DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.716549

Summary
The paper presents a study aiming to examine whether features of concept-mapping (CM) practices affect the valid assessment of students' system thinking. The features analyzed were the medium (computer versus paper–pencil) and the directedness (highly directed versus nondirected) of CM practices. These features were evaluated with respect to their influence on (a) students' performance in CM and (b) the validity of different CM practices for system thinking. A questionnaire was developed to capture procedural and structural system thinking. Relating to the theoretical two-dimensional model of system thinking, the questions to assess procedural system thinking were constructed to capture the ability to understand possible processes and behaviors within the system. The questions to assess structural system thinking were constructed to capture the ability to identify relevant system elements, simple relationships between facts and to understand systems' separation from other surrounding systems.
Results showed that the computer positively influenced student performance in CM when compared with paper–pencil. By contrast, there was no difference between highly directed and nondirected mapping. Whereas the medium rarely influenced the validity of CM for system thinking, high directedness showed a positive influence. Considering the limitations and benefits of CM practices, authors suggest highly directed and computer-based CM as an appropriate assessment tool—in particular, with regard to large-scale assessments of system thinking.

Relevance for Complex Systems Knowledge
The paper deals with systems thinking and complex systems.
Authors define system thinking as the ability to understand the multilevel structure of systems’ numerous components, their dynamic and nonlinear relationships, and propose a two-dimensional way of intellectually coping with dynamic systems that is described as, structural and procedural system thinking. They consider structural system thinking as the ability to identify a system's relevant elements and their interrelationships, altogether determining the system's framework. It refers to analyzing the basic structure of a system, which means to be able to define those elements or objects that account for the systems' identity. Accordingly, structural system thinking is characterized by the ability to distinguish the relevant system from other surrounding systems precisely. Authors also consider procedural system thinking as the ability to understand the dynamic and time-related processes that emerge from the systems' structure, particularly occurring in within systems' elements and subsystems. These interacting elements and subsystems can be considered as microscopic level that is causally linked with the macroscopic level of complex system properties often occurring simultaneously and with indirect causality.
A complex and dynamic system can be considered as composed of interdependent and interacting components that either can be physical like objects or intangible like processes, information flows, relationships, feelings, and values or beliefs.

Point of Strength
The strength of the publication is the proposal of a practical system thinking assessment instrument for educational researchers as well as for educators. This instrument supplies an easy understanding and handling possibly combined with facilitative large-scale usage.