ABSTRACT
Resolving complex scientic and social problems is often impeded by three interdependent human limitations: poor critical thinking skills; no clear methodology to facilitate group coherence, consensus design, and collective action; and limited computational capacities. Third level science education is designed to facilitate the development of generic critical thinking skills, but often does so with only limited success (Kuhn, 2005). Furthermore, third level science education generally focuses on domain-specic computational skills that do not necessarily transfer well outside of the domain in which they are normally used, and
training in the use of systems science methodologies that facilitate group coherence, consensus design, and collective action is rarely observed (Wareld, 1974, 2006). We believe that these problems can be addressed by integrating within a systems science curriculum three thought structuring technologies: Interactive Management (IM) for system design, Argument Mapping (AM) for critical thinking, and Structural Equation and System Dynamics Modeling for mathematical modeling. Such a curriculum would promote systems thinking and cooperative inquiry skills in relation to basic and applied science problems, while also facilitating collective action in the context of a multidisciplinary action research agenda.
