Systems + Design Thinking Toolkit

Build a 20-week student toolkit combining systems and design thinking.

Introduction

30 Second Summary

Students encounter complex systems every day, from the food delivery apps on their phones to the air quality outside their classroom windows. Without the right thinking tools, these systems remain invisible.

In this project, you will build a complete facilitation toolkit for a 20-week enrichment program where Grade 10-12 students discover a system of their choosing, diagnose it using systems thinking, and redesign it using design thinking. Your toolkit includes a program roadmap, visual canvas templates, worked examples, an assessment rubric, and artifact guidelines.

What You'll Build

A ready-to-use 20-week program package combining systems thinking (Iceberg Model, Causal Loop Diagrams, Leverage Points) and design thinking (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test) for cross-disciplinary student projects.

By the end of this project, you'll have:

A 20-week Program Roadmap with phase descriptions, weekly activities, deliverables, checkpoint questions, and teacher facilitation notes.
3 visual canvas templates (Iceberg Model, Causal Loop Diagram, Design Brief) ready for students to fill in at each project phase.
2 worked examples demonstrating the full process on a Beijing economics system and an environmental system, plus an assessment rubric and artifact guidelines covering board games, digital simulations, physical models, and analytical write-ups.
Secret Mission: Build a cross-disciplinary System Inspiration Bank covering 8+ subject areas to spark student curiosity on Day 1.

Are there any prerequisites?

You need a laptop with WPS Office installed and a Canva account on canva.cn (free Education edition available for K-12 teachers and students). Step 1 walks you through confirming both are ready.

Set Up Your Tools

Before you can build a facilitation toolkit, you need a reliable workspace where all your documents and visual templates live together.

In this step, you will confirm your WPS Office workspace is ready, apply for Canva Education to unlock premium features for your students, and verify you can use the design tools you will rely on throughout this project.

In this step, get ready to:

Confirm your WPS Office workspace and open your roadmap document.
Apply for Canva Education and organize your template folder.
Verify you can create custom-size designs and use Canva's layout tools.

Confirm your WPS Office workspace

All your toolkit documents will live in a single folder so you can find everything quickly when distributing materials to students.

Switch back to WPS Office where you have your ST-DT Toolkit folder open.
Double-click Program-Roadmap.docx inside the folder to open it.
Confirm you see a blank document with the filename Program-Roadmap.docx displayed in the title bar.

Why a dedicated folder?

By the end of this project you will have 4-5 documents in this folder. Keeping them together means you can zip and share the entire toolkit with colleagues in one go.

Apply for Canva Education

Canva Education (Canva可画教育版) unlocks premium templates and collaboration features for free. It is available to all K-12 teachers and students globally.

Return to your canva.cn tab where you are already logged in.
Click on your account avatar in the top-right corner.
Look for an option related to Education or 教育版 in the menu. If you have already applied, you can skip to the next substep.
Navigate to the Canva Education application page.
Upload a document showing your full name, school name, and teaching position. Accepted documents include a teaching certificate, school employment letter, or school ID.
Submit your application.

How long does verification take?

Canva delivers application results via email within 3-5 business days. You do not need to wait for approval to continue this project. The free version has everything you need to build your templates today.

Navigate to your ST-DT Templates folder in the left sidebar. This is where all three canvas templates will live.

Verify Canva's design tools

In later steps, you will create A3-sized canvases from scratch. You need to confirm you can set a custom size and use the basic building blocks: shapes, text boxes, and sections.

In Canva, use the search bar at the top to search for 白板 (whiteboard) or 信息图 (infographic) to browse existing templates.
Open 2-3 templates and notice how they use shapes, text boxes, and grouped sections to organize information.
Return to the Canva homepage by clicking the Canva logo in the top-left corner.
Click Create a design (or 创建设计) in the top-right area.
Select Custom size (自定义尺寸).
Enter 420 for width and 297 for height, with the unit set to mm. This is A3 landscape size.
Click Create new design to confirm the custom size works.

You should see a blank canvas open at A3 landscape dimensions. This confirms your custom-size workflow is ready for the template-building steps ahead.

You can close this test design without saving. You will create the real templates in Step 3.

A3 for printing and screen use

A3 landscape (420mm x 297mm) gives students enough space to write in each zone when printed. It also scales well on screen when students fill it in digitally.

Can't find Custom size?

Make sure you are clicking the main Create a design button on the homepage, not inside an existing design. The custom size option appears in the dropdown after clicking that button.

If the unit dropdown does not show mm, click the unit selector next to the dimension fields and switch from pixels to millimeters.

Help me find the custom size option in Canva.

Your workspace is ready. Next up, you will build the 20-week program roadmap that structures the entire student experience from system discovery through artifact creation.

Build the 20-Week Program Roadmap

Your tools are set up and ready to go. Now it is time to build the core document that drives your entire enrichment program.

The 20-week roadmap gives students a clear path from choosing a system through producing a tangible artifact. It also gives you, the facilitator, weekly activities, checkpoint questions, and session notes so you can run each phase confidently.

In this step, get ready to:

Create the document structure with a title page and five phase sections.
Write detailed Phase 1 content with week-by-week activities and checkpoint questions.
Complete Phases 2-5 following the same structure.

Create the document structure with a title page and five phase sections

Before writing detailed content, you need a skeleton that organizes the 20 weeks into five logical phases. Each phase lasts four weeks and has a distinct purpose in the student journey.

Switch back to your Program-Roadmap.docx file in WPS Word.
Type the following structure into your document, using Heading 1 for the title, Heading 2 for each phase, and normal body text for the overviews:

# Systems Thinking x Design Thinking: 20-Week Enrichment Program Roadmap

Facilitator: [Your Name]
Grade Level: 10-12
School: [Your School Name]
Program Duration: 20 Weeks

---

## Phase 1: Discover a System (Weeks 1-4)
Students explore, observe, and choose a system from any discipline.

## Phase 2: Map the System (Weeks 5-8)
Students apply the Iceberg Model and create Causal Loop Diagrams.

## Phase 3: Diagnose Leverage Points (Weeks 9-12)
Students identify where small changes could produce big effects.

## Phase 4: Design an Intervention (Weeks 13-16)
Students apply Design Thinking to create a solution.

## Phase 5: Build and Present the Artifact (Weeks 17-20)
Students produce their chosen output format and present.

What does this structure do?

This skeleton gives you the five-phase arc of the entire program at a glance. Each phase builds on the previous one: discover leads to mapping, mapping reveals leverage points, leverage points inform design, and design produces an artifact.

The one-sentence overview under each phase heading acts as a quick reference for both you and your students.

Save the document by pressing Cmd+S (macOS) or Ctrl+S (Windows).
Scroll through your document. You should see a title page followed by five Heading 2 sections, each with a phase name and one-sentence overview.

Headings not appearing as headings?

