Critical Thinking Skills Enhancement through System Dynamics-Based Games: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Camila Xu and Version 1 by Stefano Armenia.

This sentudry aims to explore and discuss the role of systems thinking and system dynamics- assisted games in enhancing critical thinking skills in learners. In more detail, the study relies on the use of a system dynamics-based interactive learning environment related to project management issues, followed by systems thinking-supported debriefing sessions. The interactive learning envi- ronment was developed and used in the form of a single-player, online, computer-based game. The game was designed to mimic all the necessary planning and operational activities needed to organize a wedding ceremony. The acquisition of critical thinking skills in learners was evaluated in three main ways: (1) players’ performances were analyzed through a scoring system embedded in the game that considers several performance dimensions; (2) feedback from the players was collected and analyzed by using basic content analysis; (3) players’ performances were analyzed using five main categories of structures that are typical of project management domains, i.e., project features, the rework cycle, project control, ripple effects, and knock-on effects. The findings show that the joint use of system dynamics and systems thinking tools and principles within a gaming environment has the potential to facilitate and enhance the acquisition of critical thinking skills in learners and may also provide valid support for educators and practitioners interested in the enhancement of project management skills.

  • critical thinking
  • system dynamics
  • systems thinking
  • interactive learning environment
  • project management

1. The Concept of Critical Thinking

For a long time, the relevant literature has emphasized that critical thinking is progressively emerging as a fundamental cognitive skill that decision-makers should have—or learn—and practice, as well emphasized by Dewey [1].
In broad terms, critical thinking entails being able to use a range of mental processes, such as analysis, inference, evaluation, interpretation, explanation, and self-regulation, with the ultimate goal of supporting decision making, i.e., to arrive at well-reasoned and informed judgments about complex issues and problems [37,38][2][3]. The six attributes mentioned above can be further described as follows:
  • Analysis involves breaking down complex information into smaller parts, identifying patterns, and evaluating evidence to make a reasoned judgment.
  • Evaluation involves assessing the credibility and relevance of information, evaluating arguments, and determining the strengths and weaknesses of different viewpoints.
  • Inference involves drawing conclusions based on available evidence and making predictions about future events based on past experiences and patterns.
  • Interpretation involves understanding the meaning of information, analyzing its significance, and applying it to new situations.
  • Explanation entails communicating complex ideas or concepts clearly and concisely, using appropriate evidence and reasoning to support arguments.
  • Self-regulation involves monitoring one’s own thinking and behavior, recognizing biases and assumptions, and adjusting one’s approach based on feedback and new information.
The previous literature has emphasized that critical thinking is a vital skill for all individuals, as it allows them to think critically and creatively about the world around them, make informed decisions, and solve complex problems effectively (e.g., [39][4]). Specifically, previous research in the educational field has pointed at various tools as ways of facilitating or enhancing the acquisition of critical thinking skills, as shown by Behar-Horenstein and Niu [40][5] and by Alsaleh [41][6].
From an assessment point of view, previous research also emphasized that the acquisition of critical thinking skills may be evaluated with the use of various methods and tools, such as the following.
(a)
Standardized tests, such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) and the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: these tests are used to evaluate skills such as analysis, inference, evaluation, and deductive reasoning—as discussed in Bernard et al. [42][7]—and have been already employed in several studies, such as in the work by Alkharusi [43][8] focused on university students.
(b)
Portfolios can be used to collect and evaluate students’ work over time. This method provides a more comprehensive view of students’ critical thinking skills development as it captures evidence of their progress and growth over an extended period, as demonstrated by the work of Coleman et al. [44][9] that focuses on students active in the social work education domain.
(c)
Peer and self-assessment: as also discussed by Siles-González and Solano-Ruiz [45][10], peer and self-assessment can be effective methods for assessing critical thinking skills as they encourage students to reflect on their own thinking and provide feedback to their peers.
(d)
Observation and performance tasks: Observing students while they engage in tasks that require critical thinking can provide valuable information on their skills. Performance tasks can be different and include activities such as writing essays or analyzing arguments, which can be assessed using rubrics or scoring methods, as Kankaraš and Suarez-Alvarez emphasize [46][11].
(e)
Interviews can be used to assess critical thinking skills by directly asking students to reflect on their thinking processes and reasoning, as demonstrated in the study by Jaffe et al. [47][12]. This method provides insights into how students approach problems, make decisions, and evaluate arguments, and allows individually eliciting information about the perceived acquisition of critical skills, as also discussed in Tiwari et al. [48][13].
(f)
Classroom-based assessments can include a variety of methods such as questioning techniques, class discussions, and simulations. These methods provide opportunities for students to demonstrate their critical thinking skills in a classroom setting (e.g., Zepeda [49][14]).
Whereas each of the methods mentioned above—or a combination of them—can be used to assess critical thinking skills acquisition effectively, eventually, it is essential to choose methods that align with the learning objectives and the contexts and problems under analysis. In detail, calls for research are provided by the extant literature (such as in the work by Cicchino [12][15], McDonald [13][16], and Efendi [14][17]) with specific regard to the use of interactive games in class, with the specific aim of fostering the acquisition of critical thinking skills. Notably, the employment of systems thinking and system dynamics as the underlying methodologies able to assist the design and use of such games and, subsequently, favor the acquisition of critical thinking skills is something that has been long advocated, starting from the well-known work by Richmond [50][18]. In this regard, this study focuses on the use of SD-based ILEs in the field of project management, as discussed in the following sections.

