhere), for parsimony, we limit this discussion to
Systems Thinking Approaches May Help Instructors attention and WM.
Present Information More Meaningfully Attention May Be Drawn to Unintended Areas of a System
A systems thinking approach has the potential to provide Attention is the concentrated mental activity that focuses on a
instructor frameworks for facilitating the meaningful presenta- limited amount of information in sensory memory and WM
tion of information. For example, Liu and Hmelo-Silver and is often not consciously driven.46,47 Attention stands to
described a study in which students learned about the offer both benefits and drawbacks in a systems thinking
respiratory system using lessons organized with two different approach. Students are drawn to the aspects of representations
systems.39 When a “function-oriented” system was usedthat
that are most familiar and prominent, but not necessarily the
which organized information beginning with the function of
most relevant;48−50 however, they are more likely to attend to
the respiratory system (“How does oxygen get into the body?
inputs that are meaningful to them.51 “Even high-achieving
Why do we breathe?”) and moved toward its structure (lungs,
students do not always attend to instructionally relevant
nose, diaphragm, etc.)students developed deeper under-
events” (ref 2, p. 173). Attention will likely affect the lower-
standing than when a “structure-oriented” system was used.
level Systems Thinking Hierarchy Model skills (learning
The function-oriented approach appeared to have been
outcome 1), those concerned with identifying the components
organized in such a way as to facilitate Meaningful Learning,
of the system as well as relationships among those
as prior experience (breathing) was activated f irst, thereby
components.
permitting the learner to perceive subsequent new knowledge
Major considerations with regard to attention may be related
as relevant to the activated prior knowledge and of sufficient
to who identifies parts, boundaries, and dynamic relationships
interest. This “function-oriented” organization is in contrast to
many textbooks and lectures, where abstract, unfamiliar in the system: the learner versus the instructor. For instructor-
concepts are presented first, often along with unfamiliar constructed systems, care must be taken to include a variety of
terms. A challenge for chemistry instructors employing a components that might be interesting and/or culturally
systems thinking approach is that they must connect with what relevant to students. Those that are not interesting will be
the learners already know in an appropriate way. Otherwise, less attended to and may not be recognized/retained as
the learner may perceive the broader system components to be components or connections. A corollary to this is cultural
(at best) interesting extraneous details40 or (at worst) competence, which is less concerned with being culturally
unconnected knowledge to be learned by rote memorization. sensitive than it is “helping students to recognize and honor
Thus, Meaningful Learning offers insight into not only how their own cultural beliefs and practices while acquiring access
chemistry learners may interact with systems and systems to the wider culture” (ref 52, p. 36). Learners may not feel that
thinking, but also how instructors may leverage systems the system or its components represent or is inclusive of them.
thinking in the classroom. However, there is ample room and For example, students who have little experience with the
need for research on applying systems thinking to chemistry Earth’s coastal regions may find the Ocean Interaction
teaching and learning using the lens of Meaningful Learning. Subsystem of Figure 3 to be less relevant than other regions

■
of this system. Further, a challenge for activities in which
INFORMATION PROCESSING THEORY learners generate systems (either individually or collabora-
According to Information Processing Theory (IPT, Figure 4) tively) is the limited experience of the learner, with respect to
information enters through the sensory registers. Inputs both chemistry and its many broader contexts. A novice learner
may overlook chemistry content, broader contexts (or
connections between the two) deemed critical by an expert
because of unfamiliarity or lack of interest or personal
relevance. That said, these potential challenges of attention
can be assuaged by considering that a system inherently
permits multiple learner entry points. Students can engage at
Figure 4. Overview of modern Information Processing Theory, which the point that draws their attention most, either through
also includes the learner’s affect and the learning environment. interest, placement/arrangement/color, or at the direction of
the instructor. Students could also describe their experiences as
perceived as useful are attended to and transferred to working they connect to the chemistry in discussion; or, Indigenous
memory (WM), which is responsible for holding, rehearsing, Scholars could be asked to add their knowledge (which might
and processing new and already stored information.2,41 That include climate, food, and cultural impacts) to the under-
information may be encoded for storage in long-term memory standing of the CO2 system described above. One could also
(LTM), which is facilitated through organization, elaboration, conceive a learner−instructor cocreated systems activity in
and links with schemashallmarks of Meaningful Learn- which students contribute concepts, context, and connections
ing.29−32 As learners transfer information from WM to LTM, through their own attention filters while the instructor provides
E DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

Figure 5. Zooming in on aspects of a system can permit a focused analysis that avoids cognitive overload; zooming out can reveal the full system in
question. This figure contains material adapted with permission from ref 26. Copyright Nature 2019.

