This article is licensed under CC-BY 4.

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Conceptual Modeling Enables Systems Thinking in Sustainable

Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
Leonie E. Krab-Hüsken, Linlin Pei, Pepijn G. de Vries, Saskia Lindhoud, Jos M. J. Paulusse,
Pascal Jonkheijm, and Albert S. Y. Wong*
Cite This: J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584 Read Online

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *

sı Supporting Information
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ABSTRACT: This study aims to equip students with conceptual modeling skills to address
compelling 21st-century challenges in chemistry and chemical engineering education.
System-based concept mapping is a critical competence for analyzing global, often complex,
problems. We examined how conceptual modeling could scaffold practical experimental
Downloaded via 189.48.199.136 on July 5, 2025 at 18:06:07 (UTC).

design, transitioning from problem identification to testable hypotheses. We set up a project

in which first-year undergraduates in chemical engineering work in groups of 5−6 students.
Their task was to develop concrete hypotheses for assignments that center on finding
sustainable solutions for polluted environments. A set of educational roles (i.e., lecturers,
tutors, learning assistants, educational specialist, and project coordinator) were implemented
to ensure that students could accomplish their main learning outcome; that is, to become
familiar with the academic way of thinking and apply critical thinking skills as a team.
Interviews were conducted after the project was finished and revealed that, while conceptual
modeling helped students to structure their ideas (i.e., to learn how to design research
questions, incorporate interventions, and test models), developing hypotheses remains a challenging task. Our findings brought us to
the recommendations for teaching conceptual modeling in the curriculum rather than at the project level, allowing students to
progressively transition from understanding and applying concept mapping in their first year into creating solutions within the
context of solving complex real-world problems in the final year of their bachelor’s degree. The collaborative learning environment
and project format employed in this work could spark new ways to teach science that facilitates systems thinking in chemistry.
KEYWORDS: Introductory Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, First-Year Undergraduate/General, Conceptual Modeling,
Systems Thinking, Systems Chemistry

1. INTRODUCTION Complex systems consist of various interacting parts, where

the collective behavior of those parts together is more than the
1.1. Complexity of Global Problems Requires New Ways to
sum of their individual behaviors,15 which cannot be solved
Teach Chemistry
using the traditional reductionist approach.16 However, our
Education of grand challenges of the 21st Century (e.g., the current teaching methods for students in higher education
ambitious targets in sustainability outlined by the United (bachelor, master, and Ph.D. level alike) remain grounded in the
Nations) requires skills in investigating and understanding 19th century, teacher-centered, style of instructing.17 We need
interactions between a system and its environment, including innovative and student-centered approaches to teach chemists
the human components therein.1,2 Addressing these global to think in terms of systems, leveraging the interdisciplinary
issues such as ecosystems, diverse life forms, urban areas, and nature of chemistry as a “central science” to address real-world
climate dynamics demands a focus on complex systems.3 environmental challenges.4
Chemistry offers great potential for tackling these global, often This paper is targeted at chemistry teachers, as their
complex, problems,4 as it is a discipline that facilitates a range of curriculum involves conceptualizing phenomena that are
methods, varying from organic (e.g., the synthesis of relevant derived from many different directions (including but not
molecular structures) to analytical (e.g., the development of limited to engineering, physics, and biology). Organizational
experimental methods) to physical chemistry (e.g., the design
and elaboration of mechanisms that govern the systems’
dynamics).5 Advances in the past two decades, particularly in Received: April 18, 2023
systems chemistry,6 demonstrate that this “flexibility” has Revised: October 23, 2023
enabled important findings in the domain of autonomous Accepted: October 23, 2023
molecular materials,7,8 out-of-equilibrium chemistry,9−12 and Published: November 10, 2023
more generally understanding natural phenomena with an
apparent complexity.13,14
© 2023 The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society and Division https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
of Chemical Education, Inc. 4577 J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Figure 1. A conceptual model integrates the systems thinking (ST) model with the classical hypothesis-deductive model. (a) A simplified model for
systems thinking with a focus on identifying components and their relationships in order to understand (or generalize) a system from a holistic
viewpoint (Adapted from ref 19, Copyright 2019 American Chemical Society). (b) The conceptual model25 as an interconnected approach with a
focus on synthesizing questions required for transitioning from an observation of a phenomenon to a hypothesis which can be placed in the standard
scientific process scheme.35

