Written by: Seamus Delaney

In 2018, at the International Conference on Chemical Education in Sydney, Andrew Eaton attended a plenary talk by Peter Mahaffy that addressed an ongoing challenge in high school chemistry teaching: how to help students connect core chemical processes with their wider environmental, economic, and societal implications. With more than two decades of experience, he had already been exploring ways to strengthen sustainability thinking in his classes. The plenary aligned with questions he had been considering for some time — and encouraged him to act.

A change to the New South Wales (Australia) curriculum created the opportunity. The newly mandated Depth Study required students to investigate a topic in greater depth, but the curriculum did not prescribe a particular approach. Although systems thinking was not explicitly mentioned in the state curriculum, not then nor now, Andrew recognised that the flexible structure of this Depth Study could allow him to integrate systems thinking meaningfully into senior high school chemistry.

Helping students see the bigger picture

Andrew developed a sequence of online, self-paced modules covering the chemistry of the Haber Process, the Solvay Process, biofuels, and ethylene–ethanol conversion. Alongside the chemistry, he introduced characteristics of systems thinking: identifying sources and uses of reactants and products, energy demands across a process, intended and unintended consequences, and connections to sustainability frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

He modelled how a systems map works — how multiple nodes (connection points) show breadth, how cross-links reveal deeper relationships, and why factors like energy, catalysts, waste, and consumer use drive decisions. In Andrew’s lessons, he would demonstrate through examples “how multiple nodes … showed a broader understanding of the process,” and how links to other parts of the map demonstrated “a greater awareness of the relationships that are intertwined in all chemistry.”

Mapping, connecting, evaluating — and justifying

 Students then constructed their own systems maps. For each node, they identified SDG impacts and classified them as positive, negative, or neutral, colour-coding the map accordingly. Crucially, they also wrote a short paragraph justifying their decisions — drawing on chemical knowledge, sustainability concepts, and consumer uses. This shifted the task from descriptive to analytical. 

Students described the experience as demanding but rewarding. One explained:

“You actually have to really think about the broad impact of it … ‘where is the ethanol coming from? And how is that impacting everything?’"

Another valued the visual clarity of the map: “It gives a really good visual demonstration of its true benefits and negatives … so it’s definitely a broader focus on science in general, rather than just chemistry.”

A third highlighted how the evaluation and justification sharpened their thinking: “Writing down the positives and negatives … you find things that, oh, wow, that actually has a negative effect, even though I thought it was a quite positive thing.”

Assessment that made thinking visible

Andrew combined formative feedback with three summative tasks:

1. a short written comparing two chemical systems and their sustainability implications,

2. construction of a detailed systems map for a familiar chemical process taught in class and

3. evaluation of a teacher-created map of an additional chemical process students had not previously studied.

Maps were marked on their logic, breadth of connections, interrelationships across nodes, and the quality and justification of the SDG evaluations. Andrew designed a rubric that “worked well as a discriminating tool” and aligned with Andrew’s expectations.

Refining the approach over time

The first iteration required careful scaffolding. Andrew noticed that some students struggled to see the purpose of mapping until they understood what “good” systems thinking looked like. Each year he refined his explanations and examples, including introducing a strategy where students first list all possible SDGs before deciding on the weighting (-3 to +3) of each impact — a change that students found clearer and more manageable.

As the maps became more interconnected and the justifications more nuanced, Andrew observed a shift in student thinking. Systems thinking was no longer an add-on; it was a way of understanding chemistry in context. As he reflected, “This approach transforms simple chemical processes, usually represented by a chemical equation, into something greater, embedded in the global context.”

Why Andrew’s example matters

Andrew’s work shows that systems thinking can be embedded in senior high school chemistry without rewriting the curriculum, without losing content, and without requiring additional class time. Through the Depth Study, similar to other project-based assignments in other countries, he created a structure where students learned core chemistry and — simultaneously — developed the ability to evaluate complex, real-world implications.

 For educators considering whether systems thinking can fit into their own teaching, Andrew’s story offers a practical, classroom-tested pathway:

Start with one topic. Model the connections. Ask students to map, evaluate, and justify. The learning will follow.

 You can read more about Andrew’s story in these two articles.

Eaton, A. C.; Delaney, S. J.; Schultz, M. Situating Sustainable Development within Secondary Chemistry Education via Systems Thinking: A Depth Study Approach. J. Chem. Educ. 2019, 96, 2968–2974. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00266

Schultz, M.; Chan, D.; Eaton, A.C.; Ferguson, J.P.; Houghton, R.; Ramdzan, A.; Taylor, O.; Vu, H.H.; Delaney, S. Using Systems Maps to Visualize Chemistry Processes: Practitioner and Student Insights. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 596. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12090596

Written by: Lynne Pilcher

The challenges: I was inspired to introduce Systems Thinking into chemistry teaching through conference presentations and journal articles emanating from the IUPAC STICE project in 2018 and 2019. However, when I began this journey in early 2020, I faced three significant challenges i) my own limited understanding of systems thinking, ii) a lack of teaching resources, especially in my field of organic chemistry, and (iii) an already crowded curriculum with little flexibility to add new content.  

