The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new, theoretically-based scale that would assess students' learning about systems thinking in relation to the affective domain in systems engineering education. Students' learning of systems thinking in the affective domain deals with emotions, feelings and valuing the related cognitive systems thinking aspects. It is characterized by belief in the power of systems thinking to enable them to develop superior engineered products and systems. This paper describes the psychometric properties of the scale as the basis for future use with a target population of engineering students. It provides the results of an instrument test analysis of data collected from a representative set of the target audience of the instrument. The participants in this study were 180 undergraduate engineering students who enrolled in a systems engineering course. Exploratory factor analysis of the scale for the sample yielded factors largely consistent with conceptualization and construction of the subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis of the scale also supports the initial factor structure. The results suggest that this instrument may be useful to researchers and practitioners interested in measuring systems thinking in engineering students, particularly in the affective domain.

The purpose of this study 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.

Systems thinking (ST) offers a holistic approach rather than a reductionist approach, through appreciating all the interrelated dimensions of complex problems. It is important for understanding and interacting with all kinds of systems, in order to manage complex problems. However, the broad range of the ST‐related literature found in various disciplines, generates a great deal of disagreement about definitions and understanding of systems thinking. Despite the current ambiguities of ST definitions, its underlying philosophy has a long history. This paper aims to clarify what ST is in the modern day and why it is defined in so many different ways. It identifies a number of interpretations of systems thinking with the purpose of clarifying what it is and why it is variously understood. The main aims of this paper is to propose a new ST construct, and to define its role in the practice of Systems Engineering (SE). This paper then draws implications of the new ST construct for SE education.

In this paper we address the challenges and importance of developing the students' affective engagement with the cognitive content offered in systems engineering education. Systems engineering is concerned with developing the most appropriate total system solution to address a need. Systems engineering methods used to find this solution require applying a systems perspective while making tradeoffs of the relative benefits of each set of possible approaches to a problem. However, the practical application of systems engineering is to seek a comprehensive design solution that satisfies a range of constraints and provides an adequate solution that "satisfices" the stakeholders. Applying the systems engineering method in order to gain the advantage of an optimal rather than adequate solution, demands that the systems engineer believes in the value of the methods, techniques, and perspectives of the systems engineering method, even at times where the method may seem indirect or counterintuitive to performing engineering work. Therefore, systems engineering education must engage the students in both the cognitive domain -developing ability to perform the techniques, and in the affective domain -transforming the student's belief to recognize the positive value of the systems engineering method. This paper discusses: 1) the current gap in addressing the affective domain in systems engineering education, 2) the importance of closing that gap to enable the effective implementation of systems engineering on the job, and 3) related issues and challenges. Following this discussion, the paper proposes a framework for assessing the development of the student's affective engagement in systems engineering methods.

This paper describes the results obtained for the affective engagement of students with systems thinking. In prior work the authors have developed and validated a questionnaire instrument for measuring affective engagement of undergraduate engineering students with systems thinking. 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 systems thinking 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 systems thinking in each of the three dimensions of the systems thinking construct. Statistical tests confirmed no significant gender differences in either study. Student engagement with the practical dimension of systems thinking was shown to vary, with statistical significance, with groups of age, years of work experience and country of the university.

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.

No abstract

No abstract