frameworks have been developed for learning concepts in so- this frame, project-based learning is regularly applied32 and
called systems thinking (ST) (Figure 1a).18,19 Such a framework organized according to the five phases of an inquiry cycle:33 (i)
promises a teaching perspective to increase the reasoning ability orientation, (ii) conceptualization, (iii) investigation, (iv)
of chemistry and chemical-engineering students and impacts conclusion, and (v) discussion. Acknowledging the potential
what students focus on in learning, their way of conducting complexity of systems thinking that first-year bachelor students
research, and their understanding of scientific concepts that are may encounter, we prioritize providing prior instruction in
difficult to disentangle otherwise.20 Chemistry-relevant applica- conceptual modeling theories to establish a solid theoretical
tions of ST skills involve:21 (i) examining the behavior of a foundation for the students before they embark on their projects.
system as a whole, as opposed to the behaviors of the parts of a Further, we facilitate a stimulating learning environment by
system, and (ii) considering the ways in which two system- training and employing learning assistants (LAs, i.e., trained,
relevant variables affect each other (as in closed loops), as senior CSE students) who can guide junior students in the
opposed to how one variable affects the other (as in linear project. The LAs play a pivotal role in making sure that students
chains). Crucially, however, empirical studies on the imple- remain motivated throughout the project by actively coaching
mentation of ST in chemistry education are lacking.22 students in their group work. We experienced that students
1.2. Conceptual Modeling in Chemical Sciences Education (unintentionally) skip an important phase in the inquiry cycle:
To guide and scaffold ST in chemistry education, we looked for conceptualization. As a consequence, they iterate similar
methods that promote concept-related thinking.23 Conceptual solutions whereas radical new solutions are required to address
modeling (CM)24,25 is one such method that focuses on the the grand challenges.
reasoning ability of scientists. Akin to other established methods Specifically for the context of CSE, CM can be used as a
that focus on essential critical thinking skills26 and project methodology to focus on scientific reasoning for the purpose of
intensification,27 it can be used for the purpose of collaborative designing experiments. In this view, CM was first introduced at
problem solving.1 Through iterations, a conceptual model the end of the first year in 2021, integrated with courses in
becomes a hub in which aspects can be brought together to electrochemistry.34 Students were given the task to propose and
represent the scientific concept, i.e., the problem and its solution carry out experiments to understand how an electrochemical cell
(Figure 1b). Importantly, this method entails the construction of works in a project lab assignment. Students and teaching staff,
models that represent a system and its components, allowing however, both expressed concerns that the introduction of CM
students to understand the interrelationships among various (requiring the students to develop a hypothesis for experiments)
system components and how they work together. and a practical course (requiring the students to execute the
Recent developments in educational research suggest that designed experiments) simultaneously led to a reduced
systems thinking abilities can be developed through concept understanding of the learning outcomes for both objectives.
mapping,28,29 provided that students are guided to focus and Given this challenge, we now question: How can we leverage
reflect on specific systems thinking skills.30 The action of conceptual modeling to enhance the existing CSE curriculum to
mapping in the perspective of CM involves essential character- ef fectively teach systems thinking?
istics in the “way of reasoning”, taking into account the 1.3. Approach
relationship between systems and other approaches in
chemistry,29 which is an important academic skill that we wish We introduced CM as part of a project assignment in the first
to promote in our education.31 For context, our Chemical module.36 The general learning outcome for this project is to
Science & Engineering (CSE) bachelor program at the allow students to become familiar with the academic way of
University of Twente (Enschede, The Netherlands) comprises thinking and apply critical thinking skills as a team. The project
in total 12 “modules”, spread over three years. Each module has focuses on how students can critically assess information, discuss
its own topic and focuses on the development of a specific set of reasoning, identify criteria, and formulate a research question in
knowledge, skills, and learning attitude according to competence order to create an accurate representation of a relevant societal
areas required for a research-university grade in chemistry. In problem and, in the end, to propose (a direction for) a solution.
4578 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Figure 2. General project activities and learning objectives in the project. Project activities are divided in five general milestones, and the teaching staff
involved in each milestone is indicated below in the bar chart. Details of the timeline and assessments are provided in Figure S1.