Facing the challenges: To address the first challenge, I immersed myself in the Systems Thinking literature, particularly on position papers in chemistry.  As I identified a system that I wanted to explore, the industrial synthesis of aspirin, my own systems thinking capacity began to develop.  To address the second challenge, I worked with colleagues to develop two complementary research projects: The first was a final year chemical engineering project that conducted a life cycle analysis (LCA) on aspirin manufacture and generated recommendations for greener production. The second was a Master’s project in Chemistry Education that focused on designing, implementing and validating a Systems Thinking activity for first-year chemistry students.  The curriculum challenge required a practical solution. To fit within existing course structures, the activity was designed as a stand-alone learning experience that could be completed in a three-hour laboratory session.  

Designing the activity: Together we mapped out the aspirin production system, considering the pharmaceutical product itself, alternative synthetic routes, raw materials, impacts on human health, societal and economic implications, environmental consequences, and eventual biodegradation. Guided prompts were incorporated into the activity to help students conduct a similar systems-mapping exercise.  The chemical engineering project then zoomed in on the technical details. Through patent analysis and laboratory experimentation, it generated the data needed to compare different production routes. These data formed the basis of the activity, which included completing a life cycle inventory for three routes to salicylic acid and calculating green chemistry metrics for each route. At the chemistry content level, students applied stoichiometry principles and considered factors such as energy requirements (related to thermochemistry), solvents and catalysts.  They were then required to zoom out and make connections beyond the immediate chemistry.  Through qualitative “soft” LCA, students examined the entire life cycle of aspirin production and use.  Finally, they expanded the system boundaries further by connecting the production process to broader societal, economic and environmental impacts. These included human health outcomes, employment, power dynamics, infrastructure investments that can lock industries into outdated processes, and other issues related to sustainability. 

Assessment plays an important role in ensuring meaningful student engagement. We found that the assessment framework emerged naturally from the activity design.  The quantitative tasks had definitive answers based on the supplied data.  Qualitative responses were assessed according to their relevance and depth, with marks allocated in proportion to the expected level of detail. While off-topic responses would have been penalized, none were encountered. 

Evaluating systems thinking: We chose not to assign grades specifically for systems thinking competency, just as we would not ordinarily grade critical thinking directly in chemistry assignments. Instead, two education research studies provided evidence that students actively engaged in Systems Thinking, even though systems thinking competency itself was not part of the formal assessment. 

Why this example matters: We justified replacing an opportunity for laboratory skills development with an opportunity to cultivate high order cognitive skills. Although the activity could readily be adapted for any general chemistry course or even high school settings it has now been implemented for four consecutive years in a general chemistry 1 course for engineering students. The activity has become an established component of sustainability education within the curriculum and contributes directly to meeting engineering accreditation requirements.  We do not claim that students leave the activity as accomplished systems thinkers. However, they do gain a deeper appreciation of chemistry’s contribution to sustainability. They learn the importance of considering stakeholders, recognizing downstream consequences of decisions, and identifying leverage points within complex systems.  Perhaps, most importantly, students leave with the empowering realization that they can contribute to sustainability as individuals. They also begin to recognize how their future professions can play a meaningful role in creating more sustainable societies. 

Teamwork: Overcoming challenges in implementing Systems Thinking required a team - the development of both this activity and my own Systems Thinking capacity was a collaborative journey.  Marietjie Potgieter accompanied me in the early stages as we explored the literature together and established connections with colleagues in Chemical Engineering.  Philip de Vaal supervised the final-year Chemical Engineering project undertaken by Henri le Roux, who conducted the life cycle analysis of aspirin production.  Cathrine Chimude, as a Master's student, designed the activity and evaluated its initial implementation, while continuing teaching high school chemistry full-time.  Dorine Dikobe co-supervised the Master's project and, drawing on her experience as a Chemical Engineering instructor, helped ensure appropriate scaffolding for students. She later refined the activity for subsequent implementations, evaluated student Systems Thinking development, and prepared the first draft of the resulting research article. 

Further reading: Dikobe, D.; Pilcher, L. A. and Chimude, C. “Sustainability and systems thinking in the chemistry of aspirin manufacture for first-year engineering students.” RSC Sustainability 2026, 4(7), 2911–2925 DOI: 10.1039/D5SU00925A