Search

Contribution: An evaluation of the effectiveness of systems engineering (SE) courses in developing students’ systems thinking (ST) capacity in both the cognitive and affective domains. A combined cognitive ST performance and affective engagement with ST assessment is proposed as an approach to assess students’ ST in both domains. The results can support course change decisions and guide learning experience development. Background: SE education aims to produce graduates with strong knowledge and skills in SE and a strong appreciation of the practical value of ST, which addresses the cognitive and affective domains in education. Consequently, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of SE courses in developing students’ ST in these domains, an area that studies do not consider. Intended Outcomes: An understanding of the ST ability of undergraduate students in an SE course in a domain specific engineering program in both the cognitive and affective domains. Application Design: A study evaluated the effectiveness of two SE classes in developing students’ ST capacity using a combined cognitive and affective assessment tool developed and validated in previous studies. ST assessment is determined by combining ST performance and affective engagement. To observe the transformation of students’ ST capacity, a longitudinal design collected data at two times in each of two offerings of an SE course offered by the same university in two locations—Australia and Singapore. Findings: The course developed students in most dimensions of cognitive ST, but did not appear to improve students’ affective engagement with ST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper was to develop and validate a new theoretically based scale to measure students’ learning of systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in the context of systems engineering education. Two variant questionnaires are reported here, one using only questions constructed using positive grammar and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, each applied to a different sample. The first group of 186 participants completed the positive version of the questionnaire, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. Construct validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was conducted to find the factors underlying each questionnaire. CFA was conducted to confirm the better questionnaire version and to confirm the factors which underlie both versions. The results indicate that a three factor, 16 item, scale with a mix of positive and negative wording is the better instrument with which to measure students’ engagement with systems thinking. The results also indicate that the three factor, 16 item construct is a better representative of both versions of the questionnaire, whether the questionnaire has only positive questions or a mix of positive and negative questions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper describes the results obtained for the affective engagement of students with systems thinking (ST). In prior work, the authors have developed and validated a questionnaire instrument for measuring affective engagement of undergraduate engineering students with ST. This paper presents results obtained when the questionnaire was used with undergraduate students. Two surveys with different versions of the questionnaire, one using positive grammar questions only and the other using a mix of positive and negative constructs, were used to measure the students’ engagement with ST and its relationship with gender, age, and work experience. Each questionnaire version was applied to a different sample, the first, 186 participants, completed the positive grammar version, and, the second group of 163 completed the mixed version. The results show that participants in both studies valued ST in each of the three dimensions of the ST construct. Statistical tests confirmed no significant gender differences in either study. Student engagement with the practical dimension of ST was shown to vary, with statistical significance, with groups of age, years of work experience, and country of the university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines a set of abstract, top-level principles and subprinciples collected from the literature to determine their usefulness in enabling the avoidance, survival, and recovery from disruptions caused by threats of various sources. The principles are compared to concrete solutions recommended by domain experts in various case studies and to the actual events in those case studies. Also examined are the limitations, conflicts, and vulnerabilities that may be apparent when concrete solutions are created from these principles. The systems considered are physical, organizational, and procedural systems. Examples include cases from fire protection, aviation, railways, and power distribution domains. Threats examined include terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and human and design error. Each principle is found to apply to different phases of the disruption cycle surrounding an encounter with a threat. It is found that principles, in general, cannot be applied singly to a system but must be combined with other principles to enable resilience. System developers in various domains can use the principles to create concrete solutions to characterize a particular system, model that solution, and determine the degree of recovery of the system from a specified threat. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Syst Eng 16 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]