The assessment in this project is, thus, based on the concrete addition, to mimic the conditions expected during the
products of conceptual modeling. execution of the project, the workshop provided the first
To setup this project, our approach starts from identifying the setting for the students to work in groups. They practiced
crucial requirements in the ST model (Figure 1a) and use CM to how to conceptualize a problem and develop a solution
integrate it with the classical deductive reasoning37 (Figure 1b). (see Methods and Protocols). At the end of the workshop
CM from the original, philosophical standpoint emphasizes “key on conceptual modeling, three project themes were
aspects” (indicated in gray): the process of ideation, formulation introduced, namely. find solutions to (i) perfluoroalkyl
of the so-called epistemic purpose, sketch of the problem chemicals (PFAS) in the environment, (ii) heavy metals
context, and definition of what can be accounted for as relevant in water, and (iii) methane emissions from waste dumps.
knowledge, among others.25 We clustered these aspects into • Project orientation. The students were given two
well-established and widely used terms: observation, theoretical working days to choose their project topic. We reasoned
background, experimental method, state of the art, problem that the topics (given in project initiation) involve general
representation(s), and hypothesis. This intervention aims to chemical processes with a large environmental impact38,39
ensure students apply CM according to its principles: an and that because of their topicality (i.e., all topics had
effective framework for constructing models that allows students been in the news in the months before the start of the
to learn how to design interferences and develop hypotheses in a term) these themes would appeal to the students. In
systematic manner. addition, the scope of the project themes was broad,
In greater detail, the CM is developed by a project called providing sufficient room for students to identify different
“Systems thinking in sustainable chemistry”. The project centers problems. Alongside the orientation, workshops on
around a mandatory group assignment and aims to find effective meetings (focusing on teamwork), information
sustainable solutions for polluted environments. We assembled skills (focusing on assessing and referring to literature),
a teaching staff to guide the project activities as well as organized academic English (focusing on written communication),
workshops to develop the students’ essential skills (Figure 2). and presentation skills (focusing on oral communication)
The teaching staff includes a project coordinator (or a were organized to gradually develop the students’
preceptor) who oversees the process from conceptualization essential skills required for this project (and, more
to preparation to evaluation (see Methods and Protocols), an generally, for ST). Thus, students started with all options
educational consultant who evaluates the application of CM, open, not thinking about practicalities yet thinking
lecturers in essential skills, and finally tutors (experienced creatively in many directions. Upon their first tutor
researchers with a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and a permanent meeting, the scaffolding would start.
position at our university) and the learning assistants (LAs, • Project execution. In this phase, the students learned to
senior students with extensive didactical training and experience plan project-based work, meet effectively, work in a team
in CSE projects) who guide the execution of the project. The in order to identify a problem, and propose solutions for a
activities of the project are organized as follows: chosen sustainability topic. For the execution of the
assignment, we divided the population of 48 students into
• Project initiation. The project started with a workshop collaborative project groups (comprising 5−6 students),
on conceptual modeling, wherein the project assignment with each group supported by two trained learning
was first introduced by a lecturer. The learning objectives assistants (LAs) and one tutor. The tutors are tasked to
of the introductory workshop are to understand the discuss the propositions of the working groups and to help
context of conceptual modeling and to become in creating further iterations of their conceptual models.
acquainted with chemistry-related problem examples in The LAs are tasked to support the group process during
society and possible routes for developing a hypothesis. In the project of 10 weeks (for a list of specific tasks, see
4579 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Figure 3. Project results. (a) Project observations. Summary of the problems and solutions in the project assignments, with the distributions in the
topics, problems, and solutions based on student responses from 9 project groups (for details, see Table S5). (b) Project assessment. Summary of
project grades, determined based on the assessment of the report and the additional discussion (for details, see Section S3.5). Grades are based on the
Dutch grading system and range from a distinct fail (<3.5), fail (3.5−4.4), almost pass (4.5−5.4), pass (5.5−6.4), distinct pass (6.5−7.4), good (7.5−
8.4), very good (8.5−9.4), and excellent (9.5−10). Red dashed line indicates the cutoff grade, 5.5. Deviation in the grades for discussion represents the
distribution among students in a project group.

Table S1). In addition, the information specialist (one of • Apply theoretical knowledge to investigate a
the teachers) guided all project groups in searching research question and supplement missing knowl-
literature (including documenting search activities, edge independently.
assessing quality of information, recognizing scientific
• Show the ability to distinguish between results,
papers, referencing, and avoiding plagiarism).
discussion, and conclusions.
• Project outcome. The project is concluded with a group
report, wherein we expect students to be able to
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• Write a report according to the general scientific
method (Figure 1b), making use of their project 2.1. Project Assessment
journal. That is, the reports summarize the We asked nine groups of students to select a topic from three
assignment, problem statement, proposed solu- options. Only limited information was provided on the origin of
tion(s), and the resulting hypothesis (see Table the problem and possible hypothesis. Throughout the course of
S3). the project, the groups have worked on defining the problem,
• Write a project journal, showing their first steps in coming up with a solution, and developing a hypothesis for the
CM, as a group. That is, the project journal (i.e., the possible experiments that one could design to test their ideas
appendix of the report) demonstrates how the (Table S4). The majority of the groups (seven out of nine)
problem statement as well as the solution evolved accepted that pollution is part of our society and proposed to
through the application of CM. Students are develop methods to filter harmful components, independent
encouraged to make visual representations (draw- from the project topic (Figure 3). Only one group wished to
ings, mind maps, process schemes) to show their investigate the nature of the problem and aimed to develop
lines of thought and to use as starting points for methods to map the extent and heterogeneity of polluted water.
their conceptual model. Another group focused on the conditions from which the
• Recognize and read scientific literature and discuss problem originated and aimed to develop novel materials that
its validity (in written form) with respect to the are more environmentally friendly than those currently available.
research questions relevant to the chosen sustain- The observation that most groups aimed at similar types of
ability subject. solutions is most probably caused by the fact that the project
• Be familiar with available sources, rules concerning topics revolved around pollution. This project assignment
plagiarism, and source acknowledgment and adopt revealed that students can identify widespread problems in given
a critical attitude toward literature. settings or topics but arrive at only a limited number of types of
• Project discussion. The inquiry cycle is completed with a solutions.
discussion session, wherein students discussed their The tutors, the LAs, and the information specialist carried out
results with a committee comprising “external teachers” an assessment of the reports as described in the assessment
(teachers that were not involved as tutors). The matrix (Table S2). We clustered the various criteria into three
committee assessed the ability of students (see Methods essential elements of a report:
and Protocols) to
• Information skills, i.e., the ability of students to search the
• Demonstrate their results in an individual pre-
relevant literature.
sentation, including the use of academic English.
• Discuss the validity of chosen literature with • Process, i.e., the ability of students to communicate and
respect to the research questions relevant to the cooperate effectively with their group.
chosen sustainability subject. • Product, i.e., the ability of students to report a problem
• Justify the conception of their CM, their statement and the proposed solution(s).
assumptions required for the hypothesis, and Combined, these elements determine the average grade for
their solutions. the report (Figure 3b). In contrast to assessing the ability of
4580 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