2. The Use of SD-Based Games and ILEs to Enhance Critical Thinking

Games have been used for centuries as a tool for entertainment, social interaction, and learning [17,18,51,52,53][19][20][21][22][23].
Considering this study, it is noteworthy that games may also offer some strengths when used to enhance critical thinking (as shown by Cicchino, [12][15]), as follows.
Firstly, games require players to solve problems in real time. Players are required to make quick decisions based on available information, identify patterns, and anticipate the outcomes of their actions. These skills are vital in everyday life as they help individuals make informed decisions, avoid risky behaviors, and solve complex problems [54][24].
Secondly, games provide an opportunity for players to test their hypotheses, mental models, and theories [55][25]. Players can experiment with different strategies and tactics and analyze the outcomes of their decisions. This process of experimentation helps players develop a better understanding of how the world works and improve their decision-making skills.
Thirdly, games can help learners acquire a general knowledge about the decision-making environment they are challenged with, thereby going beyond the specific decisions they are called upon to make [56][26].
Finally, games promote collaboration and teamwork. Quite commonly, games require players to work together to achieve a common goal. This requires effective communication, collaboration, and a willingness to share ideas and information. These skills are essential in today’s workplace, where teamwork is a crucial aspect of an organization’s success [52][22].
Overall, games offer a fun and engaging way to enhance learning in and about complex issues and domains, since they provide an opportunity for players to practice decision making, problem solving, and collaboration in a safe and controlled environment. As a result, games can also be an effective tool for promoting critical thinking skills in individuals of all ages.
As already mentioned, critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information to make informed decisions. In this context, games can effectively promote critical thinking skills by engaging players in a series of challenges that require them to think creatively and strategically, experiencing first-hand the results, the impacts, the consequences, and also the side effects of their decisions and actions.
Notably, SD-based games have proved their effectiveness for a long time and are increasingly used in education and training programs (e.g., [16,24,26,28,57][27][28][29][30][31]).
As known and theorized by Jay Forrester [34,35][32][33], system dynamics is a methodology that focuses on understanding the behavior of complex systems, using computer-based models to simulate and analyze the interactions between various components of the system under investigation. At the core of SD, there are four key concepts that are also fundamental to addressing critical thinking-related matters [35,58,59][33][34][35]:
  • Systems are considered as a whole;
  • Emphasis is placed on the internal structure of the system as the cause of its dynamic behavior;
  • Rather than considering relationships in a model as being linear for the sake of simplicity, emphasis is placed on the non-linear character of many relationships;
  • Process delays (e.g., information delays) in social systems are considered important.
Several tools can be used when developing an SD-based game, such as causal maps (e.g., causal loop diagrams and stock and flow diagrams), quantitative simulation models, and interactive learning environments (ILEs).
This study employs an SD-based ILE that is about project management, a context that offers various characteristics that would favor the use of SD-based models and simulators for training and educational purposes.