Make sure you select the text and apply the heading style from the Styles panel in WPS Word (usually in the Home tab). Typing a '#' symbol does not automatically format text as a heading in WPS Word.

help me format headings correctly in WPS Word

Write the Phase 1 detailed content

Phase 1 is where students first encounter systems thinking. You will write this phase in full detail so it serves as a template for how all other phases should read.

Place your cursor below the Phase 1 overview line.
Type the Week 1 and Week 2 content using Heading 3 for each week title and body text for the descriptions:

### Week 1: Introduction to Systems Thinking

What is a system? A system is any set of elements that are interconnected and
produce their own pattern of behavior over time. Every system has three key
components: elements, interconnections, and a purpose.

Activity: Use everyday examples to introduce systems thinking.
- A school cafeteria (elements: cooks, students, food, schedule;
  connections: ordering, queuing, feedback on meals;
  purpose: feed students efficiently)
- Beijing's subway network (elements: trains, stations, passengers, schedules;
  connections: routes, transfers, crowd flow;
  purpose: move people across the city)
- A language evolving over time (elements: speakers, words, grammar rules;
  connections: usage, media, education;
  purpose: communication between people)
- The water cycle (elements: oceans, clouds, rain, rivers;
  connections: evaporation, condensation, flow;
  purpose: distribute water across the planet)

Students discuss: What are the elements, connections, and purpose of each system?

### Week 2: The Iceberg Model Introduction

Teach the four levels of the Iceberg Model:
1. Events - What is happening? (visible, surface-level incidents)
2. Patterns of Behavior - What trends are there over time?
3. Systems Structure - How are the parts related? What rules, policies, or
   physical structures influence the patterns?
4. Mental Models - What values, assumptions, and beliefs shape the system?

Just like an iceberg where 90% is invisible beneath the water, most of a
system's driving forces are hidden below the surface. Each level down offers
increased leverage for lasting change.

Activity: Students practice applying the Iceberg Model to a familiar system
(e.g., "Why is the cafeteria always crowded at 12:15?").
- Event: Long lines at 12:15
- Pattern: Crowding happens every day at the same time
- Structure: All classes end at 12:10, only one serving line
- Mental Model: Lunch must happen in a fixed 30-minute window

Why start with the Iceberg Model?

The Iceberg Model is the most accessible entry point for students new to systems thinking. It gives them a visual framework for looking beneath surface-level events to find root causes.

The four levels come from the Donella Meadows Project formulation, which is the most widely used version in education. Students will apply this same model to their own chosen systems in Phase 2.

Continue typing the Week 3 and Week 4 content, followed by the phase deliverable, checkpoint questions, and teacher facilitation notes:

### Week 3: System Exploration Workshop

Students brainstorm systems they find interesting across any discipline. The key
rule: the system can come from ANY subject area (biology, history, math,
literature, environment, social science, physics, economics, or anything else).

For each system they consider, students must identify:
- What are the elements?
- What are the connections between elements?
- What is the system's purpose or function?

Activity: Gallery walk. Students write their system ideas on large paper around
the room. Classmates add sticky notes with questions or observations.

### Week 4: System Selection and Proposal

Students submit a one-page "System Proposal" containing:
- System name and brief description
- Which discipline it belongs to (or which disciplines it crosses)
- Why this system interests them personally
- Initial observations (at least 3 elements and 2 connections they can already see)
- One surface-level event or problem they have noticed in this system

Teacher reviews proposals and provides feedback before Phase 2 begins.

---

Phase 1 Deliverable: System Proposal (one page)

Checkpoint Questions:
1. Can you name at least 5 elements in your system?
2. What connections between elements have you observed?
3. Why does this system interest you personally?
4. What "events" (surface-level problems or outcomes) have you noticed?

Teacher Facilitation Notes:
- Keep Week 1 examples diverse across disciplines to signal that any system is
  valid. Students often default to business or economics systems because those
  are what adults talk about. Show them that languages, ecosystems, sports
  teams, and traffic patterns are equally rich.
- During Week 3, circulate and ask probing questions. If a student says "the
  education system," push them to narrow: which part? Admissions? Homework
  load? Grading incentives?
- Week 4 proposals that are too broad ("climate change") need gentle redirection
  toward something observable and bounded ("Beijing's winter heating and air
  quality relationship").
- Emphasize: there is no wrong choice, only choices that need more or less
  scoping.

What do the checkpoint questions do?

Checkpoint questions are not graded assessments. They are quick diagnostic tools you can use in one-on-one check-ins or as a written reflection at the end of the phase.

If a student cannot answer these questions, it signals they need more support before moving to Phase 2. Better to catch gaps here than during the Causal Loop Diagram work.

Save your document.
Scroll through Phase 1. You should now see four week headings, a deliverable section, four checkpoint questions, and a teacher notes section.

Phase 1 looking too short or too long?

Phase 1 should take approximately 2-3 pages. If it is significantly shorter, check that you included the activity descriptions and examples for each week. If it is much longer, check that you have not duplicated content.

help me check if my Phase 1 content has the right level of detail

Build out Phases 2-5

Now that Phase 1 sets the pattern, Phases 2-5 follow the same structure. Each phase introduces new thinking tools and builds toward the final artifact.

Place your cursor below the Phase 2 overview line.
Type the following content for Phases 2 and 3, using the same heading and formatting pattern as Phase 1:

### Week 5: Deep Dive into Your System

Students research their chosen system thoroughly. Gather data: articles, videos,
interviews, observations, statistics. Document at least 8-10 elements and
map initial connections between them.

### Week 6: Completing the Iceberg Model

Using the Iceberg Model Canvas template, students fill in all four levels
for their system. They must move beyond surface events to identify patterns,
structures, and mental models.

Key guidance: The deeper levels are harder. Push students to ask "Why does
this pattern keep happening?" (structure) and "What do people assume is true
about this system?" (mental models).

### Week 7: Introduction to Causal Loop Diagrams

Teach the mechanics of Causal Loop Diagrams:
- Variables are nouns with quantities (e.g., "demand," "price," "pollution level")
- Arrows show influence between variables
- Label arrows + (same direction) or - (opposite direction)
- Reinforcing loops (R) amplify change
- Balancing loops (B) resist change

Activity: Build a causal loop diagram together as a class using a simple
system (e.g., "study time" and "test scores" and "stress level").

### Week 8: Mapping Your System's Feedback Loops

Students create their own Causal Loop Diagram using the canvas template.
They must identify at least one reinforcing loop and one balancing loop.

Peer review: Students swap diagrams and try to follow each other's logic.
Does the loop make sense? Are the + and - labels correct?

---

Phase 2 Deliverable: Completed Iceberg Model + Causal Loop Diagram

Checkpoint Questions:
1. What patterns of behavior did you find below the surface events?
2. What mental models or assumptions keep this system in place?
3. Can you trace a reinforcing loop in your diagram and explain why it
   amplifies change?
4. Where is the strongest balancing loop in your system?