students to search the relevant literature or communicate

effectively with their group, we found that the product could not
be adequately assessed according to our initial matrix (Table
S6). Instead, rather than focusing on the detailed assessment
criteria developed for this project, we organized an additional
meeting wherein all tutors were present and collectively ranked
the project groups with the criteria for the product taken in
consideration. This intervention made it possible to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the project groups relative to each
other and assign grades accordingly.
We then invited each group for a discussion with a committee
comprising external (noninvolved) teachers to validate the
ranking among the project groups. This validation includes an
assessment of the individual contributions in each group. That
is, the committee assessed the ability to justify the project Figure 4. Application of conceptual modeling in the project. Summary
outcome, by directing questions to a specific student and of the CM applied and hypothesis developed with the distributions
subsequently giving other students of the group the opportunity based on student responses from 9 project groups (for details, see Table
to add to or comment on the given answer. This discussion S4).
method allowed us to obtain an insight into students’
understanding of the project based on the content of the
topic, the level of justification, and knowledge of the identified
criteria that led to the proposed hypothesis and solutions, as well research question, we found that the groups who used this mind-
as their communication skills. For instance, the report of one map approach experienced difficulties in establishing their
group was graded as an “almost pass”, but the discussion showed hypothesis based on identifiable criteria. They, however,
a significant improvement for this group. As it turned out, there benefited from engaging with the committee in the project
were two students in the group of five that performed discussion.
insufficiently (which is represented by a grade below 5.4), 2.2. Value of CM
resulting in a large deviation in the group. The discussion session To gain a deeper understanding of how conceptual modeling
thus allowed us to refine the grade of the project as well as helped students develop their solutions in this project, we
determine individual deviations from the group performances conducted semistructured interviews with a sample of students
and to provide grades for each student. The individual grades are (n = 20) using an interview protocol described in Methods and
presented in Table S7. The project was successfully finalized Protocols. Before the interview, all students signed a consent
with 94% (45/48) of students passing with a final grade above form acknowledging their voluntary participation. Most of the
the cutoff grade (5.5 or higher). We note that the project only students that were interviewed held a positive view of the
accounts for a small portion for the entire first-year curriculum incorporation of the conceptual-modeling approach to develop
(specifically, 1.7 European Credits, 3% of the total credits systems thinking in the first module of their bachelor program.
required for the first year). Particularly for those who did not They perceived that this approach provided them with a
pass, the outcome of this project is meant to create awareness scientific method for “structuring ideas”, “opening their minds”,
among the new generation of students that a different attitude is and avoiding premature commitment to solutions without
desired for an academic way of thinking (and acting). Not considering other alternatives. They commented that the initial
attaining a passing grade is intended as an essential moment for workshop and the opportunity to work on projects, specifically,
reflection, serving to motivate students to strive for improve- aided them most in developing a concept-mapping approach.
ment as they progress to the next phase in their bachelor Surprisingly, all of the interviewed students emphasized the
program. value of collaborating with their peers in the mandatory group
The average grade of the report and the discussion, 6.9 (Table project. According to the students, their engagement in the
S8), shows that students can successfully complete the intended group projects increased their motivation and openness to
learning outcomes of this project. As anticipated, some of the diverse perspectives, as they need to openly exchange ideas,
students required more time, experience, and support to fully actively discuss different opinions, and collaboratively reach a
grasp the essentials of CM. In greater detail, five among nine consensus. The students perceived the importance of this
groups applied conceptual modeling according to its principles process in developing their systems thinking skills. They,
(Figure 4). These groups first acquired background information however, also pointed out that CM could be perceived as
to understand the relevance of the topic and, subsequently, to somewhat abstract. They suggested that additional tutoring
organize their final conceptual model, they used intermediate sessions, where they could receive more specific feedback, would
steps to specify their search, find correlations between the be beneficial and have improved the applicability of the
phenomenon and different variables, and look for existing approach. As first-year undergraduates, they were more familiar
methods that one could use. The details are reported in Section with receiving direct help from teachers rather than being skilled
S3.4, and with the exception of one group, they (thus, 4 out of 5 in independent research and problem solving. In response, we
groups) successfully defined their hypothesis. Other project evaluated our project with the LAs and our teaching staff on two
groups interpreted CM as a mind map for collecting information occasions (during and after the project was finalized). Overall,
from their brainstorming sessions, indicating that they were less tutors facilitated and supported students in finding the answers
strong in critical thinking. While the mind-map interpretation themselves, instead of providing (immediate) answers. We
could be equally useful for finding and discussing literature, as recognize the challenges faced by students and emphasize the
well as for sketching the problem context and formulating a importance of LAs and tutors having a sound knowledge of
4581 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