feedback with regard to these suggestions and plans for emergent properties) and systems thinking (e.g., dynamic
iterative future engagement with the coconstructed system. relationships, boundaries) should still be purposefully and
Working Memory Could Be Overloaded by Both the explicitly retained. However, because limitations of WM only
System and the Nature of the Chemistry It Depicts apply to new information, these issues should be relatively
ameliorated when dealing with previously learned information
While attention may affect the lower levels of the Systems stored in LTM.54
Thinking Hierarchy Model, limitations on WM may dampen These aforementioned cognitive load issues only consider
higher-level skills. WM has limited capacity and duration, and the system’s visible components, however. The higher-level
cognitive demand increases with the amount of information Systems Thinking Hierarchy Model skill “understand the
that needs to be coordinated.53 “Cognitive load theory is hidden dimensions of the system” is manifest in students
concerned with the learning of complex cognitive tasks, in struggling to recognize “patterns and interrelationships which
which learners are often overwhelmed by the number of are not seen on the surface” (ref 55, p. 1255). While these
interactive information elements that need to be processed difficulties can be observed literally (e.g., a good deal of the
simultaneously before meaningful learning can commence” (ref Ocean Interaction Subsystem exists below the surface), we (in
54, p. 116). agreement with Orgill, York, and MacKeller3) argue that this
There is a significant risk for cognitive overload (surpassing skill is relevant to chemistry in an additional way. Whether
the number of elements that need to be processed they be physically invisible (e.g., CO2 concentration increase to
simultaneously) in a systems thinking approach. As the over 400 ppm), at the atomic/molecular-level (e.g., physics of
number of systems components increases, we predict the interaction of molecules and radiation), or at an extremely
Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model skills of “organizing the large scale (e.g., CO2 uptake by the plant biome), chemistry’s
systems’ components and processes within a framework of unseeable processes will likely increase the cognitive load of
relationships” to diminish and “making generalizations” to chemistry learners engaging in systems thinking.
become more difficult; that is, learning outcome 1 is We must also be mindful that the WM of novices is easily
threatened. For example, if an instructor designed a sorting taxed in comparison to that of experts, who can consolidate
activity whereby Figure 3 was built from its components and ideas in their WM based on existing knowledge structures.
connections, the learner would have to consider 21 Johnstone extended this idea to conjecture that chemistry
components and 25 connections, each representing either a experts reason simultaneously on three levels (the “chemistry
positive or a negative relationship. Further, generalizing about triplet”, Figure 6): representational (using the language of
the effect of increased livestock production on coral bleaching chemistry: symbols, formulas, equations), explanatory (reason-
requires a learner to work with six components and eight ing with atomic- and molecular-level models), and phenom-
relationships. Cognitive load issues such as this could be enological (describing/measuring macroscopic phenom-
addressed by limiting the boundaries of the system being ena).56,57 This multilevel way of reasoning places an
analyzed,26 which reduces the number of informational unreasonable cognitive demand on the chemistry learner; so,
elements being considered. With this approach, the risk of a those employing a systems thinking approach may limit or
siloed chemistry education approach returns if too tight a focus the multilevel nature of the systems in use. For example,
boundary is used; the concept of a true system could be lost while Figure 3 contains mostly phenomenological items and
altogether. While boundaries in the system are necessary relationships, it also includes representational (“calcium
otherwise the system would be essentially limitlessthey need carbonate” and formulas CO2, H2CO3), and explanatory
to be carefully defined to retain the intention of a systems (“physics of interaction of molecules and radiation”) elements.
thinking approach. A complementary way to mitigate cognitive Moreover, instructors may expect learners to interpret many of
load issues is a zoom in/out strategy. The entire system can be the seemingly phenomenological elements using representa-
considered to a full picture, then attention directed toward a tional or explanatory elements (e.g. using molecular
specific area of a system and the interactions of that system representations to illustrate or a Lewis acid/base model to
with its near neighbors (Figure 5). When zooming in on a part explain the reaction of CO2 with water to produce H2CO3).
of the system, the boundaries are simply defined differently; These issues may be minimized by limiting initial learner
the principles of the system (e.g., components, purpose, engagement to systems that use only one chemistry triplet
F DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

While the more impersonal, architectural aspects of

Sociocultural Theory present opportunities for crafting systems
thinking activities in chemistry that are meant to help students
attain both of our intended learning outcomes, a challenge is
not to lose sight of Vygotsky’s true beliefs, specifically that
students develop a greater awareness of themselves, their
language, and their role in the world order.2 Most references to
Vygotsky and the ZPD refer only to the “more capable” other
(i.e., the instructor or peer leader) providing learning
opportunities to the learner as if their mere presence was
wholly sufficient.62 Overlooked in these cases are the crucial
interpersonal interactions between learner and peer/instructor
whereby knowledge is coconstructed between individuals who
each bring different experiences to the interaction and the
Figure 6. Chemistry triplet and examples of how the CO2 and climate cultural setting in which the interaction takes place. Therein
change model requires that learners reason at multiple levels. This lies a powerful opportunity for the systems thinking approach,
Figure contains material adapted with permission from ref 26. which explicitly aims to make connections beyond isolated
Copyright Nature 2019. chemistry concepts. Systems thinking can be used to engage
students in the larger social, historical, and cultural interactions
level, perhaps scaffolding additional levels as familiarity with that influence learning. Students from different backgrounds
the system at hand increases. This instructor scaffolding could will bring different ideas and boundaries to the systems they
include not only expanding the chemistry triplet levels at play construct, offering rich opportunities for students to learn from
in the system, but also introducing relationships that demand each other. If a systems thinking learning activity engages a
translation between levels in order to fully realize the learner such that a different self-awareness is achieved or the
implementation-level skills of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy learner goes about interacting with the world in a different way,
Model. then the learner has achieved the transformed thinking

■ SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY
Like Meaningful Learning and Information Processing,
postulated by Sociocultural Theory. However, making the
space for social connections between students and their various
ideas and backgrounds could present its own challenge with
Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory is also constructivist in respect to depth and breadth of chemistry knowledge (Figure
nature. However, this theory places more emphasis on how 7). If a system’s boundaries are consistently set far afield from
the social environment58 facilitates knowledge construction.
Key tenants of Sociocultural Theory such as the zone of
proximal development43 (ZPD, the difference between what
learners can do on their own and what they can do with
assistance from others), and that “collaboration with more
capable peers” (ref 43, p. 86) within the ZPD promotes
cognitive development, permeate modern thinking about
chemistry learning environments. Given the chemistry
education community’s strong familiarity with Vygotsky’s
ideas, we certainly expect popular learner communities of Figure 7. Breadth and depth of system and chemistry within the
practice (e.g., peer-led team learning groups,59 structured study system are determined by identifying the system’s boundaries. This
groups,60 etc.) to be powerful opportunities where the “more figure contains material adapted with permission from ref 26.
capable” individual could facilitate discussions that engage Copyright Nature 2019.
chemistry students in systems thinking. For example, consider
an open educational resource collection of peer-learning chemistry or highly diversified, there is a risk of shallow
activities that engage students in both of the learning outcomes learning for the benefit of making greater connections through
that frame this discussion. While not a component of the system and between learners. Conversely, if the boundaries
Sociocultural Theory, but certainly congruent with it, are too tight, there is risk in reverting to a narrow learning
scaf folding61 systems thinking learning activities according to approach that does not leverage the social environment or
connect with a broader system.

■
the skills taxonomy of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy Model
(with specific prompts by the instructor or instructor/peer skill
modeling) presents further opportunity to help learners move THREE-DIMENSIONAL LEARNING
through the ZPD associated with systems thinking. Moreover, In addition to considering how social aspects of the learning
it is via these social interactions within the ZPD where learners environment can be leveraged to construct knowledge and
can potentially develop the self-regulating behaviors that Ben- understanding in a systems thinking approach, we must also
Zvi-Assaraf and Orion have discussed as integral to attaining consider the nature of the learning activities we use, including
the highest-level skills of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy assessments.9 One framework that can provide insight into
Model: systems thinking learning activities in chemistry is the Three-
“Learning how to utilize such metacognitive processes is Dimensional (3-D) Learning model. While this model provides
critical and thus, teachers should encourage their students to a foundation for the Next Generation Science Standards
analyze their thought processes personally and in groups.” (ref (NGSS)63 in the United States, its research bases are described
55, p. 1276.) in depth in the National Research Council’s A Framework for
G DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

