Systems thinking is a holistic approach for examining complex problems and systems that focuses on the interactions among system components and the patterns that emerge from those interactions. Systems thinking can help students develop higher-order thinking skills in order to understand and address complex, interdisciplinary, real-world problems. Because of these potential benefits, there have been recent efforts to support the implementation of systems thinking approaches in chemistry education, including the development of the IUPAC Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education (STICE) Project and this Special Issue of the Journal of Chemical Education: "Reimagining Chemistry Education: Systems Thinking, and Green and Sustainable Chemistry". As part of these efforts, our purposes in this paper are to describe some of the potential benefits associated with systems thinking approaches, to identify the STEM education fields that have employed systems thinking approaches, to summarize some of the major findings about the applications of systems thinking in STEM education, and to present methods that have been used to assess systems thinking skills in STEM education. We found that, in general, systems thinking approaches have been applied in life sciences, earth sciences, and engineering but not in the physical or mathematical sciences. We also found that the primary emphasis of peer-reviewed publications was on the development of students', rather than teachers', systems thinking abilities. Existing tools for the assessment of systems thinking in STEM education can be divided into (a) assessment rubrics, (b) closed-ended tools, and (c) coding schemes, with each type of assessment tool having its own unique advantages and disadvantages. We highlight one particular case in which researchers applied an interdisciplinary framework for comprehensive assessment of systems thinking. Although systems thinking has not been widely researched or applied in chemistry education, many of the conceptual frameworks applied to systems thinking in other STEM education disciplines could potentially be applied in chemistry education. We argue that the benefits observed when applying systems thinking approaches in other STEM education disciplines could facilitate similar results for chemistry education. Finally, we provide considerations for future research and applications of systems thinking in chemistry education.

Metacognition, or 'thinking about thinking', can improve scientific literacy and practices. It involves knowledge of cognition, i. e., being cognisant of one's knowledge, and regulation of cognition, i. e., consciously controlling the process of knowledge acquisition. A self-regulated learner can assimilate new knowledge, conduct inquiry, solve problems and plan ahead his or her learning. While studies have been conducted on metacognition in chemistry education, none have included detailed assignments covering a range of metacognitive strategies. Our review of studies on metacognition in chemistry secondary and higher education also includes also several exemplary assignments on the energy topic for facilitating and assessing metacognition in high school classrooms. We use metacognitive prompts and the construct of chemistry understanding levels, macroscopic, microscopic, symbol, and process, as an approach for metacognitive intervention. Finally, we provide recommendations for educators and a rubric for researchers. Metacognition and Self-Regulated LearningFlavell [11] (1979) defined metacognition as 'knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena'. Flavell, Miller, and Miller, [12] who surveyed the large body of literature on metacognition since the 1970s, similarly defined metacognition as 'cognition about cognition'. While the science education literature provides various definitions for metacognition, Jacobs and Paris [13] identified two broad categories, or aspects, that often emerge in most of these definitions: knowledge about cognition, and regulation of cognition. According to Brown, [14] knowledge of cognition is relatively stable, often can be stated, can be fallible and is age dependent, while regulation of cognition is relatively unstable and age independent. Table 1 describes each aspect of metacognition in more detail.Students' gain in metacognition resulting from a metacognitive intervention can be assessed by various research tools, including interviews, questionnaires, think aloud protocols, assignments, and observations. [15,16] According to Ackerman and Goldsmith, [17] students' self-perception of their own performance ability is related to their ability to monitor [a] R.

No abstract

One challenge associated with introducing systems thinking in chemistry classrooms is the increase in content complexity that students face when they engage in this type of approach. Placing core chemical ideas within larger systems has promise, as long as students are not overwhelmed by the added complexity. Although there are many potential strategies for dealing with complexity, one common tool is to employ visual or graphical tools to help conceptualize the problem or system at hand. In part because systems thinking touches on many potential levels of implementation, there are different visual tools that are helpful in conceptualizing different aspects. Some tools, such as systemsoriented concept map extension (SOCME) diagrams and systemigrams, use methodologies often associated with concept mapping but add features that enhance their applicability in systems thinking. Object−Process Methodology (OPM), which has seen fairly wide use in systems engineering contexts, uses formally defined components and links between them to help conceptualize systems and problems. Many systems of interest are dynamic in nature so tools such as behavior over time graphs (BOTG) are helpful in calibrating the temporal aspects of systems. Such dynamics are also captured via causal loop diagrams and stock and flow diagrams. Here, we introduce and describe the affordances of multiple types of graphical tools that can be used to support systems thinking approaches in chemistry education. Knowing the uses and advantages of these different tools will allow instructors to make informed choices about the tools that will best meet a particular educational goal when using systems thinking approaches in the classroom.

No abstract