environmental chemistry concepts and conceptual modeling • Improve student−teacher interaction. The support
skills to effectively facilitate this advanced pedagogical approach. network helped to increase students’ scientific
2.3. Discussion thinking, motivation, and learning attitudes. This
type of working in teams not only attracted
Our findings indicate that conceptual-modeling skills can be
students to the meetings on campus and enhanced
developed at the start of the first year in a university curriculum.
learning-by-interaction but also broadened the
While the students appreciated the concept-mapping approach
opportunities of our teaching staff, resulting in
and the associated learning activities to develop systems
high teaching staff satisfaction.
thinking, the students and teaching staff pointed out a few
aspects which need to be taken into consideration for a • We acknowledge the limitations of this study,
successful implementation of CM in chemistry and chemical which was conducted on a single chemical
engineering education: engineering program at a European university. To
further strengthen the concept, future work with
• The development of conceptual-modeling skills requires larger samples of students and/or in different
students’ learning autonomy, which necessitates that educational settings is recommended. It is essential
bachelor-level students take on responsibility for their to recognize that modern chemical students must
own learning. Fostering student autonomy in learning is address complex systems to tackle global chal-
crucial in helping students to engage in the process of lenges. To prepare future chemical engineers, we
analyzing complex and abstract situations. This may intend to integrate an interdisciplinary mindset in
suggest that additional training and support in self- our teaching.4 Nevertheless, this study provides
regulated learning are recommended to facilitate and valuable empirical input to inform conceptual
empower students. On the other hand, teachers also need models in chemical engineering education.
to shift their mindset from “sage on the stage” to “guide by
the side” to facilitate students’ autonomy.40 We show that 3. CONCLUSIONS
by creating a supportive environment with teachers’
scaffolding and guidance, one could create the necessary This work describes a conceptual modeling (CM) approach,
conditions for those that are new to an academic implemented in the first year of a bachelor’s degree in chemistry
environment to establish systems thinking, which tran- and chemical engineering at a Dutch research university. We
scends the classification of problems and design of designed a project wherein 48 engineering students were tasked
solutions. The introduction of intermediate expert to design solutions to address problems in sustainability (in
feedback sessions would further improve the possibilities groups of five or six). The findings of this study indicate that, by
to address the difficult step(s) in defining criteria required employing a CM approach, students can be encouraged to focus
for the development of meaningful hypotheses and on the conceptualization phase in inquiry-based learning,
avoiding premature solutions. leading to diverse and holistic perspectives of the problem
context (key aspects for systems thinking). To help students
• The results of this study suggest that conceptual modeling with CM, it is recommended to create a supportive learning
skills are difficult and somewhat abstract for bachelor’s environment that encompasses educational roles such as tutors
students to develop through a single course alone. The and learning assistants. This support is necessary to provide
project format with various educational roles can assist students with guidance, motivation, and feedback when facing
students in analyzing the system as a whole, but students challenges. Additionally, this study also emphasizes the
need first to familiarize themselves with an academic way significance of an interdisciplinary approach that requires
of thinking and apply critical thinking skills as a team. students to integrate knowledge in chemistry with essential
Hence, it is recommended to ensure that students will skills such as collaboration, communication, research, and
have the opportunity to develop their skills in conceptual academic writing. We believe that CM as implemented here
modeling, progressively from understanding in their first could spark new ways to teach science42 that facilitate systems
year to applying in their second year to creating in their thinking in chemistry, which allow students to develop critical
third year. Alongside this gradual development in their thinking abilities and apply them toward solving real-world
conceptual thinking, CM will lay the foundation for problems. With iteration and reflection and appropriate and
systems thinking as it will: informed action, this may evolve into a project format that can
• Deepen student learning experiences. The imple- be applied to a variety of disciplines, promising a tool that strives
mented project groups motivated students to for all students to fully develop their potential in becoming
actively participate in meetings to achieve deep academic citizens.
learning experiences. Notably, the project groups
also limit the discrimination of different thinking 4. METHODS AND PROTOCOLS
styles (e.g., reflective, intuitive, or transitional 4.1. Workshop on CM
thinkers41) as they work together in groups.
To engage students in conceptual modeling, a workshop was
• Alleviate student work load. Learning or teaching developed to introduce the context and application of CM to
assistance professionalization to support students students. To this end, the workshop was divided into two general
creates a safe and supportive learning environment. learning objectives: (i) understand the context of conceptual
Such teaching presence in this supportive environ- modeling and (ii) practice developing a conceptual model. Part I
ment is generally appreciated by students and, in a provided examples and poll questions to allow students to
broader perspective, can create a sustainable and determine what is, and what is not, a conceptual model. Part II
motivating atmosphere without increasing work- provided observations, and students were tasked to conceptu-
load. alize a scientific problem and develop a solution as a group.