K−12 Education.64 The model is also rapidly finding use at analyze and explain chemistry concepts through a systems
higher levels of chemistry education.65−68 thinking lens that permits connections to economic, environ-
Unlike the other cognition-based learning frameworks used mental, and/or societal ramifications.
in this analysis, the 3-D Learning model distills research on Integral to the Framework’s discussion of Systems is the
learning to describe the hallmarks of expert ways of thinking so science and engineering practice of Developing and Using
that novice learners can learn to engage in similar behaviors. 3- Models:
D Learning precisely defines the large-grained ideas that can “In science, models are used to represent a system (or parts
organize disciplinary thinking and what experts tend to do with of a system) under study, to aid in the development of
that knowledge, as framed by common explanatory models in questions and explanations, to generate data that can be used
science and engineering. Thus, 3-D Learning is built upon to make predictions, and to communicate ideas to others.
disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and Students can be expected to evaluate and refine models
cross-cutting concepts (respectively) such that meaningful through an iterative cycle of comparing their predictions with
student learning occurs only when all dimensions are the real world and then adjusting them to gain insights into the
integrated into curriculum, instruction, and assessment: phenomenon being modeled. As such, models are based upon
• disciplinary core ideas are disciplinary-specific concepts evidence. When new evidence is uncovered that the models
that can be used to describe, explain, or understand a can’t explain, models are modified.” (ref 70, p. 6).
wide variety of observations and phenomena; As noted in this description, Developing and Using Models
connects naturally to other science and engineering practices,
• science and engineering practices are the ways in which including Asking Questions; Analyzing and Interpreting Data;
scientists and engineers use knowledge in investigation Engaging in Argument f rom Evidence; and Obtaining, Evaluating,
and design; and and Communicating Information. Although described more in
• cross-cutting concepts provide lenses through which terms of outcomes rather than empirically derived skills, the
ideas, phenomena, and observations can be connected Framework’s description of Systems as a cross-cutting concept is
and explored across disciplines. congruent with the skills of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy
As might be expected from the system depicted in Figure 3 Model (i.e., as described above, a learner would likely
(which connects phenomena from Biology, Chemistry, Earth demonstrate most of the Systems Thinking Hierarchy Model
Sciences, and Physics), the Framework categorizes Systems and skills when successfully engaging with the aforementioned
System Models within cross-cutting concepts, which are meant science and engineering practices in concert with the Systems
to help learners recognize deep connections between cross-cutting concepts). Moreover, the science and engineering
seemingly disparate topics. Aside from this surface-level practices are often “thought of as disaggregated components of
association, Systems is explicitly recognized in the NGSS as inquiry” (ref 65, p. 281) and are considered inherently
one of two broad groups of related cross-cutting concepts.69 “active”.68 Thus, engaging the science and engineering
The Systems group comprises (1) Systems and System Models, practices through systems thinking and the Systems Thinking
defining and making models of the system being studied Hierarchy Model skills serves as a mechanism by which
(analogous to Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model skills (1− instructors can actively engage students in chemistry content.
4); (2) Scale, Proportion, and Quantity, critical elements to Although systems thinking in general aligns with specific
consider when building a model of or interrogating a system; cross-cutting concepts and science and engineering practices of
(3) Energy and Matter, tracking two generally scientific the Framework, applying systems thinking to chemistry
important quantities into, out of, and within systems; and education does not ensure three-dimensionality. The Frame-
(4) Stability and Change, ways of describing how a system work focuses on a limited number of disciplinary core ideas, as
functions and evolves with time (akin to Systems Thinking organizing curricula around important ideas or concepts
Hierarchical Model skill 8). mirrors how experts reason with their disciplinary knowl-
The Framework’s description of the Systems and System edge.71 Indeed, there have been efforts external to the
Models cross-cutting concept is relatively vague with regard to Framework to articulate chemistry disciplinary core ideas,
what constitutes a “system”: “Defining the system under notably the American Chemical Society Exams Institute
studyspecifying its boundaries and making explicitly that a Anchoring Concepts Content Map, which centers on 10 Big
model of that systemprovides tools for understanding and Ideas;72 the Advanced Placement Chemistry secondary
testing ideas that are applicable throughout science and curriculum in the United States, which uses six Big Ideas;73
engineering.” (ref 64, p. 84.) and the CLUE curriculum, which is organized around four
The NGSS tend to operationalize this cross-cutting concept core ideas.74 Figure 3 does not contain explicitly a chemistry
in the physical sciences predominately with energy flows core idea and could be modified, for example, to include
(systems vs surroundings) and relationships among inter- “Atomic/Molecular Structure and Properties” and “Change
actions, forces, stability, and motion. These restrained and Stability in Chemical Systems” (core ideas of the CLUE
applications of systems appear to have been echoed in the curriculum22,66), aspects of which undergird the connections
Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol (3D- presented in this system. Doing so would impart the critical
LAP),66 a Framework-based tool for evaluating the extent to third dimension to this system representation. As pictured,
which instructors demand evidence of 3-D Learning from Figure 3 treats these chemistry core ideas as “hidden
students. In the discussion below, we argue that the 3-D dimensions” and understanding such aspects of a system is
Learning model could be a powerful resource for instructors considered to be a higher-level skill by the Systems Thinking
wishing to design systems thinking-based tasks for chemistry Hierarchy Model. Making chemistry core ideas explicitly
students. Thus, we support expanding the Systems group of visible stands to help educators and learners better connect
cross-cutting concepts beyond the NGSS to encompass our chemistry concepts to other areas of the human experience via
second intended learning outcome: students are able to systems thinking.
H DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

Table 1. Summary of Opportunities and Challenges Systems Thinking from Learning Framework Perspectives
Learning
Framework Opportunities Challenges
Meaningful • engage with learners’ prior knowledge and make connections • wide landscapes of prior knowledge that could be activated by a
Learning complex system
• connect with students’ interests and motivations beyond giving • learners’ emotional satisfaction and intellectual accessibility of content
examples can be at odds
• present content in more meaningful ways
Sociocultural • social interactions can help learners move through the zone of • risk of sacrificing depth of chemistry learning for breadth of systems
Theory proximal development associated with systems thinking thinking learning (via social interactions) and vice versa, depending on
the system boundaries
• social interactions between learners with varied backgrounds can
enhance learning
Information • connect chemistry with system components that are relevant to • for instructor-generated systems, care is needed to identify components
Processing the learner that are interesting, culturally relevant, and inclusive for learners
Theory • potential for multiple entry points in the system • based on attention, learners will likely identify many different kinds of
connections, presenting practical/management issues in the course
• potential for activities that cocreate systems • cognitive overload is an issue with multiple moving and dynamically
connected parts of a system
• mitigate cognitive load issues using a zoom in/out strategy • chemistry’s abstract and “invisible” processes may lead to cognitive load
Three- • designed to help learners emulate expert ways of thinking and • NGSS currently operationalizes systems thinking in a relatively narrow
Dimensional knowing fashion
Learning • core ideas help to organize disciplinary knowledge • core chemistry ideas may be hidden in a system’s depiction and should
be made explicit either in the representation or via instruction
• systems thinking engages many active science and engineering
practices

An idea central to the Framework is that tasks (assessments, Thinking Hierarchy Model skills, instructors can generate
learning activities, etc.) can be developed to reliably indicate systems thinking-based learning performances and, in turn,
whether students have achieved the intended learning systems thinking assessments and learning activities.

