Abstract for: What Does Systems Thinking Mean to Undergraduates?- Findings from a Research Study

This study examined how undergraduates from a multidisciplinary cohort conceptualized systems thinking through a single open‑ended question. While pre‑test responses showed limited understanding, post‑test results reflected improvement across seven attributes, though overall comprehension remained modest. Addressing gaps in prior research, it asked how undergraduates conceptualize systems thinking. Mixed post‑test outcomes suggest that although core skills improved, deeper competencies—such as recognizing dynamic behaviour and synthesizing feedback—require greater instructional emphasis. A qualitative pre/post study examined students’ open‑ended responses to a systems‑thinking question. Forty‑six students completed the online pre‑test and sixty‑nine the paper‑based post‑test. Participants were undergraduates from diverse disciplines. The course taught systems‑thinking concepts and causal loop diagramming. Responses were analyzed using grounded theory. Importantly, our analytical approaches (Tables 2–3, A1–A2, and Figure 1) are novel and offer alternative methods for assessing students’ systems‑thinking development. The analysis of students’ post‑test responses (Tables 1-3, Tables A1 and A2, and Figure 1) revealed varying levels of systems thinking across seven attributes, including interconnectedness, feedback, causality, boundaries, mapping, emergent behaviour, and synthesis. All students demonstrated at least one attribute, enabling the creation of an attribute continuum ranging from inadequate to fully correct understanding. This continuum illustrates progressive development, with the strongest responses displaying all seven attributes, supported by sample responses placed along the continuum. The post‑test results show clear but uneven gains in systems‑thinking attributes. Interconnectedness (67 responses) and mapping (65) were most frequently demonstrated, followed by causality (54), while more complex attributes such as emergent behaviour (29), synthesis (27), and system boundaries (20) appeared less often. Feedback was least evident (9), suggesting it remains conceptually challenging. Overall, the pattern indicates growing recognition of basic structures and relationships, but limited mastery of higher‑order dynamic and integrative aspects of systems thinking.