4582 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Three project themes were introduced at the end of the Project timeline and activities; general guidelines for
workshop, similar to the observations provided during the writing the project report, a project journal; project
workshop. A summary of the workshop (*.pptx) can be assessment (which includes assessment criteria for
provided upon request. project, summaries of students’ responses, students’
4.2. Assessment interpretation of CM, and project assessment); interview
To determine how students have applied conceptual modeling protocol “value of CM” (PDF)
in their project, we asked students to write a report, with a
template provided in Section S3. The report was 50% of the
collective grade, a mark resulting from the combined assessment
by the tutors, the information specialist, and the LAs. We
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
developed an assessment scheme (with rubrics for the elements
Albert S. Y. Wong − Chemical Science & Engineering
process, product, and information skills) to analyze how the
programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
group performed (see Section S4). In addition to the report, a
University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands;
discussion session was organized with a committee (comprising
Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and
external lecturers) to allow students to justify their reasoning in
Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The
their report. The discussion was the remaining 50% of their
Netherlands; Email: [email protected]
grade.
4.3. Protocol for the Discussion Sessions with Students Authors
All groups were invited to a discussion session (30-to-40 min Leonie E. Krab-Hüsken − Chemical Science & Engineering
meeting) to discuss their report and project journal. The programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
committee read the report and was instructed to ask questions to University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands
a student from the group and give them time to elaborate their Linlin Pei − Chemical Science & Engineering programme
answer. As part of this discussion, teachers from our language (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology, University of
center provided individual feedback on oral communication Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands; Centre of
(see project initiation, in Section 1.3) for which each student was Expertise in Learning and Teaching (CELT), Centre of
required to speak for at least 5 min during this meeting. We Educational Support, University of Twente, 7522 NH
therefore organized this meeting very strictly (name tags, Enschede, The Netherlands
speaking time per student, if others want to add something they Pepijn G. de Vries − Chemical Science & Engineering
could only speak when given the floor, etc.). At least 10 min were programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
planned between groups to give tutors and English teachers time University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands
for finalizing their notes and for a brief evaluation on the Saskia Lindhoud − Chemical Science & Engineering
performance of the students. Based on the discussion, the programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
committee determined deviations from the group performances University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands;
to provide grades for each individual. Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and
4.4. Evaluation Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The
Netherlands; orcid.org/0000-0002-4164-0763
This project was evaluated with our teaching staff on two
Jos M. J. Paulusse − Chemical Science & Engineering
occasions (during and after the project was finalized). In
programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
addition, as this project was newly introduced in our curriculum,
University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands;
we also presented our preliminary results to colleagues in our
Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and
educational program at our CSE Teacher’s lunch (46th ed.,
Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The
November 17th, 2022). Two separate occasions were organized
Netherlands
for students to provide feedback: once during a general Quality
Pascal Jonkheijm − Chemical Science & Engineering
Assurance meeting and once during a CM-specific interview
programme (CSE), Faculty of Science and Technology,
(see protocol below).
University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The Netherlands;
4.5. Protocol for Interview Sessions with Students Department of Molecules and Materials, Faculty of Science and
Interviews were conducted, and to include each performance Technology, University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, The
group (high, middle, and low; see Figure 3b), we invited four Netherlands; orcid.org/0000-0001-6271-0049
focus groups. The interview sessions were semistructured with Complete contact information is available at:
an emphasis on conceptual modeling and also allowed https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
participants to freely express their opinions in order to uncover
unexpected findings. Before conducting the interview, our study Author Contributions
obtained signed consent forms from all the students. Each
interview session lasted approximately 1 h. For data analysis, the A.S.Y.W., P.J., and L.E.K.-H. conceived the project. A.S.Y.W.
sessions were recorded and transcribed into text. The questions designed the workshop on conceptual modeling. L.E.K.-H.
in the interview are in Section S5. supervised and planned the project. L.P. developed and executed
the CM interview. L.E.K.-H. and P.G.V. developed the
■
*
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
sı Supporting Information
assessment. A.S.Y.W., J.M.J.P., and S.L. developed the project
topics and acted as tutors and/or assessors for this project. P.J.
and L.E.K.-H. acted as committee members for the oral
The Supporting Information is available at https://pubs.ac- assessment. A.S.Y.W., L.P., and L.E.K.-H. wrote the manuscript.
s.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337. All authors contributed to reviewing the manuscript.
4583 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584
Journal of Chemical Education pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Article