3. System Dynamics, Critical Thinking, and the Field of Project Management

The field of project management may benefit greatly from the use of system dynamics principles and tools to enhance critical thinking skills in learners (e.g., [36,59,60,61,62,63][35][36][37][38][39][40]).
Overall, it is relevant to emphasize what a project is and which are the key distinctive skills that project managers should have and apply in managing a project management intervention. In broad terms, a project can be considered as a series of activities and tasks (performed in parallel or in series) that [64][41]:
  • Have a specific objective (scope) to be completed within certain specifications (requirements);
  • Have defined start and end dates;
  • Have funding limits;
  • Consume and/or utilize resources.
Projects are overall challenging to plan and manage, even when various forms of control are used simultaneously [65][42], and critically depend on project conditions and the ability of project managers to properly plan, execute, and control all the various tasks and activities associated with them [66][43].
With specific regard to this study, it is also to underline that typically project conditions and performance may evolve over time, quite frequently because of feedback responses (some of them involving nonlinear relationships), time delays, and accumulations of project progress and resources. Interestingly, these factors may also generate side effects and adverse dynamics—with a few of them that have been well identified and explained by the relevant literature (see Sterman [59][35] for several examples of side effects)—or even induce the failure of the project (as discussed by Pinto and Mantel [67][44] or by Al-Ahmad et al. [68][45]).
First, with projects growing in complexity, there has been a corresponding rise in the requirement for approaches capable of handling this complexity. This is true for all projects, even the largest ones [59][35].
Second, SD helps project managers “represent” their work, making it clear which tasks need to be finished in what order across time (see, for example, the work by Lyneis and Ford [36]).
Third, SD offers the tools to strategically support project managers throughout all the different phases of their projects, from the design to the implementation (as discussed in Lyneis et al. [69][46]). In this context, various SD tools can also help discover the side effects of the actions being carried out and the challenges that project managers might be called on to face (e.g., [70][47]).
Additionally, SD is suitable to improve the understanding of what a project will entail, in terms of resources (e.g., financial resources, human resources, and time) needed for its completion (e.g., [61,62][38][39]).
Last, SD may facilitate the understanding of clients’ and stakeholders’ needs throughout the whole project lifecycle (as well emphasized by Rodrigues and Williams [71][48]).
As the underlying point of reference for this study and about the use of SD in the field of PM, the model and the ILE presented in the following sections were developed to take into account the five categories of structures that Lyneis and Ford [36] identified to describe project management domains and decision making in such contexts, i.e.: (a) project features; (b) the rework cycle; (c) project control; (d) ripple effects; and (e) knock-on effects. All these structures are represented in Figure 1.
Systems 11 00554 g001
Figure 1.
Basic structures of project management interventions. Source: Lyneis and Ford [36] (p. 165).
The first category is “project features”. As mentioned by Lyneis and Ford [36] (p. 159), “Projects almost always consist of a collection of tasks that are performed in parallel and in series. Therefore, a principal feature of all system dynamics project models is the representation of development tasks or work packages as they flow through a project”. “Project features” are considered by listing and accounting for the development tasks required to carry out the project. From a modelling standpoint, development tasks are represented as a stock of tasks to be carried out that flow into the stocks of tasks carried out as soon as they have been completed due to the actions carried out by the decision-makers by using the resources at their disposal.
A “rework cycle” is often associated with this first structure. Errors are usually considered the cause underlying this structure since, if not discovered in time, they will generate rework discovery that feeds back into the stock of tasks to be carried out, thereby requiring more effort and new resources.
The third category of structure is related to controlling feedback. This entails performing “project control”. This step requires modeling the controlling feedback loops through which management attempts to close gaps between project performance and targets (on time, on budget, and with the desired quality and specifications). Two main methods are usually considered and modelled in this regard: project managers may move project behavior closer to targets (e.g., work overtime) or move targets toward project behavior (e.g., push forward a deadline). Notably, both methods imply costs (monetary and other types).
Projects are also characterized by side effects and unintended consequences [59][35] of the actions carried out. Two additional categories of structures are used to model such unintended effects.
The so-called “ripple effects” are the primary side effects of well-intentioned project control efforts (e.g., policy resistance). These effects typically reduce productivity or quality (by increasing the error fraction of rework).
Additionally, the so-called “knock-on effects” are effects that may be caused by processes that produce excessive or detrimental concurrence or human factors that amplify the negative effects via channels such as morale.
With this said, whereas the previous literature has already provided good examples of how SD maps and models can be effectively used to analyze project management-related operational and decision-making contexts (e.g., [59,61,62,63,71][35][38][39][40][48]), further research is needed in the field of SD-based ILEs, specifically when these tools are used in educational and training programs to enhance critical thinking skills.

References

  1. Dewey, J. How We Think; D.C. Heat & Co. Publishers: Boston, MA, USA, 1910.
  2. Turner, P. Critical thinking in nursing education and practice as defined in the literature. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 2005, 26, 272–277.
  3. Bers, T. Assessing critical thinking in community colleges. New Dir. Community Coll. 2005, 130, 15–25.
  4. Facione, P.A. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assess. 2011, 1, 1–23.
  5. Behar-Horenstein, L.S.; Niu, L. Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A review of the literature. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2011, 8, 25–42.
  6. Alsaleh, N.J. Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Literature Review. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol.-TOJET 2020, 19, 21–39.
  7. Bernard, R.M.; Zhang, D.; Abrami, P.C.; Sicoly, F.; Borokhovski, E.; Surkes, M.A. Exploring the structure of the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal: One scale or many subscales? Think. Ski. Creat. 2008, 3, 15–22.
  8. Alkharusi, H.A.; Al Sulaimani, H.; Neisler, O. Predicting Critical Thinking Ability of Sultan Qaboos University Students. Int. J. Instr. 2019, 12, 491–504.
  9. Coleman, H.; Rogers, G.; King, J. Using portfolios to stimulate critical thinking in social work education. Soc. Work Educ. 2002, 21, 583–595.
  10. Siles-González, J.; Solano-Ruiz, C. Self-assessment, reflection on practice and critical thinking in nursing students. Nurse Educ. Today 2016, 45, 132–137.
  11. Kankaraš, M.; Suarez-Alvarez, J. Assessment Framework of the OECD Study on Social and Emotional Skills; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019.
  12. Jaffe, L.E.; Lindell, D.; Sullivan, A.M.; Huang, G.C. Clear skies ahead: Optimizing the learning environment for critical thinking from a qualitative analysis of interviews with expert teachers. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2019, 8, 289–297.
  13. Tiwari, A.; Lai, P.; So, M.; Yuen, K. A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of students’ critical thinking. Med. Educ. 2006, 40, 547–554.
  14. Zepeda, S.J. Classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning. In Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice; Corwin Press, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; Volume 2.
  15. Cicchino, M.I. Using game-based learning to foster critical thinking in student discourse. Interdiscip. J. Probl.-Based Learn. 2015, 9, 4.
  16. McDonald, S.D. Enhanced critical thinking skills through problem-solving games in secondary schools. Interdiscip. J. E-Ski. Lifelong Learn. 2017, 13, 79–96.
  17. Efendi, A. Improve critical thinking skills with informatics educational games. J. Educ. Technol. 2022, 6, 521–530.
  18. Richmond, B. Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1993, 9, 113–133.
  19. Barnabè, F. Policy Deployment and Learning in Complex Business Domains: The Potentials of Role Playing. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 15–29.
  20. Armenia, S.; Barnabé, F.; Ciobanu, N.; Kulakowska, M. Interactive “Boardgame-Based” Learning Environments for Decision-makers’ Training in Managerial Education, 2020 White Paper. Available online: https://www.pmbog.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Interactive-Learning-Environments-for-education.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2023).
  21. Faria, A.J. Business simulation games: Current usage levels—An update. Simul. Gaming 1998, 29, 295–308.
  22. Faria, A.J.; Hutchinson, D.; Wellington, W.J.; Gold, S. Developments in business gaming: A review of the past 40 years. Simul. Gaming 2009, 40, 464–487.
  23. Armenia, S.; Barnabè, F.; Pompei, A. Game-Based Learning and Decision-Making for Urban Sustainability: A Case of System Dynamics Simulations. In EURO Working Group on DSS: A Tour of the DSS Developments over the Last 30 Years; Jason Papathanasiou, J., Zaraté, P., Freire de Sousa, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 325–344.
  24. Klabbers, J.H. Social problem solving: Beyond method. In Back to the Future of Gaming; Duke, R.D., Kriz, W.C., Eds.; Bertelsmann Verlag GmbH & Co. KG: Bielefeld, Germany, 2014; pp. 12–29.
  25. Palmunen, L.M.; Pelto, E.; Paalumäki, A.; Lainema, T. Formation of novice business students’ mental models through simulation gaming. Simul. Gaming 2013, 44, 846–868.
  26. Wellington, W.J.; Faria, A.J.; Whiteley, T.R. Holistic cognitive strategy in a computer-based marketing simulation game: An investigation of attitudes towards the decision-making process. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference, Hawaii; 1998; Volume 25, pp. 246–252.
  27. Lane, D.C. On a resurgence of management simulations and games. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1995, 46, 604–625.
  28. Alessi, S.; Kopainsky, B. System dynamics and simulation/gaming: Overview. Simul. Gaming 2015, 46, 223–229.
  29. Morecroft, J.D.W. System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1988, 35, 301–320.
  30. Davidsen, P.I.; Spector, J.M. Critical reflections on system dynamics and simulation/gaming. Simul. Gaming 2015, 46, 430–444.
  31. Meadows, D. A brief and incomplete history of operational gaming in system dynamics. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2007, 23, 199–203.
  32. Forrester, J.W. Industrial Dynamics; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1961.
  33. Forrester, J.W. Principle of Systems; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1968.
  34. Vennix, J.A.M. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1996.
  35. Sterman, J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World; Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2000.
  36. Lyneis, J.M.; Ford, D.N. System dynamics applied to project management: A survey, assessment, and directions for future research. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2007, 23, 157–189.
  37. Sterman, J.D. System Dynamics Modeling for Project Management; System Dynamics Group, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; Unpublished manuscript.
  38. Rodrigues, A.; Bowers, J. System dynamics in project management: A comparative analysis with traditional methods. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1996, 12, 121–139.
  39. Rodrigues, A.; Bowers, J. The role of system dynamics in project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1996, 14, 213–220.
  40. Ford, D.N.; Lyneis, J.M. System Dynamics Applied to Project Management: A Survey, Assessment, and Directions for Future Research. In System Dynamics; Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science Series; Dangerfield, B., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 285–314.
  41. Turner, R. Projects and their management. In Gower Handbook of Project Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 49–64.
  42. Leotta, A. Capitalizing and controlling development project as joint traslations. The mediating role of the information technology. Manag. Control 2015, 2, 101–134.
  43. Lock, D. Project Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
  44. Pinto, J.K.; Mantel, S.J. The causes of project failure. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1990, 37, 269–276.
  45. Al-Ahmad, W.; Al-Fagih, K.; Khanfar, K.; Alsamara, K.; Abuleil, S.; Abu-Salem, H. A taxonomy of an IT project failure: Root causes. Int. Manag. Rev. 2009, 5, 93–104.
  46. Lyneis, J.M.; Cooper, K.G.; Els, S.A. Strategic management of complex projects: A case study using system dynamics. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2001, 17, 237–260.
  47. Rumeser, D.; Emsley, M. Key challenges of system dynamics implementation in project management. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 230, 22–30.
  48. Rodrigues, A.G.; Williams, T.M. System dynamics in project management: Assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1998, 49, 2–15.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback