Will Brehm  0:13
Moira Faul and Laura Savage, welcome to FreshEd

Moira Faul  1:16
Hi, Will. Thank you. It’s great to be here.

Laura Savage  1:18
Thanks, Will. We’re very happy to be with you today.

Will Brehm  1:20
Congratulations on your new edited collection. It’s really fantastic. And you know, it’s all about systems thinking in education. And it’s quite interesting because for a long time, at least since I’ve started studying education, it was always the education sector. The education sector this and the education sector that. But you sort of make this claim that there’s been the rise in sort of the language of education systems. Can you give me a sense of sort of how expensive is that use now specifically compared to the education sector which is maybe how we used to think about it?

Moira Faul  1:49
Yes, absolutely, Will. From a researcher perspective, certainly, we can really see the way that the language is changing in policy documents. And certainly, in the last two or three years, at least, we’ve got the feeling where you would see the word sector before you now see the word systems. And so, this almost feeling of someone having gone through a document and done Ctrl F replace all sector with system. But while a different word is being used in the documents, the solutions that are being recommended haven’t changed all that much.

Laura Savage  2:23
Yeah. I think, picking up on Moira, it’s quite rare now to see a strategy document of any kind, whether you’re talking about a government sector plan, or a funder strategy, or a theory of change for many education implementer doesn’t have the word system on it. And I think we see phrases where the word system is used with others. So, most frequently system change that seems to be very Zeitgeist at the moment, but you’ll see system transformation, systems approach, education system. And while there is a very specific set of tools, a lot of which we’ll talk about today, related to systems thinking, I don’t think that most people who use the word system in all of this global education discourse are actually meaning or referring to those systems thinking tools. So, that’s what we tried to do in this volume was to see what’s out there, really, and to kind of read across the use of the word system in global education.

Will Brehm  3:11
It’s quite fascinating to see the discourse change but as Moira was saying, the solutions are sort of still the same old.

Moira Faul  3:18
And in a study that I did a few years ago now, it was interviewing senior policy actors in education in the global north and south and we found that the interviewees in the global south were much more comfortable with the concepts and also practices of complexity and systems approaches, even if they wouldn’t necessarily use those particular words, than the vast majority of those interviewed in the global north who maybe wanted to hold on to the more rational linear approach to seeing these problems as complicated rather than complex. And that we argue in this book will not solve the problems that we continue to face, and that have not been solved through this particular approach in the past.

Will Brehm  3:58
So, I guess the starting point then is really about what is systems thinking, right? How do we even begin to define what a quote unquote system is? So, in your book, how did you begin to unpack its meaning?

Moira Faul  4:10
So, absolutely. The ontological starting point really is saying the world and the challenges that we face are complex and nonlinear. And so, for me, systems approaches are an appropriate response to the complexity that we face in the world. Non-systems approaches will examine elements and their attributes of a system, but they tend to stop there. And what systems approaches do is yes, they look at the elements in the system, of course, and also, to that, systems approaches will add the importance of relationships between those elements. The fact that the whole is actually greater than the sum of the parts, the emergence of system properties and behaviors, the context in which the system exists, the functions of that system, both stated and implicit, and also the influence pathways inside it, and the feedback loops that you will find within it as well.

Laura Savage  5:05
I’ve worked in the policy for a long time. And I often used to find it easier to explain what a systems approach is not in practice. So, assuming that a funded project is going to lead directly to anticipated change –that’s not a systems approach. Or planning, or even using the word solution that is devised in one place for a particular set of people; planning that that can and should go to scale, meaning replicate until it hits national borders-that’s not a systems approach. So, sometimes, I think it makes it easier to explain what the mindset is not-and I think it is a mindset-rather than what the mindset is.

Will Brehm  5:42
It’s interesting, and I guess this goes back to Moira’s comment about this earlier study, where people in the global north were more likely to use this linear rational approach. I mean, is that the mindset, Moira, that you are sort of referring to?

Laura Savage  5:55
Yes. And I don’t mean to imply that it’s ubiquitous. But I think in sort of the global structures, the global industry of global education, we have fallen into certain norms and practices that do assume linearity, and that do assume a direct pathway from inputs to outcomes. And I think there are various different ways you can break that down. But maybe to give one example of a framework, that is a very simple framework. If we take thinking about education inputs as a first level, I think we do that quite a lot, and fairly well. We think about textbooks, we think about teachers-not to only call them an input into a system-but I think we then forget, or don’t think enough about, layers above that. So, processes like the kind of data procurement processes that sit behind the inputs. And then people. The relationships as Moira was talking about-the accountability relationships. But also, the personal relationships and others that connect these individuals within a system. And then the politics. And those four layers of inputs, processes, people, and politics are not a framework you will find in any systems thinking, but it is a translation of what I’ve used in the past to translate into how can we show that this is different from some of those more linear rational mindsets?

Will Brehm  7:16
You know, it’s quite fascinating, because I guess another example that I can think of that I’ve seen quite often is log frames. They have the inputs, and they sort of assume, if you have these inputs then you will achieve these sorts of outcomes. And then if you achieve these outputs, then you can move up to the next layer of the log frame. So, it’s almost like that rational perspective that you’re describing-a tool has been created to force people into that thinking even if they might think otherwise, right? It’s sort of forcing people who might try and say, I want to do systems thinking but actually, you’re sort of being forced into another approach.

Laura Savage  7:53
And you’ll find all sorts of new visual ways, I think, to depict log frames now. And there are new words or theories of change. We used to play around with cogs in a wheel and linking inputs-outputs, there’s lots of ways to embed assumptions that unpack that linearity. But yes, I mean, ultimately, especially when you’re talking about public funding, it is “a will equal b” at some point is the agenda that you’re trying to get to.

Moira Faul  8:17
So, I think here, one of the really important ways that systems approaches differ from conventional approaches is precisely because they embrace the complexity that exists. And so, you know, if we’re dealing with a complex world, and complex problems in it, and also designing complex interventions into those complex problems and complex world, then as tempting as it is, we can’t really try to reduce the complexity to make it seem as if the problem is actually complicated rather than complex. And you can take a car engine apart and put it all back together again, and it’ll work the same as it ever did. That’s a complicated problem. But the same is not true of a garden for example. If you were to dig up everything, and then put everything exactly back in, in exactly the same way, then it’s not going to work the same as it ever did because the intervention into the system has changed the garden. Roots and soil had been broken or aerated, and the next time the rain falls, that same rain will have different effects because of the changes into that garden, into that system, because it was taken apart and put back together again. And so, systems thinking, and systems approaches help us to recognize and grapple with that complexity, and hopefully move through the complexity to a clear answer for what can be done. It’s not a question of just sitting there and saying, oh, it’s complex, or we’ll all throw our hands up in the air and walk away. It’s about sitting with the complexity in order to be able to get through it and get to an answer. And that answer, it will be an answer for now. And then we will collect data, and we will adjust but it’s not about saying, we’re going to find an answer forever and ever, because that’s not how systems thinking works.

Will Brehm  10:06
So, what would be an example of this garden metaphor in an education system? Like how would we actually think about an educational issue or problem from a systems approach?

Moira Faul  10:17
So, if we think about international aid for education, and that level of the system, which was very focused on country ownership. So, low-income country ownership of the education agenda that then would be funded by donors who would harmonize their efforts behind the agenda set by the low-income country government. That was an intervention into a system that previously had been very much led by what I called in my work at the time, “donorship”. So, it was the donors that were deciding where they wanted to put their money in education in these countries. And so, here, you had that intervention into a very unjust system. And that was in 2005. And then in 2008, followed up by the Busan Agenda, and moving on from there. And so, with this very good intentioned intervention into the international aid system for education. Then, with this harmonization agenda, one of the things that is coming through more recently is that donors in country are harmonizing, and they are having much more dialogue between themselves. And there’s still a question, however, of the extent to which that harmonization is behind the low-income country agenda for education or prioritization of education, even if you have now this increased harmonization of donors. So, in that understanding that this intervention into the system has made a change into the system, then what is it that we now need to do without changing the system in order to potentially recorrect to get back to that first idea of ownership?

Will Brehm  11:59
So, another big point in systems thinking that you made, it’s taking a different approach than this sort of linear model. So, in a sense, what is non-linearity when it comes to systems thinking in education?

Moira Faul  12:12
Indeed. So, linear relationships are used a lot in engineering systems, in plumbing. So, things that are mechanical, or electrical. And they’re closed systems, and they’ve been designed to operate in a controlled and predictable manner. I think we can all accept that whatever level of an education system you’re looking at whether it’s the education, the global system, a national education system, a school, or even taking a classroom as a system, that these are not purely designed, and they’re certainly not things that you can say are always responding in a controlled and predictable manner. So, with a linear relationship, if you plot one variable against each other on an X and Y axis, and forgive me, podcasts are not a visual medium, but doing that you would see a straight line up or down or horizontal. And that would give you information about a linear relationship between those two variables. So, for example, in an education system an assumption that paying teachers more will improve the performance of their students would make it look like the relationship between teacher pay and student results would be an upward sloping line, if there were a linear relationship between those two variables. But not all variables have a linear relationship, and a nonlinear relationship would show more of a curve. So, for example, the relationship between two variables might go up at first and then down. Or indeed, in the example, in our book, looking at the Latin America region, where you see the variable of GDP plotted against SDG4 indicators, and you have a wiggly U-shaped line. And so, if we don’t actually accept that these relationships are nonlinear, we’re actually going to end up saying something like, for example, there is no relationship between GDP and years of education, which goes against a logic, but you can plot it and you can say that that’s what the linear relationship is.

Will Brehm  14:17
So, another concept in sort of complexity, thinking beyond nonlinearity is tipping points. So, what’s a tipping point when it comes to complexity theory and complex thinking of systems?

Moira Faul  14:30
Well, the tipping point really, if you think of a lazy S-curve of a tipping point, first it goes up almost imperceptibly, then you get a steeper curve, and then it falls off again. And so, with these high-stake assessments where you get this leap in improvement at the beginning, and then if you map that over time, you would then see that slope beginning to really slow down. But at the very beginning, you have a slope where you have something that goes very low and then it goes high very quickly. So, that’s a tipping point that’s taking you up. And then you may well find over time that you have a tipping point that then again, will take you into something which is not so strongly related.

Will Brehm  15:11
So, it’s something about time then, right? So, at different points in time, the relationship between things might look differently. And then over time, you might see these tipping points in different directions?

Moira Faul  15:21
And certainly, in that example, yes. With a tipping point, you would usually have something plotted over time because it’s a change in the timing. And this idea of plotting things over time is something that’s critical in systems approaches that again, you may not find in other more conventional approaches.

Will Brehm  15:39
So, the last concept that I want to sort of dig into about complexity thinking and systems thinking is what is termed the feedback loop. So, what is a feedback loop? And how does it sort of intersect with education systems?

Moira Faul  15:51
So, feedback loops occur when the result of a particular intervention then has knock on effects inside the system. And I think anyone who has experience of education will recognize that the assumption is there that if a student is doing some work, and a teacher gives that student some feedback, then there will be an effect on that student’s work and the results hopefully, next time, will improve on the basis of that feedback. So, we can take that very sort of visceral and experiential understanding that we have of a teacher’s feedback to a student, and then apply that to a system more broadly. And so, for example, if you were to have an example of an education system where there was a particular intervention into that education system, and Laura, you may have more examples of these on the policy side of things than I do.

Laura Savage  16:44
So, I don’t think we often explicitly think about feedback loops, either in funding, practice, even a lot of the research worlds that I’ve been involved with, but when you do apply a pure systems thinking tool to drill down into those causal loops and feedback loops. A lot of the implicit thinking of many actors within the system does get revealed and I think there is implicit knowledge of what a lot of the feedback loops are within any education system, but we don’t often pause to sit and reflect on them. And one of the beauties I find in doing this, and we refer to this in a chapter on diagnostics within the book in Chapter 10, is that actors can start to see the connectivity between certain activities that-you know, because they’re working on one project, or one piece of the puzzle, and not necessarily seeing how it links into other pieces of what’s happening. And indeed, understand that sometimes the feedback loops that you think are happening aren’t happening, or are happening in a different way than someone else perceives them to be. So, one of the beauties, I think of these concepts that Moira has been talking about is that they help us to step back. And they help us to kind of take that moment, see the bigger picture, and to recognize and indeed embrace the complexity of it. I think that’s really cool.

Will Brehm  17:53
In education development, you know, impact evaluations are sort of big business, right? Trying to figure out what is working, and what impact are these different interventions happening in these different contexts. And often impact evaluations are sort of rich with statistical data. And I guess the gold standard, as they call it, is the random controlled trial, right? Trying to figure out what intervention works in one place compared to a place that did not have that intervention? I guess the question is to what extent are some of these ideas that we’ve been exploring around complexity, feedback loops, tipping points, nonlinearity; are they integrated into the way in which we think about impact and impact evaluations and random controlled trials? Like, to what extent are people in the field actually using some of these concepts when we think about what is working and what isn’t working and why?

Moira Faul  18:42
I haven’t done a study so I can’t speak to the specific frequency of those. But I think we’ve seen few, if any examples where this is actually done. The vast majority, certainly, the equations that are plugged into these evaluations are still linear regressions, and also analyzing no more than two variables at once. So, if you’re talking about complexity, then you do want to think about a number of variables of interest if you are taking a computational approach, and you don’t need to, I think there is more of an appetite to learn more about this and to take it more seriously, which I think is very welcome. And certainly, as you said, in the book, we’ve got a number of empirical chapters taking a number of diverse systems approaches. And the key to this is not to get into some kind of discussion about whose approach is the best, it’s about saying systems approaches help us do certain things better than we have done in the past. And here’s a range of different approaches and worked examples where you can actually take some inspiration and see how it is that this could be done. There are computational approaches, and they can be very useful if they are appropriate to number one, the problem that you’re dealing with. And also, number two, the type of answer that you actually need. But they’re certainly not the only way.

Will Brehm  20:07
So, another big concept in systems thinking that you talk about in your book is this notion of emergence. And I guess why is it so important?

Moira Faul  20:16
Emergence, as a concept has roots in many indigenous knowledge systems. It doesn’t belong to any Western theoretical tradition. An awful lot of systems approaches and complexity also shares a great deal with indigenous knowledge systems. And what those of us who work with complexity and systems approaches are seeing, however, is the use of the term emergence and the use of systems as discussed earlier. And the word is being used in many places. It’s even being used by rational choice Institutionalists, who would have no truck with the nonlinearity that lies at the heart of understanding complexity, and yet they find a use for this word to describe phenomena that they are actually seeing in their empirical work. So, as with all complexity and systems approaches, we can’t appropriate it to one theoretical tradition in any kind of research, and particularly, any theoretical tradition that specifically from the global north is deeply problematic.

Will Brehm  21:17
Across this book that shows these different ways to do systems thinking, what are some of the tools that you’ve identified as being different approaches or different ways that we can actually sort of implement and put into practice some of these systems approaches?

Moira Faul  21:34
As I said, a large sort of diversity of methodological approaches to complex systems, from sort of heuristics, through participatory mapping, to computational analytics. And you know, computational methods are particularly useful when analyzing dynamic systems, particularly where there’s multiple units of analysis and large amounts of data available over time. And you actually have the computational processing capacity to be able to do that, and also the time and energy to do that. And I think that’s something that is probably more done in the research world now. That’s not to say that it is better or worse than any of the other approaches out there. And I think something that Laura said that really does bear repeating is the importance of the process of using systems approaches, and realizing that you will get more information and more useful information from bringing people into a process where you are thinking through these things, using sort of systemic tools and systemic thinking, which requires others to be part of the thinking and other perspectives to be brought into the room are actually much more important than necessarily having the product at the end of it. And the reason why systems tools are useful is simply because we are dealing with different types of problems. So, if you have behavioral challenges, these assumptions of perfect rationality are deeply problematic. We know that if you change knowledge, some behaviors may change, but not all. Whereas more systems tools, whether it’s sort of agent-based models, or behavioral techniques are much more likely to be able to contribute to those kinds of challenges. Relational challenges, again, a large amount of international education analysis underestimates relationships, shall we say? And network analysis allows you to map those relationships, the direction of the relationships, the feedback loops, as Laura was mentioning, and the dynamic challenges where you’re really thinking about getting a better understanding of change, and the fact that change is not constant with one intervention over time. But really thinking through what those feedback loops are, the tipping points, the thresholds, what’s going to get us to the threshold, what’s going to get us past the threshold, how do we use data in order to know when we’re getting to the threshold and how we might need to change the intervention as we get there in order to keep moving the needle in the direction that we would like it to go.

Will Brehm  24:20
So, maybe at this point, we should turn to a real example. Particularly  an example that you start with in the beginning of the book all about sort of “the learning turn” in international development. And so, the move from the MDGs, which was focused on access, very broadly, to the SDGs, which is focused on learning very broadly. And yet this recognition that there’s a lot of children that might be in school but who are simply not learning. And then there’s of course, a lot of children that are still not in school and also not potentially learning. So, how does systems thinking help us understand why many children are not learning despite being in school?

Laura Savage  24:57
I think it helps us to ask questions that about things that haven’t worked, right? So, maybe going back to the point that Moira was making earlier about the distinction between complicated and complex problems within education. A complicated problem was getting kids into school, or at least the mass of kids into school. There are complex issues that restrict those who are still out of school at various layers of the sector. But I think perhaps maybe 10 years ago now, there were a number of studies. We knew enough to start to say, the question of learning is more than this, it’s more than complicated. You’ve got examples of a few classic studies. There’s one from Kenya, that looks at an NGO-run project related to contract teachers, which worked in terms of improving learning. It worked in the NGO-led model and then scaled to be run in conjunction with the government didn’t have the same impact on learning. Or an example from Indonesia where teacher salaries were doubled. You would assume, right incentives, motivation for the job would go through the roof. And of course, linearity, teacher incentives are through the roof then student learning is going to come up too. No, absolutely not. The researchers have shown static or even declining learning in Indonesia. Or a more recent one from Madhya Pradesh, this is one of my favorite studies of all time, where a school accountability effort was tried in a few 100 schools to no effect on learning. But because it was implemented with perfect fidelity, scaled up, and scaled up again, and scaled up again. And so, I think, the questions through all of this, and I was privileged to spend a long time with the researchers. The researchers for all of these studies were connected to a program called the RISE program, which was digging into kind of systems approaches in education. And the questions that were left lingering were how and why. And I think it’s exactly those questions that systems thinking prompts us to start asking. So, it’s not to say that all of the rest of this research or the RCTs, or the What Works agenda is missing the mark. But it prompts the questions how and why. And I think that’s really where systems thinking can help to drill into it.

Will Brehm  27:15
I agree. The how and why questions. It’s definitely not clear why or how this is happening. And I do hope systems thinking can help us try and uncover it. But does systems thinking presume that sort of global actors can even drive systems change? Do we need to sort of be a bit more self-critical in a sense?

Laura Savage  27:34
So, it’s a valid question. And I think it is one; the constant question of looking at yourself and saying, “Can we should we”. And any actor, whoever we are, I think one of the things that systems thinking brings is the need to step into someone else’s shoes, the need to look at different perspectives. Because after all, we’re talking about education systems here today but we’re going to step outside of this into five other systems that we interact with in our daily lives. So, we’re all in many systems all the time. And we are both changing and being changed by those systems. So, yeah, I mean, if you are funding or you are determining global activity that is affecting education policy and practice in a particular country, then yeah, you’re changing the system. And I think, while we should sit back and ask ourselves, is it our right to do so, can we do so, we also need to recognize the power, the power imbalances in the world, the intention behind that power, which is often and so often one in tension. Because as we tried to sort of forcefully make the case, at the start of this book, we’re in a world where children can’t read. They can’t do the very basics of not being able to read, they’re experiencing violence in schools, more and more of them aren’t fed, there’s a moral imperative TO try to change many systems. What I think we need to reflect on is whether our efforts to change those systems are based on those assumptions that we’ve critiqued here today. Those ones of linearity, or those that emit consideration of the political or the relational dynamics, or if we’ve identified a problem that is too niche or too simply defined. I think we need to have the humility to recognize that global actors can’t change systems on their own.

Will Brehm  29:09
So, what other actors are involved in? And how might they need to sort of change their approach from a systems perspective to begin to achieve SDG4 the sustainable development goal on education?

Laura Savage  29:22
So, every actor that’s driving towards education outcomes is involved, right? And I think one of the things we need to recognize is that there is no single purpose to education. We need to get comfortable with the fact there are many purposes articulated by many actors, I think we can do better at working together, recognizing that we need to get to some degree of coherence of that purpose. You know that there is perhaps a dominant one that we want to drive towards right now because we simply can’t do everything. To reach SDG4, I mean, I’ve said it before, but we’re not going to get there. And I think several people have now said this, that every single bullet point on that SDG4 is just simply unattainable at this point. So, depending on where a particular education system is at, what are the sequence priorities, what do we need to do first, in order to do second in order to do third? And that doesn’t mean that those people working on sequence priority number three aren’t important. They’re doing something really important for the next stage of the journey. I think we often tend to pursue our priorities. And we can end up even within the global sector, working in silos. And that’s one of the things that I think systems thinking really urges, is that we step back and try and do that better together.

Will Brehm  30:33
Over this conversation, we’ve sort of critique the, let’s call it the old way of education sector and rationality and linearity and sort of made the case for this more complex understanding of the way in which systems in education operate and can either create or inhibit change. But are there any limits that you know of, or can think of, to education systems thinking? I’m just trying to think, if we’re trying to be self-critical here, both in terms of what global actors can do, but I wonder if we should also be self-critical about the sort of different norms and mindsets that we’re sort of advocating for in this episode,

Laura Savage  31:12
I’ve personally been on a journey with systems thinking and I don’t claim to be an expert at all. I think it can seem dense. I think the tools are not for everyone. We’re not sitting here advocating that everyone starts picking up causal loop diagrams, or, iceberg models, and start applying them every day. But I do think that if we boil it down to some core concepts. So, for me, those are seeing the big picture, being comfortable with complexity, thinking about others perspectives, then it can become a mindset, or an outlook on life that’s really useful. And I often find that if I come across someone who has the same mindset, it’s much easier to work with them, it’s much easier to come to a common understanding of what we’re trying to do across seeming borders, or worlds. You do come across people who don’t have affinity or interest in these tools and you can’t just-again, it’s about challenging yourself, and recognizing that we’re all coming to these problems with different suites of tools. So, systems thinking is definitely not for everyone.

Moira Faul  32:10
I think one of the things that I would add to that is sometimes the focus on the product of let’s take the example of causal loop mapping, and people look at it and say, “Well, that just looks like a dish of spaghetti. There’s no way to get any purchase on what’s going on in here. You’ve just given me something that makes me want to walk away because it’s giving me a headache”. And I think with that, it’s really important to be able to, number one recognize that the process is much more important than the product here. And actually, getting the right people in the room to be building that picture together is much, much, much more important than having a picture to come out the other end, however confusing that picture may be. And then once you have that picture, finding a way that it can then be communicated outside the circle of people that put it together. I think the biggest limitation that we are currently facing at the moment, however, to go back to the start of this conversation is much more that the word is being said but the acts are not being done. So, here, I think it’s really important to think about the limitations that we’re putting on the future and the utility of systems approaches by saying the words and not doing the deeds, because then fundamentally, what can happen is in three, four years’ time, we can say, “Well, we tried systems approaches, they didn’t work. Let’s move on to something else now”. And that is the biggest danger, I think, because the limitations and the danger of sort of who decides which questions are asked, which questions aren’t asked, which level of the system are we actually looking at with these systems approaches. Those questions apply to whatever techniques that you’re going to use. And once you have started with a systems approach, and you are bringing people in as Laura described, and you’re working through all of that together, then once you get to the solution for now, which we will then test and adapt as we go forward, then it’s a case of saying, “Right. So, what are the other tools that might be usefully employed inside this to answer that question”? And it may well be that there are micro, econometric tools that would be very useful once you drill down to the useful question that needs to be answered. And then you come out again into a systems approach in order to deal with the larger complexity. And then you drill down you say, “Oh, no, this one is actually a relational problem. So, we actually need a relational tool to deal with this, not an econometric tool”. And so, it’s also about that adaptability, which is absolutely crucial.

Will Brehm  34:49
Moira Faul and Laura Savage, thank you so much for joining FreshEd. It really was a pleasure to talk today.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Related Author Publications/Projects

Systems thinking in international education and development

The effectiveness of partnerships

Partnerships for sustainability in contemporary global governance

Structuring the interstitial space of global financing partnerships for sustainable development

Power and multistakeholderism

Related Resources

Busan Partnership

Systems thinking 

Systems thinking basics

A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach

Why systems thinking is important for the education sector

Systems thinking in the practice of implementing SDGs

Theories and models in systems thinking

Introducing systems approaches

Relational systems thinking

Generations of systems thinking: Models for future learning

Teaching for complex systems thinking

Sustainability: A systems approach

Systems thinking and indigenous systems

First Nations systems thinking

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com