Notes (22) York, S.; Lavi, R.; Dori, Y. J.; Orgill, M. Applications of Systems
Thinking in STEM Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2742−2751.
The authors declare no competing financial interest. (23) Peretz, R.; Tal, M.; Akiri, E.; Dori, D.; Dori, Y. J. Fostering

■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Arturo Susarrey Arce and Mieke Boon for
engineering and science students’ and teachers’ systems thinking and
conceptual modeling skills. Instr. Sci. 2023, 51, 509−543.
(24) Dori, D. Model-Based Systems Engineering with OPM and SysML;
Springer: Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London; New York, 2016.
contributing to the discussions on implementing CM in our (25) Knuuttila, T.; Boon, M. How do models give us knowledge? The
education program. We thank Hanneke Becht (information case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. Eur. J. Philos. 2011, 1, 309−334.
specialist), Sandra Souzy-Michel and Ivana Lin (tutors), and (26) Papathanasiou, I. V.; Kleisiaris, C. F.; Fradelos, E. C.; Kakou, K.;
Jurriaan Huskens (committee member) for their role in Kourkouta, L. Critical Thinking: The Development of an Essential Skill
supporting this project. We further thank our LAs for supporting for Nursing Students. Acta Inform. 2014, 22, 283−286.
and guiding the students in this project: Lucija Baljint, Fiona (27) Fernandez Rivas, D.; Boffito, D. C.; Faria-Albanese, J.; Glassey, J.;
Hafferl, Hazem Haggui, Felix Kranz, Martin Matej, Maike Cantin, J.; Afraz, N.; Akse, H.; Boodhoo, K. V.K.; Bos, R.; Chiang, Y.
Oudeman, Nathan Pinto, and Ivanna Vasylkiv. Lastly, we thank W.; Commenge, J.-M.; Dubois, J.-L.; Galli, F.; Harmsen, J.; Kalra, S.;
Keil, F.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Navarro-Brull, F. J.; Noel, T.; Ogden,
our peers, present at the 46th CSE Teacher’s lunch (November K.; Patience, G. S.; Reay, D.; Santos, R. M.; Smith-Schoettker, A.;
17th, 2022), for their constructive feedback. Stankiewicz, A. I.; van den Berg, H.; van Gerven, T.; van Gestel, J.;