Teacher Facilitation Notes:
- Week 6 is where many students get stuck. The jump from "patterns" to
  "structure" and "mental models" is the hardest conceptual leap. Use
  probing questions: "Who made the rules?" "What would people argue is
  just the way things are?"
- For Causal Loop Diagrams (Week 7-8), start simple. A 3-variable loop
  is better than a tangled 10-variable mess. Students can always add
  complexity later.
- Common mistake: students label arrows with actions ("causes") instead
  of direction (+/-). Remind them the arrow itself means influence. The
  label tells you the direction.

---

## Phase 3: Diagnose Leverage Points (Weeks 9-12)

### Week 9: What Are Leverage Points?

Introduce Donella Meadows' concept: leverage points are places within a
complex system where a small shift can produce big changes in behavior.

Not all leverage points are equal. Deeper structural and mental-model changes
offer more leverage than surface-level fixes. Connect this directly to the
Iceberg Model: interventions at deeper levels tend to be more powerful.

### Week 10: Identifying Leverage Points in Your System

Students review their Iceberg Model and Causal Loop Diagram together.
Looking at both tools side by side, they identify 2-3 points where an
intervention could shift the system's behavior.

For each leverage point, students write:
- What is the leverage point? (name it clearly)
- Which level of the Iceberg Model does it sit at?
- Which loop in the Causal Loop Diagram does it affect?
- Why do you think a change here would ripple through the system?

### Week 11: Evaluating and Prioritizing

Students evaluate their 2-3 leverage points against criteria:
- Feasibility: Could someone actually intervene here?
- Impact: How much of the system would shift?
- Unintended consequences: What might go wrong?

Activity: Students present their top leverage point to a small group and
receive feedback on whether the reasoning is sound.

### Week 12: Writing the Leverage Point Analysis

Students write a formal justification (1-2 pages) for their chosen
intervention point. This document bridges systems analysis and design
thinking. It answers: "Based on my systems analysis, HERE is where I
believe change should happen, and HERE is why."

---

Phase 3 Deliverable: Leverage Point Analysis (1-2 page written justification)

Checkpoint Questions:
1. Which leverage point did you choose and at which level of the iceberg
   does it sit?
2. Which feedback loop does your leverage point affect?
3. What could go wrong if you intervened at this point?
4. Why is this leverage point better than the alternatives you considered?

Teacher Facilitation Notes:
- Students often want to pick the most dramatic intervention rather than
  the most feasible one. Encourage realistic thinking without crushing
  ambition.
- The written justification in Week 12 is a critical bridge document. It
  should read like a persuasive argument: "Because the system works like
  THIS (evidence from Iceberg and CLD), the best place to intervene is
  HERE (leverage point), and here is why (reasoning)."
- If a student's leverage point feels too shallow (e.g., "raise awareness"),
  push them deeper: awareness changes mental models HOW exactly?

How do the phases connect?

Notice how each phase's output feeds directly into the next. The Iceberg Model (Phase 2) reveals where leverage points might be. The leverage point analysis (Phase 3) defines exactly where Design Thinking should focus in Phase 4.

This is the core integration between systems thinking and Design Thinking. Systems thinking identifies the opportunities. Design Thinking implements transformative changes at those points.

Save your document.
Now type the content for Phases 4 and 5 below Phase 3:

## Phase 4: Design an Intervention (Weeks 13-16)

### Week 13: Introduction to Design Thinking

Introduce the five stages of Design Thinking:
1. Empathize - Understand the people affected by the system
2. Define - Frame the problem clearly using systems insights
3. Ideate - Brainstorm possible interventions at the leverage point
4. Prototype - Build a quick, low-fidelity version of the best idea
5. Test - Get feedback and iterate

Key connection: The "Define" stage is where systems thinking and Design
Thinking merge. Students use their leverage point analysis to write a
problem statement: "[Stakeholder] needs [need] because [insight from
systems analysis]."

### Week 14: Empathize and Define

Students identify stakeholders affected by their system and research
their needs. Methods: interviews (if accessible), published accounts,
surveys, observation.

Using the Design Brief Canvas template, students complete the Empathize
and Define sections. The problem statement must reference their systems
analysis directly.

### Week 15: Ideate and Prototype

Brainstorming session: generate at least 5 possible interventions at
the identified leverage point. No judging during brainstorming.

Then select the most promising idea and create a low-fidelity prototype.
This is NOT the final artifact. It is a quick sketch, model, or
description to test the concept.

### Week 16: Test and Refine

Students present their prototype to a small group (3-4 peers) who act
as stakeholders. Collect feedback using the Test section of the Design
Brief Canvas.

Based on feedback, students refine their intervention concept. This
refined concept becomes the basis for their final artifact in Phase 5.

---

Phase 4 Deliverable: Completed Design Brief Canvas + Low-Fidelity Prototype

Checkpoint Questions:
1. Who are the stakeholders affected by your system and what do they need?
2. How does your problem statement connect to your leverage point analysis?
3. What feedback did you receive on your prototype?
4. How did you refine your intervention based on that feedback?

Teacher Facilitation Notes:
- The biggest risk in Phase 4 is students abandoning their systems
  analysis and jumping to a "cool idea" that has nothing to do with their
  leverage point. Keep asking: "How does this connect to what you found
  in your causal loop diagram?"
- Low-fidelity prototypes can be anything: a sketch on paper, a
  storyboard, a role-play, a simple physical model. Speed matters more
  than polish here.
- Week 16 peer feedback works best when you give peers specific questions:
  "Does this intervention address the leverage point? What might go
  wrong? What is missing?"

---

## Phase 5: Build and Present the Artifact (Weeks 17-20)

### Week 17: Choose Your Format and Plan

Students choose their final artifact format:
- Board Game (simulates system dynamics through game mechanics)
- Digital Simulation (interactive, shows feedback loops)
- Physical Model (3D representation of system elements and connections)
- Analytical Write-Up (2000-3000 word structured report)

Students create a production plan: what needs to be done, in what order,
with what materials or tools, by what deadline.

### Week 18: Build Sprint 1

Dedicated build time. Teacher circulates for one-on-one check-ins.
Key question: "Can someone who knows nothing about your system understand
your artifact?"

### Week 19: Build Sprint 2 + Peer Review

Students complete their artifact and participate in a peer review session.
Peers use a "2 stars and a wish" format: two things that work well and
one suggestion for improvement.

Students make final refinements based on peer feedback.

### Week 20: Presentations and Reflection

10-minute presentation to class covering:
- What system they chose and why
- What they discovered through the Iceberg Model
- What feedback loops they found
- What leverage point they targeted
- How their artifact demonstrates the proposed improvement

5-minute Q&A from peers after each presentation.

Post-presentation: Students write a reflection essay (500-800 words) on
what they learned about systems, about their discipline, and about their
own thinking process.

---

Phase 5 Deliverable: Final Artifact + 10-Minute Presentation + Reflection Essay

Checkpoint Questions:
1. Does your artifact faithfully represent the system you analyzed?
2. Can an audience member trace the path from your systems analysis to
   your proposed intervention?
3. What surprised you most during this process?