■
outcomes set for them. This idea is framed by research
summarized in the report Knowing What Students Know: CONCLUSIONS
“Every assessment, regardless of its purpose, rests on three
pillars: a model of how students represent knowledge and Instructors employing a systems thinking approach must be
particularly mindful of the learners in their classrooms.
develop competence in the subject domain, tasks or situations
Although using systems thinking presents exciting and
that allow one to observe students’ performance, and an
interesting new opportunities for chemistry teaching and
interpretation method for drawing inferences from the
learning, we presented four vignettes that illuminate several
performance evidence thus obtained.” (ref 75, p. 2.)
theoretical, but practical, challenges to the approach that we
To this end, assessments are designed to elicit performances
urge instructors to consider (Table 1). (1) Through a lens of
from students that can be used as evidence of learning. This
Meaningful Learning, systems thinking approaches present
idea is summarized further in the theoretical framework for opportunities to engage and connect with learners’ prior
evidence-centered design.76 This performance-based assess- knowledge, connect with learners’ interests and motivations,
ment is a subtle, but profound, shift from traditional course and make connections between ideas, thereby moving away
learning goals/objectives. In the context of 3-D Learning, these from fragmented instructional approaches. When presenting
learning performances are grounded in claim statements (built systems that connect chemistry to aspects of the broader
from cross-cutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and human experience, educators will need to be mindful of
science and engineering practices) about what learners should connecting in meaningful ways with the wealth of what
be able to do with their knowledge. For example, one could learners will bring to such activities and balance the intellectual
use the system model in Figure 3 in combination with the accessibility of the system’s content with learners’ emotional
disciplinary core idea Change and Stability in Chemical Systems, satisfaction. (2) Through a lens of Information Processing
the science and engineering practice Developing and Using Theory, opportunities exist for educators to enter systems at
Models, and the cross-cutting concept Energy and Matter: Flows, multiple points based on learners’ attention, and perhaps
Cycles, and Conversation to create the following learning explore cocreated systems. Care needs to be taken that the
performance: Using Figure 3, predict chemical changes in the components of the system are interesting, culturally relevant,
Ocean Interaction subsystems by considering energy fluctua- and inclusive for the students, which is likely to be challenging
tions caused by increasing the concentration of atmospheric given the inherent diversity of learners in large courses.
CO2. Cognitive overload is a significant possibility with the many
Scaffolded learning activities and assessments could then be moving parts of a system as well as chemistry’s abstract and
crafted from this learning performance such that students “invisible” processes; cognitive load issues can potentially be
demonstrate their core chemistry knowledge via constructing mitigated with a zoom in/out strategy. (3) Through Socio-
or using a system. Thus, 3-D Learning could serve as a valuable cultural Theory, cultivating social interactions between learners
framework for instructors who wish to construct systems with varied backgrounds stands to enhance learning; however,
thinking learning activities or assessments. By combining making space for these interactions (i.e., adding breadth) risks
chemistry core ideas with the cross-cutting concepts and sacrificing the depth of chemistry learning and vice versa,
science and engineering practices that leverage Systems depending on the system’s boundaries. (4) Finally, Three-
I DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

Dimensional Learning is designed to help learners move Thinking in Chemistry Education: Putting the Pieces Together. J.
toward more expert ways of reasoning and understanding, an Chem. Educ. 2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00637
approach consistent with systems thinking given the inherent (11) Balaban, A. T.; Klein, D. J. Is Chemistry “The Central Science”?
alignment between Systems Thinking Hierarchical Model skills How Are Different Sciences Related? Co-Citations, Reductionism,
and the Framework’s cross-cutting concepts and science and Emergence, and Posets. Scientometrics 2006, 69 (3), 615−637.
(12) Mahaffy, P. G.; Krief, A.; Henning, H.; Mehta, G.; Matlin, S. A.
engineering practices. However, core chemistry ideas may be
Reorienting Chemistry Education through Systems Thinking. Nat.
hidden/implicit in the depiction of a system; making such Rev. Chem. 2018, 2, 1−3.
ideas explicit for chemistry students would better support (13) Arnold, R. D.; Wade, J. P. A Definition of Systems Thinking: A
learning. To maximize opportunities and mitigate challenges, Systems Approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 44, 669−678.
educators will need to carefully consider these learning (14) Evagorou, M.; Korfiatis, K.; Nicolaou, C.; Constantinou, C. An
frameworks as they craft systems thinking curricula, instruc- Investigation of the Potential of Interactive Simulations for
tional activities, and assessments. With such purposeful Developing System Thinking Skills in Elementary School: A Case
construction, a systems thinking approach to chemistry Study with Fifth-graders and Sixth-graders. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2009, 31
education presents a number of innovative opportunities for (5), 655−674.
both teaching and research, and stands to lead a notable shift (15) Kohn, K. P.; Underwood, S. M.; Cooper, M. M. Connecting
in chemistry education and ultimately, student learning. Structure-Property and Structure-Function Relationships across the