■ REFERENCES
(1) Griffin, P.; McGaw, B.; Care, E. Assessment and Teaching of 21st
Weber, R.S. Process intensification education contributes to sustainable
development goals. Part 2. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2020, 32, 15−24.
(28) Mahaffy, P. G.; Holme, T. A.; Martin-Visscher, L.; Martin, B. E.;
Versprille, A.; Kirchhoff, M.; McKenzie, L.; Towns, M. Beyond “Inert”
Century Skills; Springer: Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London; New York, Ideas to Teaching General Chemistry from Rich Contexts: Visualizing
2012. the Chemistry of Climate Change (VC3). J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94,
(2) Darling-Hammond, L. Constructing 21st-Century Teacher 1027−1035.
Education. J. Teach. Educ. 2006, 57, 300−314. (29) York, S.; Orgill, M. ChEMIST Table: A Tool for Designing or
(3) Morin, E. From the concept of system to the paradigm of Modifying Instruction for a Systems Thinking Approach in Chemistry
complexity. J. Soc. Evol. Syst. 1992, 15, 371−385. Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 2114−2129.
(4) Gentili, P. L. Designing and Teaching a Novel Interdisciplinary (30) Aubrecht, K. B.; Dori, Y. J.; Holme, T. A.; Lavi, R.; Matlin, S. A.;
Course on Complex Systems To Prepare New Generations To Address Orgill, M.; Skaza-Acosta, H. Graphical Tools for Conceptualizing
21st-Century Challenges. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2704−2709. Systems Thinking in Chemistry Education. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96,
(5) Whitesides, G. M. Physical-Organic Chemistry: A Swiss Army 2888−2900.
Knife. Isr. J. Chem. 2016, 56, 66−82. (31) Miller, R. K. Building on Math and Science: The New Essential
(6) Ashkenasy, G.; Hermans, T. M.; Otto, S.; Taylor, A. F. Systems Skills for the 21st-Century Engineer. Res.-Technol. Manag. 2017, 60,
chemistry. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 2543−2554. 53−56.
(7) Lancia, F.; Ryabchun, A.; Katsonis, N. Life-like motion driven by (32) Gabel, D. Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry
artificial molecular machines. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2019, 3, 536−551. Education Research: A Look to the Future. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76,
(8) Lerch, M. M.; Grinthal, A.; Aizenberg, J. Viewpoint: Homeostasis 548.
as Inspiration�Toward Interactive Materials. Adv. Mater. 2020, 32, (33) Pedaste, M.; Mäeots, M.; Siiman, L. A.; de Jong, T.; van Riesen, S.
1905554. A. N.; van Kamp, E. T.; Manoli, C. C.; Zacharias, Z. C.; Eleftheria, T.
(9) Grzybowski, B. A.; Fitzner, K.; Paczesny, J.; Granick, S. From Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle.
dynamic self-assembly to networked chemical systems. Chem. Soc. Rev. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 14, 47−61.
2017, 46, 5647−5678. (34) Windschitl, M.; Thompson, J.; Braaten, M. Beyond the scientific
(10) van Esch, J. H.; Klajn, R.; Otto, S. Chemical systems out of method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for
equilibrium. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 5474−5475. school science investigations. Sci. Educ. 2008, 92, 941−967.
(11) van Rossum, S. A. P.; Tena-Solsona, M.; van Esch, J. H.; Eelkema, (35) Orozco, M.; Boon, M.; Arce, A. S. Learning electrochemistry
R.; Boekhoven, J. Dissipative out-of-equilibrium assembly of man-made through scientific inquiry. Conceptual modelling as learning objective
supramolecular materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017, 46, 5519−5535. and as scaffold. J. Eng. Educ. 2023, 48, 180−196.
(12) Grzybowski, B. A.; Huck, W. T. S. The nanotechnology of life- (36) Nagarajan, S.; Overton, T. Promoting Systems Thinking Using
inspired systems. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2016, 11, 585−592. Project- and Problem-Based Learning. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2901−
(13) Wong, A. S. Y.; Huck, W. T. S. Grip on complexity in chemical 2909.
reaction networks. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 2017, 13, 1486−1497. (37) Johnson-Laird, P. N. Deductive reasoning. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
(14) Whitesides, G. M.; Ismagilov, R. F. Complexity in Chemistry. 1999, 50, 109−135.
Science 1999, 284, 89−92. (38) Hurst, G. A. Systems thinking approaches for international green
(15) Newman, M. E. J. Resource Letter CS-1: Complex Systems. Am. chemistry education. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2020, 21, 93−97.
J. Phys. 2011, 79, 800−810. (39) MacKellar, J. J.; Constable, D. J. C.; Kirchhoff, M. M.; Hutchison,
(16) Gallagher, R.; Appenzeller, T. Beyond Reductionism. Science J. E.; Beckman, E. Toward a Green and Sustainable Chemistry
1999, 284, 79−79. Education Road Map. J. Chem. Educ. 2020, 97, 2104−2113.
(17) PhD training is no longer fit for purpose � it needs reform now. (40) Morrison, C. D. From ‘Sage on the Stage’ to ‘Guide on the Side’:
Nature 2023, 613, 414−414. A Good Start. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
(18) Cabrera, D.; Colosi, L.; Lobdell, C. Systems thinking. Eval. Learning 2014, 8 (1), 1−15.
Program Plan. 2008, 31, 299−310. (41) Lawson, A. E.; McElrath, C. B.; Burton, M. S.; James, B. D.;
(19) Orgill, M.; York, S.; MacKellar, J. Introduction to Systems Doyle, R. P.; Woodward, S. L.; Kellerman, L.; Snyder, J. D.
Thinking for the Chemistry Education Community. J. Chem. Educ. Hypothetico-deductive reasoning skill and concept acquisition: Testing
2019, 96, 2720−2729. a constructivist hypothesis. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 1991, 28, 953−970.
(20) Pazicni, S.; Flynn, A. B. Systems Thinking in Chemistry (42) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Call
Education: Theoretical Challenges and Opportunities. J. Chem. Educ. to Action for Science Education: Building Opportunity for the Future; The
2019, 96, 2752−2763. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2021.
(21) Richmond, B. Systems thinking/system dynamics: Let’s just get
on with it. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994, 10, 135−157.

4584 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00337
J. Chem. Educ. 2023, 100, 4577−4584