**2. Literature Review**

The interrelationships of various system elements are the primary focus of the systems approach, as the discipline is founded on the understanding that such interactions are equally significant as the particular properties of the system components.

One of systems thinking's pioneers is Ludwig von Bertalanffy [2], a biologist who perceived systems thinking as a method of scientific investigation.

Bertalanffy [2] claimed that in order to understand what separates living matter from non-living matter, one needs to look not only at the microscopic particles, but also how they influence one another within the whole. Thereafter, he confirmed this viewpoint as a fundamental scientific approach, claiming that the only way to fully understand why a phenomenon arises and persists is to understand its parts in relation to the whole [3].

Bertalanffy [3] explained what systems thinking is: an approach that advocates viewing the issue at hand as a whole, emphasizing the interrelationships among its components rather than the components themselves, contrary to the traditional approach that understood a subject by analyzing its individual parts.

Bertalanffy [3] focused on formulating a general systems theory that could explain all systems in various fields of science since all systems are similar. The General Systems Theory (GST) contains a system of arguments, based on inter-disciplinary comparison. According to the GST, application of the theory to one specific scientific field helps solve problems and explain phenomena and processes in other fields [4].

Sterman [5,6] defined systems thinking as the ability to see the world as a complex system, in which we understand that 'you cannot just do one thing', that 'everything is connected to everything else'.

Senge [1] explained how to use the systems-thinking method in order to convert companies into learning organizations.

Senge [1] describes systems thinking as:


Senge and his colleagues [7] claimed that a good systems thinker, particularly in an organizational setting, is someone who can see four levels operating simultaneously: events, patterns of behavior, systems, and mental models. It is systems thinking that brings the disciplines of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning all together.

According to Richmond [8], "Systems thinking is the art and science of making reliable inferences about behavior by developing an increasingly deep understanding of underlying structure".

Richmond [9] uses the paraphrase "forest thinking" to clarify the concept of systems thinking. According to Richmond [9], "forest thinking" involves a "view from 10,000 m rather than focusing on local trees" and "considering how the system influences systems on the other side of the line and how these latter systems influence the former system".

Richmond [10] presents four key questions about the term "systems thinking": What is it? Why is it needed? What works against its being adopted on a broader scale? And finally: What can we do to increase both the speed and breadth of its adoption?

In Richmond's [10,11] opinion, systems thinking is a continuum of activities that range from the conceptual to the technical. The adoption of systems thinking occurs when we are standing back far enough—in both space and time—to be able to see the underlying web of ongoing, reciprocal relationships, interacting cycling to produce the patterns of behavior that a system is exhibiting. You are employing a systems perspective when you can see the forest (of relationships), for the trees. You are not employing a systems perspective when you ge<sup>t</sup> "trapped in an event".

The term "thinking" combines learning and knowledge and includes various concepts such as: parallel thinking, holistic thinking, reductionist thinking, critical thinking, creative thinking, etc. The constructivism theory suggests that the human being is an active learner who constructs his/her knowledge of experience on his/her efforts to give meaning to that experience. In the study presented here, students were required to construct their knowledge by means of active experience and learning.

Social constructivism suggests that learners learn concepts or construct meaning about ideas through their interaction with others and with their world, and through interpretations of that world by actively constructing meaning [12].

One of the better-known researchers that refers to social constructivism theory is Vygotsky [12], who states that 'learners construct knowledge or understanding as a result of thinking and doing in social contexts'.

By implementing systems thinking, learners relate new knowledge to their previous knowledge and experience.

Systems thinking literature includes a vast range of areas of investigation, dealing mainly with the analysis of complex organizations [1,13–17], social systems, economics, curriculum design [18], social work, psychology, addiction therapy, the human body as a system, health, business, banking, personal interrelationships, the global state of affairs, environment [19], instruction methodologies for groups and teams [20,21], scientific and technological education [22], decision making [23], and project managemen<sup>t</sup> [24].

Traditional linear thinking approaches work against an understanding of how the different parts of an organization or business work together and underplay or ignore the multifaceted nature of complex problems. It has become essential to change the nature of the curriculum to emphasize the interconnectedness of the various aspects of businesses and organizational systems as a whole [25].

It is clear that systems education, from informal learning to formal educational programs, is at the foundation of the key leverages to develop new ways of more holistic thinking to ensure systemic decision and policy making. The combination of capacity building with activities in which appropriate systems tools are being used by the end-users who will directly benefit is a critical success factor for long-term change in the way that managemen<sup>t</sup> decisions and policy making can become systemic, rather than focusing on treating the symptoms [25,26]. Formal education in systems thinking has become essential. Many efforts are being put into ways to "infiltrate" the traditional teaching of disciplines as isolated units and to apply the systems approach in schools, universities and informal teaching programs (e.g., [25–30]). These programs can contribute significantly to the efforts of the systems community in making systems thinking and systems education become integrated into society.

Research literature presents evidence of efforts to develop systems thinking through task-oriented software, group dynamics, education, and training [31,32], demonstrating that systems thinking may be acquired or learned in a variety of ways.

Badurdeen et al. [33] presented developing and teaching a multidisciplinary course in systems thinking for sustainability. One of the reasons for using systems thinking to approach sustainability is because systems thinking is an appropriate education approach to complex problems and could be provided a kind of common language for students from different disciplines.

Another example is integrating systems thinking into sustainable manufacturing assessment.

Zhang et al. [34] presented a system of system methodologies grid in a sustainability engineering setting, where different sustainable manufacturing problems have been associated with system methodologies.

Zhang et al. [35] presented a novel approach using systems thinking principles to enhance sustainable manufacturing research and manufacturing system sustainability management. According to Zhang [35], this approach will not only benefit engineering managemen<sup>t</sup> research by adopting systems thinking philosophies in emerging sustainable manufacturing research and practice, but will also assist enterprises in making strategic, tactical, and operational decisions by providing a deep understanding of the behavior change over time. It was also found that success in this process is of grea<sup>t</sup> importance to teachers/instructors/managers.

Students and graduates that demonstrate high levels of systems thinking are able to analyze customer needs and demonstrate an aptitude for coping with multidisciplinary problems in the business world.

For example, Kordova and Frank [27] conducted a capstone project with engineering students to examine whether such a multifaceted assignment discernibly improved systems thinking among participants. In this learning environment, the students constructed their own knowledge through active learning and interaction with their teammates and teaching staff. As such, the project-based learning environment supports the constructivist approach to teaching [27,36].

Some researchers refer to systems thinking as an innate ability. For instance, Hitchins [37] states that the human brain can see similarities of patterns between disparate sets of information, which presumably emanate from its drive to reduce perceived entropy, while Frank [38], Davidz and Nightingale [31] concluded that this ability is most likely a combination of innate talent and acquired experience.