Teacher Facilitation Notes:
- Weeks 17-19 require structured check-ins. Without them, students will
  procrastinate and produce rushed artifacts in the final days.
- Presentation rubric should reward clear connection between analysis and
  artifact, not just presentation polish.
- The reflection essay is where the deepest learning often surfaces. Give
  it weight in assessment.
- For students choosing the digital simulation, ensure they have started
  learning their tool (GDevelop or similar) by Week 17. A late start on
  an unfamiliar tool leads to frustration.

Why does Phase 5 include both building and presenting?

Presentation is not an afterthought. When students explain their system to peers, they consolidate their understanding. The Q&A forces them to defend their reasoning, which reveals gaps they might not have noticed.

The reflection essay captures metacognitive growth that the artifact alone cannot show.

Save your document.
Scroll through the entire document from top to bottom. You should see a title page, five phase headings with four weeks each, and a deliverable, checkpoint questions, and teacher notes section under each phase.
Check the page count in the bottom-left corner of WPS Word. Your document should be approximately 8-12 pages.

Document significantly shorter than 8 pages?

Check that each phase has all five components: overview, weekly breakdown, deliverable, checkpoint questions, and teacher facilitation notes. The most commonly missed sections are the teacher notes and the checkpoint questions.

Also verify that your weekly descriptions include activity instructions and not just one-line summaries.

help me check what is missing from my program roadmap

✔️ Awesome, I've got everything!

Great. Double check you have saved your file. Your roadmap is ready to serve as the backbone of the entire program.

ⓧ I'd like to double check the full structure

Here is the complete structure your document should contain. Compare your headings and sections against this checklist:

# Systems Thinking x Design Thinking: 20-Week Enrichment Program Roadmap

Facilitator: [Your Name]
Grade Level: 10-12
School: [Your School Name]
Program Duration: 20 Weeks

## Phase 1: Discover a System (Weeks 1-4)
  - Overview paragraph
  - Week 1: Introduction to Systems Thinking (activity + examples)
  - Week 2: The Iceberg Model Introduction (4 levels + practice activity)
  - Week 3: System Exploration Workshop (brainstorm + gallery walk)
  - Week 4: System Selection and Proposal (one-page proposal format)
  - Deliverable: System Proposal
  - Checkpoint Questions (4 questions)
  - Teacher Facilitation Notes

## Phase 2: Map the System (Weeks 5-8)
  - Overview paragraph
  - Week 5: Deep Dive into Your System (research + document elements)
  - Week 6: Completing the Iceberg Model (use canvas template)
  - Week 7: Introduction to Causal Loop Diagrams (teach mechanics)
  - Week 8: Mapping Your System's Feedback Loops (create CLD + peer review)
  - Deliverable: Completed Iceberg Model + Causal Loop Diagram
  - Checkpoint Questions (4 questions)
  - Teacher Facilitation Notes

## Phase 3: Diagnose Leverage Points (Weeks 9-12)
  - Overview paragraph
  - Week 9: What Are Leverage Points? (introduce concept)
  - Week 10: Identifying Leverage Points in Your System (use both tools)
  - Week 11: Evaluating and Prioritizing (feasibility + impact + risks)
  - Week 12: Writing the Leverage Point Analysis (formal justification)
  - Deliverable: Leverage Point Analysis (1-2 pages)
  - Checkpoint Questions (4 questions)
  - Teacher Facilitation Notes

## Phase 4: Design an Intervention (Weeks 13-16)
  - Overview paragraph
  - Week 13: Introduction to Design Thinking (5 stages)
  - Week 14: Empathize and Define (stakeholder research + problem statement)
  - Week 15: Ideate and Prototype (brainstorm + low-fidelity prototype)
  - Week 16: Test and Refine (peer feedback + iteration)
  - Deliverable: Completed Design Brief Canvas + Low-Fidelity Prototype
  - Checkpoint Questions (4 questions)
  - Teacher Facilitation Notes

## Phase 5: Build and Present the Artifact (Weeks 17-20)
  - Overview paragraph
  - Week 17: Choose Your Format and Plan (4 format options + production plan)
  - Week 18: Build Sprint 1 (dedicated build time + check-ins)
  - Week 19: Build Sprint 2 + Peer Review (2 stars and a wish)
  - Week 20: Presentations and Reflection (10 min + Q&A + reflection essay)
  - Deliverable: Final Artifact + Presentation + Reflection Essay
  - Checkpoint Questions (3 questions)
  - Teacher Facilitation Notes

Your roadmap document is complete. Students now have a clear 20-week path from curiosity to artifact. Next up, you will create the visual canvas templates in Canva that students fill in at each phase.

Create the Visual Canvas Templates in Canva

Your 20-week roadmap gives students a clear path through the program. Now they need visual tools to capture their thinking at each phase.

In this step, you will create three reusable canvas templates that students fill in as they work through the program. Each template corresponds to a key thinking tool: the Iceberg Model for systems analysis, a Causal Loop Diagram for mapping feedback loops, and a Design Brief for intervention design.

In this step, get ready to:

Create an Iceberg Model Canvas with four labeled zones for students to fill in.
Create a Causal Loop Diagram Canvas with workspace, instructions, and a legend.
Create a Design Brief Canvas with five sections matching the Design Thinking phases.

Create the Iceberg Model Canvas

The Iceberg Model is the first analytical tool students will use. It teaches them to look beneath surface-level events and uncover the deeper structures driving a system.

In your ST-DT Templates folder on canva.cn, click Create a design (or the + button).
Select Custom size.
Enter 420 mm for width and 297 mm for height (A3 landscape).
Click Create new design.

Why A3 landscape?

A3 gives students enough space to write detailed notes in each zone. Landscape orientation lets you stack the four iceberg levels vertically while leaving room for a side panel.

Now build the template layout. Add each element as a separate text box or shape on the canvas.

Add a text box at the top with the title Iceberg Model Canvas in large, bold font.
Draw or place a large iceberg shape in the center of the page, dividing it into an "above water" section and a "below water" section. You can use a triangle or custom shape from the Elements panel, or draw one using the line tool.
Add a horizontal line across the iceberg to represent the waterline.

Next, create the four labeled zones. Each zone needs a heading label and an empty box where students write their analysis.

Zone 1 (above water): Add a label EVENTS with the prompt: "What is happening? What specific incidents or outcomes do you observe?"
Zone 2 (just below the waterline): Add a label PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR with the prompt: "What trends are there over time? What keeps recurring?"
Zone 3 (deeper): Add a label SYSTEMS STRUCTURE with the prompt: "How are the parts related? What rules, policies, or physical structures influence the patterns?"
Zone 4 (deepest): Add a label MENTAL MODELS with the prompt: "What values, assumptions, and beliefs shape the system? What do people take for granted?"
Below each label, add a large empty rectangle (light border, no fill) as the writing space for students.

Finally, add the side panel and footer.

On the right side, add a vertical panel with four fields: "My System:", "Discipline:", "Date:", "Name:". Leave space after each for students to write.
At the bottom, add a downward arrow labeled Increasing Leverage with a note: "Deeper levels offer more leverage for lasting change."

What does each zone teach students?

The four levels move from the most visible (events) to the least visible (mental models). Each level down the iceberg offers a deeper understanding of the system as well as increased leverage for changing it.

Students start by naming what they see on the surface, then work downward to uncover the hidden forces. This progression is what makes the Iceberg Model so powerful as a teaching tool.

Review your canvas to make sure all four zones have clear labels, prompts, and empty boxes.
Rename the design to Iceberg Model Canvas by clicking the title area at the top of the Canva editor.

Elements overlapping or hard to align?

Use Canva's alignment guides (the purple lines that appear when you drag elements). You can also select multiple elements and use Position in the top toolbar to distribute them evenly.

If your iceberg shape is covering text boxes, right-click the shape and select Send to back.

Help me lay out the four zones of my Iceberg Model Canvas in Canva so they don't overlap.

Create the Causal Loop Diagram Canvas

The Causal Loop Diagram is how students visualize feedback loops in their system. This canvas gives them a structured workspace plus step-by-step instructions so they can build their diagrams independently.

Return to your ST-DT Templates folder and create another new design with the same A3 landscape custom size (420 x 297 mm).
Add the title Causal Loop Diagram Canvas at the top in large, bold font.

Build the main workspace area where students will draw their loops.

Create a large blank workspace rectangle in the center of the page. Give it a light grid background (you can use a subtle dotted or lined pattern from Elements or simply a light grey border).
This is where students will hand-draw or place their variable nodes and arrows. Keep it as open as possible.

Now add the instruction side panel. This guides students through the diagramming process without needing the teacher present.

On the right side, create a vertical panel with four numbered steps:

Why nouns with quantities?

Variables in causal loops must be nouns that have quantities associated with them (e.g., "demand", "supply", "quality"). This ensures students can clearly determine whether a variable goes up or down when influenced by another.

Add the bottom section for students to record their findings.

Below the workspace, add a row of fields:
Add a legend box in the corner of the workspace showing:

Rename the design to Causal Loop Diagram Canvas.

Create the Design Brief Canvas

The Design Brief bridges systems analysis and intervention design. Students use this canvas during Phase 4 when they apply Design Thinking to create a solution targeting their identified leverage point.

Create one more new design in your ST-DT Templates folder with the same A3 landscape custom size (420 x 297 mm).
Add the title Design Brief Canvas at the top in large, bold font.

Divide the page into five sections, one for each phase of Design Thinking. Each section needs a heading, a guiding prompt, and an empty space for student input.

Section 1 - EMPATHIZE: Add the prompt "Who is affected by this system? What do they need? What frustrates them?" with an empty box below for notes.
Section 2 - DEFINE: Add a fill-in-the-blank format: "Problem Statement: [Stakeholder] needs [need] because [insight from systems analysis]." Leave space for students to complete each bracketed section.
Section 3 - IDEATE: Add the prompt "Possible interventions at our identified leverage point(s):" followed by a numbered list with empty lines for ideas 1 through 5.
Section 4 - PROTOTYPE: Add two boxes side by side. Label one "Our chosen intervention:" and the other "How will we test it?"
Section 5 - TEST: Add the prompt "What feedback did we receive? What would we change?" with an empty box below.

Add the footer with project identification fields.

At the bottom of the canvas, add a row with four fields: "System:", "Leverage Point:", "Team Members:", "Date:". Leave space after each for students to fill in.
Rename the design to Design Brief Canvas.

How does the Design Brief connect to systems analysis?

Notice how the Define section references "insight from systems analysis" and the Ideate section targets "identified leverage point(s)". This is what makes the toolkit different from a generic design thinking exercise.

Students cannot complete this canvas without first having done the Iceberg Model and Causal Loop Diagram. The phases build on each other.

Now export all three templates so students can use them offline or print them.

Open the Iceberg Model Canvas design.
Click Share in the top-right corner, then select Download.
Choose PDF Print as the file type and click Download.
Repeat the export for the Causal Loop Diagram Canvas and the Design Brief Canvas.
Save the three PDF files into your ST-DT Toolkit folder on your computer alongside Program-Roadmap.docx.

Confirm that your templates are complete and exported.

Check your ST-DT Templates folder in Canva. You should see three designs: Iceberg Model Canvas, Causal Loop Diagram Canvas, and Design Brief Canvas.
Open your ST-DT Toolkit folder on your computer. You should see Program-Roadmap.docx plus the three exported PDFs.

Share templates directly with students

If your school has Canva Education approved, you can share templates as "template links" instead of PDFs. Students get their own editable copy when they click the link, and you keep the original intact.

Can't find the Custom Size option?

On canva.cn, the custom size option appears when you click Create a design from the homepage or from within a folder. Look for the size input fields at the top of the template picker. Make sure the unit dropdown is set to mm not px.

Help me find the custom size option in Canva to create an A3 landscape canvas.

Your three visual canvas templates are ready for students to use. Next up, you will write two fully worked examples that show students exactly what their completed canvases should look like.

Write the Two Worked Examples

Your program roadmap gives students the structure of what to do each week. But structure alone does not show students what quality work looks like.

In this step, you will write two fully worked examples that walk through the entire 5-phase process from start to finish. These examples serve as models that students can reference whenever they feel stuck. One example covers an economics system (your comfort zone for demonstrations), and the other covers an environmental system to prove the process works across disciplines.

In this step, get ready to:

Write a worked example analyzing Beijing's food delivery platform ecosystem through all 5 phases.
Write a second worked example analyzing Beijing's air quality and green transportation system.
Add annotations connecting each phase's output to the next phase.

Create the worked examples document and write Example 1

Your first worked example uses a system your Beijing students interact with every day: the food delivery platform ecosystem. This makes the abstract thinking tools feel immediately relevant.

In WPS Writer, create a new blank document.
Save it as Worked-Examples.docx inside your ST-DT Toolkit folder.
Add a title at the top: Worked Examples: Systems Thinking x Design Thinking Process.
Below the title, add a brief introduction paragraph explaining that these two examples demonstrate the full 5-phase process on real Beijing systems.

Now write the first example. Add a heading for Example 1 and work through each of the five phases below.

Add a Heading 1: Example 1: Beijing's Food Delivery Platform Ecosystem (Economics).

Write the following content under each phase heading. You can adapt the wording, but include all the key elements listed:

Add a Heading 2: Phase 1: Discover the System.
Write a paragraph identifying the system elements: riders, restaurants, consumers, the platform algorithm, pricing mechanisms, and weather conditions.
Explain why this system was chosen: students interact with food delivery apps daily, making the system observable and personally relevant.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 2: Map the System (Iceberg Model).
Write out all four levels of the Iceberg Model analysis:

Event: "Delivery times are getting longer."
Pattern of Behavior: "During peak hours and bad weather, delays spike."
Systems Structure: "The platform algorithm assigns orders based on proximity and rider availability. There is no cap on orders per rider."
Mental Models: "The assumption that speed is the only metric that matters. Riders are treated as interchangeable units."

Add a Heading 2: Phase 2 continued: Causal Loop Diagram.
Describe a reinforcing loop: more orders lead to more riders needed, which leads to lower pay per order, which leads to fewer riders available, which leads to longer delivery times, which leads to customer complaints, which leads to platform adding subsidies, which leads to more orders.
Describe a balancing loop: longer delivery times lead to customers switching to cooking or competitors, which leads to fewer orders, which leads to shorter delivery times.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 3: Diagnose Leverage Points.
Identify three leverage points: the algorithm's order assignment logic, the payment structure per delivery, and the "speed-only" mental model.
For each leverage point, write 2-3 sentences explaining why it has high leverage (a small change here would cascade through the system).

Add a Heading 2: Phase 4: Design an Intervention (Design Brief).
Empathize: Describe research into riders' working conditions (long hours, weather exposure, algorithmic pressure).
Define: Write the problem statement: "Riders need sustainable workloads because the current algorithm optimizes for speed without considering human capacity."
Ideate: List interventions such as capping orders per rider, weather-adjusted delivery time expectations, and rider rest credits.
Prototype: Describe a modified delivery time display that sets realistic expectations for customers during peak hours.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 5: Build and Present.
Briefly describe what a final artifact for this example might look like (for instance, a digital simulation where users adjust algorithm parameters and see delivery times change).

Why use a system students interact with daily?

Students learn abstract frameworks faster when the subject matter is personally familiar. Every student in your class has likely ordered food delivery this week. They have firsthand experience of the "events" level (long waits, cold food) and can immediately connect those events to deeper structural causes.

This makes the Iceberg Model feel like a revelation rather than an academic exercise.

Write Example 2: Beijing Air Quality and Green Transportation

Your second example must come from outside economics to prove the toolkit is truly cross-disciplinary. Beijing's air quality system spans environmental science, policy, urban planning, and human behavior.

Add a Heading 1: Example 2: Beijing Air Quality and Green Transportation (Environmental/Social).

Write through each phase just as you did for Example 1:

Add a Heading 2: Phase 1: Discover the System.
Identify the system elements: vehicles, public transport infrastructure, industrial emissions, weather patterns (wind), government policy, citizen behavior, and air quality monitoring stations.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 2: Map the System (Iceberg Model).
Write out the four levels:

Event: "AQI exceeds 150 on a winter morning."
Pattern of Behavior: "Air quality deteriorates in winter months, especially during low-wind periods."
Systems Structure: "Heating systems rely heavily on coal in surrounding regions. Car ownership is incentivized by convenience. Public transit does not reach all areas equally."
Mental Models: "Economic growth requires accepting some pollution. Individual action is too small to matter."

Add a Heading 2: Phase 2 continued: Causal Loop Diagram.
Describe a reinforcing loop: car convenience leads to more car purchases, which leads to more emissions, which leads to worse air quality, which leads to people staying indoors and driving more, which leads to less demand for cycling infrastructure, which leads to less cycling, which leads to more car use.
Describe a balancing loop: poor air quality leads to government restricting vehicles on certain days, which leads to fewer cars on the road, which leads to temporary improvement, which leads to restrictions being lifted, which leads to cars returning.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 3: Diagnose Leverage Points.
Identify three leverage points: the "individual action doesn't matter" mental model, the gap in last-mile public transit connectivity, and heating fuel source policies.
Write 2-3 sentences for each explaining the leverage mechanism.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 4: Design an Intervention (Design Brief).
Empathize: Describe research into residents who commute 1+ hours, particularly those in Tongzhou district.
Define: Write the problem statement: "Commuters in Tongzhou need reliable last-mile connections because the subway covers long distances but the final 2km home is inaccessible without a car."
Ideate: List interventions such as shared e-bike stations integrated with subway exits, covered walkways, and community shuttle routes.
Prototype: Describe a map-based proposal for 3 pilot last-mile stations near the Batong Line.

Add a Heading 2: Phase 5: Build and Present.
Describe what a final artifact for this example might look like (for instance, a physical model of the proposed last-mile network overlaid on a neighborhood map).

Why two examples from different disciplines?

If both examples came from economics, students might assume the toolkit only works for market systems. The environmental example proves that the same Iceberg Model and Causal Loop Diagrams apply to any system with interconnected parts.

Students studying biology, history, literature, or physics will see themselves reflected in at least one of these examples.

Add phase-to-phase annotations throughout both examples

Students often treat each phase as isolated homework. Annotations make the logical flow between phases explicit so students understand why one phase feeds into the next.

Go back through Example 1 and add annotation sentences at the transition between each phase.
Between Phase 2 and Phase 3, add: "Notice how the Iceberg Model directly informed which leverage points we identified. The 'speed-only' mental model at the deepest level became our most powerful intervention point."
Between Phase 3 and Phase 4, add: "The causal loop diagram revealed the reinforcing loop that made this problem persistent. Our Design Brief targets the leverage point that can break that loop."
Between Phase 4 and Phase 5, add a sentence connecting the chosen prototype to the system dynamics discovered earlier.
Repeat the same annotation process for Example 2, adapting the language to reference the air quality system's specific findings.

Format annotations visually

Make your annotations stand out from the main example content. Use italic text or a highlighted text box in WPS Writer so students can quickly spot the connections between phases. This helps them replicate the same logical flow in their own work.

Save Worked-Examples.docx.
Scroll through the full document to confirm it is approximately 6-8 pages long.
Check that each example has five clearly labeled phase headings, and that annotation text appears between each phase transition.

Document feeling too short?

If your document is under 6 pages, check that you have included 2-3 sentences of explanation for each Iceberg Model level (not just the one-line labels). Each causal loop should describe the full chain of cause and effect, not just name the variables.

Help me expand my worked examples to the right level of detail.

You now have two complete reference examples that show students exactly what quality work looks like at every phase. Next, you will create the assessment rubric and artifact guidelines that tell students how their own work will be evaluated.

Create the Assessment Rubric and Artifact Guidelines

Your worked examples now show students exactly what each phase looks like in practice. The next challenge is making assessment transparent.

Students need to know how their thinking process and final artifact will be evaluated before they start. In this step, you will create a rubric that rewards deep systems analysis alongside creative output, and artifact guidelines that give students clear specifications for whichever format they choose.

In this step, get ready to:

Build an assessment rubric covering both thinking process and final artifact.
Write artifact guidelines for 4 output formats with recommended tools.
Add presentation requirements that apply to all formats.

Create the assessment rubric

A strong rubric does two things: it tells students what excellence looks like before they begin, and it gives you consistent criteria for evaluating diverse projects across different disciplines.

In WPS Office, create a new blank document in your ST-DT Toolkit folder.
Save it as Assessment-Rubric.docx.

The rubric has two sections. Section A (Process Assessment) accounts for 60% of the grade and evaluates students' systems thinking and design thinking work. Section B (Artifact Assessment) accounts for 40% and evaluates the quality of the final output.

Why 60% process and 40% artifact?

The heavier weighting on process ensures students cannot produce a polished artifact without demonstrating genuine understanding of systems thinking. A beautiful board game that misrepresents its system's feedback loops should not earn top marks.

This also protects students who choose simpler artifact formats. A well-reasoned analytical write-up with deep systems analysis can score just as highly as a flashy digital simulation.

Add a title: "Assessment Rubric: Systems Thinking x Design Thinking Project".
Create a heading for Section A: Process Assessment (60%).
Add the following 5 criteria, each as its own subsection:

System Discovery (quality of system choice, identification of elements and connections).
Iceberg Model Analysis (depth and accuracy across all 4 levels).
Causal Loop Diagram (correct use of variables, arrows, loop identification).
Leverage Point Justification (reasoning quality, connection to systems analysis).
Design Brief (empathy depth, problem definition clarity, ideation range, prototype feasibility).

For each criterion, create a 4-level scale with descriptor sentences. The levels are:

Emerging (1) = minimal evidence of the skill.
Developing (2) = partial demonstration with gaps.
Proficient (3) = solid demonstration meeting expectations.
Exemplary (4) = exceeds expectations with depth and insight.

Here is an example of how to write descriptor sentences for one criterion. Use this as a model for all 5 criteria in Section A:

## Iceberg Model Analysis

Emerging (1): Student identifies only surface-level events.
Labels are vague or missing for deeper levels.

Developing (2): Student fills in all 4 levels but connections
between levels are unclear. Patterns and structures are
described in generic terms without system-specific evidence.

Proficient (3): All 4 levels are clearly articulated with
specific examples from the chosen system. The student shows
how events connect to underlying patterns and structures.

Exemplary (4): Analysis reveals non-obvious mental models
and demonstrates how deeper levels generate the surface
events. Student references evidence (data, interviews,
research) to support claims at each level.

What makes a good descriptor sentence?

Each descriptor should name a specific, observable behavior rather than vague quality judgments. "Student identifies only surface-level events" is observable. "Student shows basic understanding" is not.

Write descriptors that help students self-assess. If a student reads the Proficient descriptor and can honestly say "yes, I did that," your descriptors are specific enough.

Write 4-level descriptors for each of the remaining criteria (System Discovery, Causal Loop Diagram, Leverage Point Justification, Design Brief) following the same pattern.
Create a heading for Section B: Artifact Assessment (40%).
Add the following 4 criteria with 4-level descriptors for each:

Accuracy of system representation (does the artifact faithfully represent the system?).
Quality of intervention (is the proposed change well-justified?).
Craft and presentation (is the artifact well-made and clearly communicated?).
Reflection (can the student articulate what they learned about systems?).

Save Assessment-Rubric.docx.
Review your rubric. You should have 9 total criteria (5 in Section A, 4 in Section B), each with 4 descriptor sentences.

Format as a table

Consider formatting each section as a table in WPS Word with criteria as rows and the 4 levels as columns. This makes the rubric easy to scan and use during grading. Select Insert > Table and create a 5-column table (criterion name + 4 levels).

Write the artifact guidelines for each output format

Students choose one of four output formats for their final artifact. Each format needs clear specifications so students know exactly what is expected, regardless of which format they pick.

Create a new document in your ST-DT Toolkit folder and save it as Artifact-Guidelines.docx.
Add a title: "Artifact Guidelines: Choose Your Output Format".
Write a brief introduction explaining that students will choose one format and that all formats are equally valid.

Now add a section for each of the 4 output formats. For every format, include three subsections: minimum requirements, what "exemplary" looks like, and common pitfalls to avoid.

Add a section heading for Option 1: Board Game and write the following specifications:

## Option 1: Board Game

Your board game must include game mechanics that simulate your
system's feedback loops. Players' choices should mirror real
leverage points you identified in your analysis.

Minimum requirements:
- Rules document explaining how to play
- Physical prototype (can be hand-drawn on cardstock)
- 5-minute explanation of how game mechanics map to system dynamics
- At least one reinforcing loop and one balancing loop
  represented in gameplay

What "exemplary" looks like:
- Players experience the consequences of intervening at
  different leverage points
- The game naturally teaches players about the system
  without needing external explanation
- Multiple rounds show how feedback loops amplify or
  stabilize over time

Common pitfalls:
- Making a trivia game ABOUT the system instead of a game
  that SIMULATES the system
- Ignoring feedback loops (player choices have no cascading effects)
- Rules so complex that gameplay is impossible in a class period

Recommended tools: Hand-drawn on cardstock, or designed in
Canva/WPS for a more polished look.

What does this section do?

The minimum requirements set the floor. The "exemplary" description shows students what to aim for without being prescriptive about how to get there. The common pitfalls address mistakes you can predict based on how students typically misunderstand the assignment.

Add a section heading for Option 2: Digital Simulation/Game and write the specifications:

## Option 2: Digital Simulation/Game

Your digital simulation must be interactive and demonstrate
at least one feedback loop from your causal loop diagram.
Players/users should be able to see how changing one variable
affects others.

Minimum requirements:
- Interactive experience (user makes choices or adjusts variables)
- At least one feedback loop visibly demonstrated
- Variable changes produce visible consequences
- Brief written explanation of how the simulation maps to
  your systems analysis

What "exemplary" looks like:
- Multiple variables interact in ways that mirror the real system
- Users can experiment with different leverage points
- The simulation reveals non-obvious system behaviors
  (delays, oscillations, unintended consequences)

Common pitfalls:
- Building a slideshow or animation instead of an interactive
  simulation (users must have agency)
- Spending all time on visual polish while the system
  logic is shallow
- Only showing linear cause-and-effect instead of loops

Recommended tools:
- GDevelop (gdevelop.io) - browser-based, no-code visual
  events system, education plan available with anonymous
  student accounts and classroom management
- SOON or Lingzhu - Chinese domestic platforms for simpler
  narrative-based simulations

Why GDevelop as the primary recommendation?

GDevelop runs in the browser with no IT involvement needed. Its education plan provides anonymous student accounts, so no personal data is collected. It works across Windows, Mac, Chromebook, and tablets.

Chinese-native platforms like SOON and Lingzhu are emerging alternatives, but some are still in beta testing phases. For stability in a school setting, GDevelop is the safer primary recommendation.

Add a section heading for Option 3: Physical Model and write the specifications:

## Option 3: Physical Model

Your physical model is a 3D representation of the system
showing elements and connections. It must include labels
and a written explanation of how the model demonstrates
system dynamics.

Minimum requirements:
- 3D construction showing system elements and connections
- Labels identifying key variables and relationships
- Written explanation (1 page) of how the model shows
  feedback loops and leverage points
- Clear visual distinction between reinforcing and
  balancing relationships

What "exemplary" looks like:
- The model has movable or adjustable parts that let
  viewers "see" what happens when a variable changes
- Spatial relationships in the model meaningfully represent
  system relationships (not just decorative)
- The model prompts questions and insights that a 2D
  diagram would not

Common pitfalls:
- Building a diorama that shows the system's elements
  but not their connections (a scene, not a system)
- No way to see feedback loops in the physical structure
- Written explanation disconnected from what the model
  actually shows

Materials: Recycled materials, 3D-printed components,
or craft supplies. Creativity with materials is encouraged.

Add a section heading for Option 4: Analytical Write-Up and write the specifications:

## Option 4: Analytical Write-Up

Your analytical write-up is a 2000-3000 word report that
walks through your entire systems analysis and proposed
intervention in rigorous written form.

Minimum requirements:
- 2000-3000 words
- Structured as: System Description, Iceberg Analysis,
  Causal Loop Analysis, Leverage Point Identification,
  Proposed Intervention, Expected Outcomes
- At least one original diagram (hand-drawn or digital)
- Evidence cited from research, interviews, or data

What "exemplary" looks like:
- Arguments build logically from systems analysis to
  intervention design (reader can follow the reasoning)
- Multiple diagrams that add insight beyond the text
- Considers unintended consequences of the proposed
  intervention using systems thinking
- Engages with counterarguments or alternative leverage points

Common pitfalls:
- Writing a descriptive essay ABOUT the system without
  applying the analytical frameworks
- Proposing an intervention disconnected from the leverage
  point analysis (jumping to solutions)
- Diagram included as decoration rather than integrated
  into the argument

Save Artifact-Guidelines.docx.
Review your four sections. Each format should have clear minimum requirements, an aspirational "exemplary" description, and pitfalls that address common student misunderstandings.

Not sure if guidelines are specific enough?

Read each format's minimum requirements and ask: "Could a student hand in something that meets every requirement but completely misses the point of systems thinking?" If yes, tighten the requirements. The connection to feedback loops and leverage points should be non-negotiable across all formats.

Help me check if my artifact guidelines are specific enough for Grade 10-12 students.

Add the presentation requirements

Regardless of which format students choose, they all present their work to the class. This ensures every student practices articulating their systems thinking journey, not just their final product.

At the bottom of Artifact-Guidelines.docx, add a new section heading: Presentation Requirements (All Formats).
Write the presentation specifications:

## Presentation Requirements (All Formats)

Every student delivers a 10-minute presentation to the class,
regardless of artifact format.

Your presentation must cover:
1. What system you chose and why
2. What you discovered through the Iceberg Model
3. What feedback loops you found (show your Causal Loop Diagram)
4. What leverage point you targeted and why
5. How your artifact demonstrates the proposed improvement

After your presentation:
- 5-minute Q&A from peers
- Peers complete a feedback form using the
  "2 stars and a wish" format:
  - Star 1: One strength in your systems analysis
  - Star 2: One strength in your artifact/presentation
  - Wish: One suggestion for improvement

What is "2 stars and a wish"?

This is a structured peer feedback format. Students name two specific strengths (stars) and one constructive suggestion (wish). The structure prevents feedback from being either purely positive (unhelpful) or purely critical (discouraging).

Tying the two stars to different dimensions (systems analysis + artifact quality) ensures peers evaluate both the thinking and the making.

Save Artifact-Guidelines.docx.
Open both documents side by side. The rubric criteria in Section B should map clearly to the artifact guidelines. A student reading both should see that their artifact is evaluated on the same dimensions the guidelines emphasize.

Cross-reference your documents

Add a note at the top of the Artifact Guidelines document pointing students to the Assessment Rubric: "See the Assessment Rubric for detailed scoring criteria at each level." This helps students connect the two documents and self-assess before submitting.

Your complete facilitation toolkit is ready. You now have a 20-week roadmap, three visual canvas templates, two worked examples, an assessment rubric, and artifact guidelines. Next up is an optional Secret Mission to build one more resource that will spark student curiosity on Day 1.

Secret mission

Build the System Inspiration Bank

Your toolkit is complete, but Week 1 needs a spark. Students walk in not knowing that systems are everywhere. Build a cross-disciplinary System Inspiration Bank covering 8+ subject areas, framing each system as a provocative question that makes students curious enough to choose one and spend 20 weeks analyzing it.

Clean Up Your Resources

This project runs entirely locally and uses free tools, so there are no ongoing costs. Decide whether to keep your resources as-is, or delete them if you want a fresh start.

Resources you used:

ST-DT Toolkit folder (4 Word documents: Program-Roadmap.docx, Worked-Examples.docx, Assessment-Rubric.docx, Artifact-Guidelines.docx).
Canva designs in your ST-DT Templates team/folder (Iceberg Model Canvas, Causal Loop Diagram Canvas, Design Brief Canvas, System-Inspiration-Bank).
Exported PDF files from Canva saved locally.

Keep everything running

No action needed. Choose this if you are still actively building or plan to reuse and adapt this toolkit each semester.

Your WPS Word documents remain in the ST-DT Toolkit folder wherever you saved them.
Your Canva designs stay in your ST-DT Templates team/folder on canva.cn.
Consider sharing your Canva canvas templates with colleagues teaching other subjects. The templates are discipline-agnostic and work in any class that explores complex systems.

Pause - I'll come back to this later

Since all resources are free local files and free Canva designs, there is nothing to pause or shut down. Your files will be waiting for you when you return.

Make sure all your WPS Word documents are saved before closing WPS Office.
Confirm your Canva designs are saved (Canva auto-saves, but check the last-edited timestamp on each design).
Keep your exported PDFs in a clearly labeled folder so you can find them when you are ready to print or distribute.

Delete - I don't want to use this again

Remove all project files and designs if you want a completely clean slate.

Delete the ST-DT Toolkit folder from your computer. On macOS, right-click the folder and select Move to Trash. On Windows, right-click and select Delete.
Delete any exported PDF files you saved locally (the Iceberg Model, Causal Loop Diagram, and Design Brief PDFs).
In Canva on canva.cn, open your ST-DT Templates team/folder. Select each design (Iceberg Model Canvas, Causal Loop Diagram Canvas, Design Brief Canvas, System-Inspiration-Bank), click the three-dot menu on each, and select Move to trash.
Empty the Canva trash to permanently remove the designs. Click Trash in the left sidebar, then click Empty trash.

That's a Wrap!

Nice work! You have just built a complete facilitation toolkit that combines systems thinking and design thinking into a structured 20-week enrichment program for Grade 10-12 students.

Your toolkit is ready to guide students from choosing any system that fascinates them, through rigorous analysis, all the way to producing a tangible artifact.

You've learned how to:

Build a 5-phase, 20-week program roadmap with weekly activities, deliverables, checkpoint questions, and teacher facilitation notes.
Create reusable visual canvas templates (Iceberg Model, Causal Loop Diagram, Design Brief) in Canva that students fill in at each phase.
Write fully worked examples demonstrating the entire process on both an economics system and an environmental system relevant to Beijing students.
Secret Mission: Built a cross-disciplinary System Inspiration Bank covering 8+ subject areas to spark student curiosity on Day 1.

Ready to quiz yourself?