■
Disciplines of Chemistry and Biology: Exploring Student Perceptions.
AUTHOR INFORMATION CBELife Sci. Educ. 2018, 17 (2), No. ar33.
(16) Cooper, M. M.; Klymkowsky, M. W. The Trouble with
Corresponding Authors Chemical Energy: Why Understanding Bond Energies Requires an
*E-mail: [email protected]. Interdisciplinary Systems Approach. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 2013, 12 (2),
*E-mail: alison.fl[email protected]. 306−312.
(17) Anastas, P. T.; Zimmerman, J. B. The Molecular Basis of
ORCID Sustainability. Chem. 2016, 1 (1), 10−12.
Samuel Pazicni: 0000-0002-4775-7794 (18) Middlecamp, C. H.; Jordan, T.; Shachter, A. M.; Kashmanian
Oates, K.; Lottridge, S. Chemistry, Society, and Civic Engagement
Alison B. Flynn: 0000-0002-9240-1287
(Part 1): The SENCER Project. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (9), 1301.
Notes (19) Middlecamp, C. H.; Phillips, M. F.; Bentley, A. K.; Baldwin, O.
The authors declare no competing financial interest. Chemistry, Society, and Civic Engagement (Part 2): Uranium and

■
American Indians. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83 (9), 1308.
(20) Fahlman, B. D.; Purvis-Roberts, K. L.; Kirk, J. S.; Bentley, A. K.;
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Daubenmire, P. L.; Ellis, J. P.; Mury, M. T. Chemistry in Context:
We graciously thank Thomas Holme and Peter Mahaffy for Applying Chemistry to Society, 9th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New
contributing the CO2 and Climate Change systems model for York, NY, 2018.
the analysis presented here. (21) United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 13: Take

■
urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. 2015;
REFERENCES https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg13.
(22) Cooper, M. M.; Posey, L. A.; Underwood, S. M. Core Ideas and
(1) Cooper, M. M.; Stowe, R. L. Chemistry Education Research Topics: Building Up or Drilling Down? J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (5),
From Personal Empiricism to Evidence, Theory, and Informed 541−548.
Practice. Chem. Rev. 2018, 118 (12), 6053−6087. (23) Assaraf, O. B.-Z.; Orion, N. Development of System Thinking
(2) Schunk, D. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 6th ed.; Skills in the Context of Earth System Education. J. Res. Sci. Teach.
Pearson: New York, NY, USA, 2016. 2005, 42 (5), 518−560.
(3) Orgill, M.; York, S.; MacKellar, J. An Introduction to Systems (24) Richmond, B. The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: How Can
Thinking for the Chemistry Education Community. J. Chem. Educ.
We Make It Easier to Master? https://thesystemsthinker.com/the-
2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00169.
thinking-in-systems-thinking-how-can-we-make-it-easier-to-master/
(4) York, S.; Lavi, R.; Dori, Y. J.; Orgill, M. Applications of Systems
(accessed Aug 8, 2019).
Thinking in STEM Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, DOI: 10.1021/
(25) Calhoun, J. G.; Ramiah, K.; Weist, E. M.; Shortell, S. M.
acs.jchemed.9b00261.
(5) Gentili, P. L. Designing and Teaching a Novel Interdisciplinary Development of a Core Competency Model for the Master of Public
Course on Complex Systems To Prepare New Generations To Health Degree. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98 (9), 1598−1607.
Address 21st-Century Challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, (26) Mahaffy, P. G.; Matlin, S. A.; Holme, T. A.; MacKellar, J.
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00027. Systems Thinking for Education about the Molecular Basis of
(6) Dicks, A. P.; D’eon, J. C.; Morra, B.; Kutas Chisu, C.; Quinlan, Sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2 (5), 362−370.
K. B.; Cannon, A. S. A Systems Thinking Department: Fostering a (27) Jegstad, K. M.; Sinnes, A. T. Chemistry Teaching for the
Culture of Green Chemistry Practice among Students. J. Chem. Educ. Future: A Model for Secondary Chemistry Education for Sustainable
2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00287. Development. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37 (4), 655−683.
(7) Hutchison, J. E. Systems Thinking and Green Chemistry: (28) Bodner, G. M. Constructivism: A Theory of Knowledge. J.
Powerful Levers for Curricular Change and Adoption. J. Chem. Educ. Chem. Educ. 1986, 63 (10), 873.
2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00334. (29) Ausubel, D. P.; Novak, J. D.; Hanesian, H. Educational
(8) Eaton, A. C.; Delaney, S.; Schultz, M. Situating Sustainable Psychology: A Cognitive View, 2nd ed.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston:
Development within Secondary Chemistry Education via Systems New York, NY, 1968.
Thinking: A Depth Study Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, (30) Bretz, S. L. Novak’s Theory of Education: Human
acs.jchemed.9b00266. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00266. Constructivism and Meaningful Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78
(9) Talanquer, V. Some Insights into Assessing Chemical Systems (8), 1107.
Thinking. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00218. (31) Novak, J. D. Human Constructivism: A Unification of
(10) Flynn, A. B.; Orgill, M.; Ho, F.; York, S.; Matlin, S. A.; Psychological and Epistemological Phenomena in Meaning Making.
Constable, D. J. C.; Mahaffy, P. G. Future Directions for Systems Int. J. Pers. Constr. Psychol. 2007, 6 (2), 167−193.

J DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

(32) Novak, J. D. Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: (55) Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O.; Orion, N. Four Case Studies, Six Years
Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. J. e- Later: Developing System Thinking Skills in Junior High School and
Learning Knowl. Soc. 2010, 6 (3), 21−30. Sustaining Them over Time. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010, 47 (10), 1253−
(33) Ausubel, D. P. The Effects of Cognitive Structure Variables on 1280.
the Acquisition, Retention, and Transferability of Knowledge. In The (56) Johnstone, A. H. Why Is Science Difficult to Learn? Things Are
Acquisition and Retention of Knowledge: A Cognitive View; Springer Seldom What They Seem. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 1991, 7 (2), 75−
Netherlands: Dordrecht, 2000; pp 146−180. 83.
(34) Ausubel, D. P. Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View; Holt, (57) Taber, K. S. Revisiting the Chemistry Triplet: Drawing upon
Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, 1968. the Nature of Chemical Knowledge and the Psychology of Learning
(35) Pintrich, P. R.; de Groot, E. V. Motivational and Self-Regulated to Inform Chemistry Education. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14 (2),
Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance. J. Educ. 156−168.
Psychol. 1990, 82 (1), 33−40. (58) Driver, R.; Asoko, H.; Leach, J.; Scott, P.; Mortimer, E.
(36) Grove, N.; Bretz, S. L. CHEMX: An Instrument To Assess Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educ. Res. 1994,
Students’ Cognitive Expectations for Learning Chemistry. J. Chem. 23 (7), 5−12.
Educ. 2007, 84 (9), 1524−1529. (59) Wilson, S. B.; Varma-Nelson, P. Small Groups, Significant
(37) Eagly, A. H.; Chaiken, S. The Advantages of an Inclusive Impact: A Review of Peer-Led Team Learning Research with
Definition of Attitude. Soc. Cogn. 2007, 25 (5), 582−602. Implications for STEM Education Researchers and Faculty. J. Chem.
(38) Xu, X.; Lewis, J. E. Refinement of a Chemistry Attitude Educ. 2016, 93 (10), 1686−1702.
Measure for College Students. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88 (5), 561−568. (60) Coppola, B. P.; Daniels, D. S.; Pontrello, J. K. Using Structured
(39) Liu, L.; Hmelo-Silver, C. E. Promoting Complex Systems Study Groups to Create Chemistry Honors Sections. In Student
Learning through the Use of Conceptual Representations in Assisted Teaching and Learning; Miller, J., Groccia, J. E., DiBiasio, D.,
Hypermedia. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2009, 46 (9), 1023−1040. Eds.; Anker: New York, NY, 2001; pp 116−122.
(40) Mayer, R. E.; Griffith, E.; Jurkowitz, I. T. N.; Rothman, D. (61) Puntambekar, S.; Hubscher, R. Tools for Scaffolding Students
Increased Interestingness of Extraneous Details in a Multimedia in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and
Science Presentation Leads to Decreased Learning. J. Exp. Psychol. What Have We Missed? Educ. Psychol. 2005, 40 (1), 1−12.
Appl. 2008, 14 (4), 329−339. (62) Tudge, J. H. R.; Scrimsher, S. Lev S. Vygotsky on Education: A
(41) Mayer, R. E. Information Processing; Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Cultural-Historical, Interpersonal, and Individual Approach to
Urdan, T., McCormick, C. B., Sinatra, G. M., Sweller, J., Eds.; Development. In Educational Pscyhology: A century of contributions;
American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, 2012; Vol. 1. Zimmerman, B. J., Schunk, D. H., Eds.; Holt, Rinehart and Winston:
DOI: 10.1037/13273-004. New York, NY, 2003; pp 207−228.
(42) Cobb, P. Where Is the Mind? Constructivist and Sociocultural (63) NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For
States, By States. https://www.nextgenscience.org/ (accessed Apr 19,
Perspectives on Mathematical Development. Educ. Res. 1994, 23 (7),
2019).
13−20.
(64) National Research Council. A Framework for K-12 Science
(43) Vygotsky, L. Interaction between Learning and Development.
Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas; The
In Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes;
N at io na l Aca de mi es Pr es s: W as hi ngt o n, D. C., 2 01 2.
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1978.
DOI: 10.17226/13165.
(44) Brown, J. S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the
(65) Cooper, M. M.; Caballero, M. D.; Ebert-May, D.; Fata-Hartley,
