Application of Systems Thinking in Scientific Research in Engineering and Science: An Interdisciplinary Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2025767Keywords:
Systems thinking, system dynamics, scientific research, engineering educationAbstract
This study analyzes the integration of systems thinking with the quantitative scientific method in the teaching of research in engineering and applied sciences. It demonstrates that systems thinking enables a better understanding of complex problems by considering the interrelation between variables, facilitating system modeling in various fields.
The results obtained through statistical analysis indicate a significant improvement in students' academic performance after implementing the systems approach. The Wilcoxon test showed a p-value of 5.539 × 10⁻¹⁰, confirming that grades significantly improved in the second evaluation. Additionally, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test revealed that the analyzed variables (nota-1, nota-2, dt1, dt2) do not follow a normal distribution, justifying the use of non-parametric methods.
Overall, systems thinking-based teaching reduces learning variability, helping students acquire a more structured knowledge. The findings suggest that this approach can be a valuable tool for teaching research methodology in engineering and applied sciences.
References
1. Bloom. Collected papers of Jay W. Forrester: Bloom, Mitchel F., Jay W. Forrester, Wright-Allen press, 1975, 284 pp., $30.00. Technol Forecast Soc Change 1977;10:415-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(77)90038-5.
2. Song Y, Feng JF. The research on the application of systems thinking in learning organizations (ID: 8-070) 2006:3524-6.
3. Arnold RD, Wade JP. A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach 2015;44:669-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050.
4. Falcón AL, R SG. About Theoretical and Empirical Research Methods: Significance for Educational Research. Rev Conrado 2021;17:22-31 , ISSN = 1990-8644.
5. Pouvreau D. On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s «general systemology», and on its relationship to cybernetics - Part II: Contexts and developments of the systemological hermeneutics instigated by von Bertalanffy. Int J Gen Syst 2014;43:172-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2014.883743.
6. Van Assche K, Valentinov V, Verschraegen G. Ludwig von Bertalanffy and his enduring relevance: Celebrating 50 years General System Theory. Syst Res Behav Sci 2019;36:251-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2589.
7. Lane DC. The power of the bond between cause and effect: Jay Wright Forrester and the field of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 2007;23:95-118. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.370.
8. Homer J. Reply to Jay Forrester’s «System dynamics - the next fifty years». Syst Dyn Rev 2007;23:465-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.388.
9. Khan H, Ozkan KSL, Deligonul S, Cavusgil E. Redefining the organizational resilience construct using a frame based methodology: A new perspective from the ecology based approach. J Bus Res 2024;172:114397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114397.
10. Keuth H. Karl Popper and the Positivism Dispute 2019;123.
11. Cordero A. Mario Bunge’s Scientific Realism. Sci Educ 2012;21:1419-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9456-6.
12. Sayed A, Mohamed K, Mostafa A, Marwa M. Predict student learning styles and suitable assessment methods using click stream. Egypt Inform J 2024;26:100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eij.2024.100469.
13. Grohs JR, Kirk GR, Soledad MM, Knight DB. Assessing systems thinking: A tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems. Think Ski Creat 2018;28:110-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.03.003.
14. Degres L, Pierreval H, Caux C. Simulation of Steel Industry using System Dynamics. IFAC Proc Vol 2004;37:461-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-6670(17)36157-8.
15. Lake ET. Papers on research methods: The hidden gems of the research literature. Res Nurs Health 2019;42:421-2. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.21995.
16. Whitehead NP, Scherer WT, Smith MC. Systems Thinking About Systems Thinking A Proposal for a Common Language. IEEE Syst J 2015;9:1117-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2014.2332494.
17. Shin HS, Allan J. Modeling the relationship between students’ prior knowledge, causal reasoning processes, and quality of causal maps. Comput Educ 2021;163:104113.
18. van Knippenberg D. The Problem of Research Method Informing Research Question in Leadership Research. J Leadersh Organ Stud 2023;30:5-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221130704.
19. Kenzie ES, Wakeland W, Jetter A, Lich KH, Seater M, Gunn R, et al. Protocol for an interview-based method for mapping mental models using causal-loop diagramming and realist interviewing. Eval Program Plann 2024;103:102412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102412.
20. Delgado-Maciel J, Cortés-Robles G, Alor-Hernández G, Alcaráz JG, Negny S. A comparison between the Functional Analysis and the Causal-Loop Diagram to model inventive problems. Procedia CIRP 2018;70:259-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.235.
21. Galindo-Domínguez H, Daniel LI. Inteligencia emocional e ideación suicida en adolescentes: el rol mediador y moderador del apoyo social. Rev Psicodidáct 2023;28:125-34.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fernando Ramírez-Paredes, Victor Montenegro Simancas , Doris Ascanta Otacoma (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
