Ms. Helen Rigor - St. Paul University Manila

Systems Thinking Model
as an Instructional Development
Tool
Helen M. Rigor
St. Paul University Quezon City
Philippines

Introduction
Any instructional program or product is part
of a larger instructional system. A change
introduced by the instructional program can
affect the system as a whole. Likewise,
other system processes or components can
modify or negate the effects of an
instructional program.
–Robert Hays

Academe and the Present World
• The education sector is
.
from the
• The academe
rapid
changes and ways of furthering academic
excellence .
• Schools must continue existing as an
in order to survive in the
.

Complexity Theory
Chaos Theory
Systems Thinking

Systems Thinking
• Any given problem is solved by looking at a
system as a whole and at the same breath,
by considering the interaction between the
parts that make up the whole (Von
Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory).
• Systems have elements, interconnections,
function, purpose, and feedback .
• Systems Thinking is a transdiscipline.

The Paradigm Shift
“If educational change is viewed
through the lens of complexity theory,
then using a mindset or way of thought
such as ‘systems thinking’ can be useful
to help us understand the dynamic and
interrelated nature of the change
process.”
- Garry Hoban

Instructional Development through
the lens of Systems Thinking
• “systematic process of analyzing, designing,
producing, evaluating, and implementing
instructional systems or components thereof”
(Molenda, 1987).
• “self-correcting, systems approach that seeks to
apply scientifically derived principles to the
planning, design, creation, implementation, and
evaluation of effective and efficient instruction”
(Shrock, in Dills & Romiszowski, 1997).

Instructional Development through
the lens of Systems Thinking
• “systematic process of analyzing designing,
producing, evaluating, and implementing
instructional systems or components thereof”
(Molenda, 1987).
• “self-correcting, systems approach that seeks to
apply scientifically derived principles to the
planning, design, creation, implementation, and
evaluation of effective and efficient instruction”
(Shrock, in Dills & Romiszowski, 1997).

The SPUQC Experience
An Application of Systems Thinking Model
as an Instructional Development Tool
in Solving a Learning Problem

Background of the Problem
To undertake a root-cause analysis on the
consistent low passing rates of St. Paul
University Quezon City’s (SPUQC) in the
Philippine CPA Licensure Examination from
2005 to 2010.
A system approach was used in a root-cause analysis workshop in
March 2010 where participants had to see the whole system in which
the BSA program was deemed situated—including the
interrelationships, the connectivity of all entities that surround
SPUQC’s BSA program.

The Process
• Blondin Model
– “a step-by-step analysis of a system, its needs, goals
and objectives, resources, and constraints – which
leads to a feasible plan of action” (Fuentes, 2007).
• Three Phases of Blondin Model
– defining the reality
– developing the operation design, and
– consolidating the plan of action.

The Process
1 st Phase of Blondin Model: Defining Reality
–Situation analysis (mega, macro and subsystems
of the focal system which is the
BSA program)
–Systems analysis (assessing the condition,
(identifying dysfunctions, i.e., sub and
root problems)

Situation Analysis

Scope & Limitation
• BSA faculty representative (subsystem)
• BSA chairperson (focal system)
• College of Business and Technology dean (macro
system)
• Vice president for academics (macro system)
• Student affairs dean (macro-related system)
• General education academic dean (macro-related
system)
• College freshmen coordinator (macro-related
system)
• Research director (mega-related system)
• Community development head (mega-related
system)
• External, international and alumni officer (megarelated
system)

System Analysis
Step 1.
assessing the condition
Step 2.
identifying dysfunctions
Step 3.
identifying needs

• This involves enumerating both (+) and (-)
indicators—observable & measurable facts
pertaining to the focal system.
• The CSW Framework
– Compatibility (people-centered)
– Systematization (organization-centered)
– Wholeness (result-oriented)
• The (-) indicators are classified as sub-problems.
• The sub-problems gathered are then summarized to
come up with the focal system’s root problems.

• Inadequate financial capability brought about by
unsatisfactory student recruitment outcome
resulting to low financial feasibility and sustainability
of the BSA program.
• Insufficient number of qualified manpower and
appropriate logistics to address the rigid demands of
the program.
• Inability of the BSA program to maintain a balance
between meeting the academic demands of
preparing for CPA Licensure Examination and
achieving holistic human development aligned with
SPUQ’s core values.

• Using SPUQC’s own operational planning approach, it
was concluded that necessary interventions and
strategies should be formulated in response to the
identified root problems, and these should be integrated
in the school’s instructional development.
• The root-cause analysis workshop’s outcomes were
made integral part of the BSA program’s instructional
development. Based on these outcomes, changes in the
program’s instructional delivery were implemented
immediately on the following school year 2010-2011.

Examples of changes in the Accountancy area’s
instructional development :
• Exclusive use of the newly constructed
Accounting Laboratory.
• Establishment of formal linkage with third-party
CPA review centers, resulting to two delivery
modes of Accounting classes: in-campus classes
and review center-based sessions.
• Setting up of Accounting Enrichment Period—a
three-hour per week peer tutorial and faculty
consultation class, which is formally integrated
in the institutional class, schedules.

Passing Rates
Succeeding Results of SPUQC’s Performance in the
CPA Licensure Examination
60.00%
SPUQC Passing Rates vs. National Passing Rates
in the CPA Licensure Examination
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
May 2008 Oct 2008 May 2009 Oct 2009 May 2010 Oct 2010 May 2011 Oct 2011 May 2012 Oct 2012
SPUQC Passing % 0.00% 13.33% 0.00% 21.43% 28.57% 40.00% 44.44% 33.33% 40.00% 50.00%
National Passing % 27.26% 36.65% 28.89% 41.68% 39.52% 48.36% 40.50% 47.70% 37.50% 47.78%

Recommendations
• Further evaluate the sustainability of the
program’s innovations, and the use or absence of
continuous quality control.
• Continue and complete the next two phases of
Blondin. Or if this is not possible, expand the
scope of the workshop by including the
Accountancy students, alumni, parents, industry
partners and other important stakeholders.
• As part of the feedback system, ensure
continuous evaluation of the Accountancy
program.

Thank you for listening.