Culture of Learning. Educ. Res. 1989, 18 (1), 32−42. C. L.; Jardeleza, S. E.; Krajcik, J. S.; Laverty, J. T.; Matz, R. L.; Posey,
(45) Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning; Cambridge University
L. A.; Underwood, S. M. Challenge Faculty to Transform STEM
Press: Cambridge, 1991. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355. Learning. Science 2015, 350 (6258), 281−282.
(46) Matlin, M. W. Cognitive Psychology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, 2009. (66) Laverty, J. T.; Underwood, S. M.; Matz, R. L.; Posey, L. A.;
(47) Dijksterhuis, A.; Aarts, H. Goals, Attention, and (Un)- Carmel, J. H.; Caballero, M. D.; Fata-Hartley, C. L.; Ebert-May, D.;
Consciousness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010, 61, 467−490. Jardeleza, S. E.; Cooper, M. M. Characterizing College Science
(48) DeFever, R. S.; Bruce, H.; Bhattacharyya, G. Mental Assessments: The Three-Dimensional Learning Assessment Protocol.
Rolodexing: Senior Chemistry Majors’ Understanding of Chemical PLoS One 2016, 11, No. e0162333.
and Physical Properties. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (3), 415−426. (67) Underwood, S. M.; Posey, L. A.; Herrington, D. G.; Carmel, J.
(49) Flynn, A. B. How Do Students Work through Organic H.; Cooper, M. M. Adapting Assessment Tasks to Support Three-
Synthesis Learning Activities? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2014, 15 (4), Dimensional Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95 (2), 207−217.
747−762. (68) Matz, R. L.; Fata-Hartley, C. L.; Posey, L. A.; Laverty, J. T.;
(50) Stieff, M.; Hegarty, M.; Deslongchamps, G. Identifying Underwood, S. M.; Carmel, J. H.; Herrington, D. G.; Stowe, R. L.;
Representational Competence With Multi-Representational Displays. Caballero, M. D.; Ebert-May, D.; et al. Evaluating the Extent of a
Cogn. Instr. 2011, 29 (1), 123−145. Large-Scale Transformation in Gateway Science Courses. Sci. Adv.
(51) Wolfe, P. Brain Matters: Translating Research into Classroom 2018, 4 (10), No. eaau0554.
Practice, 2nd ed.; ASCD: Alexandria, VA, 2010. (69) NGSS Lead States. Appendix G  Crosscutting Concepts.
(52) Ladson-Billings, G. Yes, but How Do We Do It? Practicing https://www.nap.edu/read/18290/chapter/13 (accessed Apr 19,
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. In White teachers/diverse classrooms: A 2019).
guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and (70) NGSS Lead States. Appendix FScience and Engineering
eliminating racism; Landsman, J., Lewis, C. W., Eds.; Stylus: Sterling, Practices https://www.nap.edu/read/18290/chapter/12 (accessed
VA, 2006; pp 29−42. Apr 19, 2019).
(53) Tsaparlis, G. Blocking Mechanisms in Problem Solving from (71) National Research Council. How Experts Differ from Novices.
the Pascual-Leone’s M-Space Perspective BT - Problem Solving and In How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded
Misconceptions in Chemistry and Physics. In Problem solving and ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2000; pp 31−
misconceptions in chemistry and physics; Schmidt, H. J., Ed.; 50. DOI: 10.17226/9853.
International Council of Associations for Science Education: (72) Murphy, K.; Holme, T.; Zenisky, A.; Caruthers, H.; Knaus, K.
Dortmund, 1994. Building the ACS Exams Anchoring Concept Content Map for
(54) Paas, F.; van Gog, T.; Sweller, J. Cognitive Load Theory: New Undergraduate Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89 (6), 715−720.
Conceptualizations, Specifications, and Integrated Research Perspec- (73) The College Board. AP Chemistry: Course and Exam Description,
tives. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 22 (2), 115−121. revised ed.; The College Board: New York, NY, 2014.

K DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Journal of Chemical Education Article

(74) Cooper, M.; Klymkowsky, M. Chemistry, Life, the Universe,

and Everything: A New Approach to General Chemistry, and a Model
for Curriculum Reform. J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (9), 1116−1122.
(75) National Research Council. Knowing What Students Know; The
National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2001. DOI: 10.17226/
10019.
(76) Mislevy, R. J.; Almond, R. G.; Lukas, J. F. A Brief Introduction
to Evidence-Centered Design. ETS Res. Rep. Ser. 2003, 2003 (1),
No. i-29.

L DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00416
J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX