SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Educational Studies / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Developing Systems Thinking at the Elementary School Level: A Critical Review of Pedagogical Approaches and Research Trends

İlkokul Düzeyinde Sistem Düşüncesinin Geliştirilmesi: Pedagojik Yaklaşımlar ve Araştırma Eğilimlerine Yönelik Eleştirel Bir Derleme

Hatice Atik(Karatay Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi)0000-0002-4480-6220
Hasan Özcan(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4210-7733
Pages
375–394
Publication Date
2026-06-11
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal that elementary school students can demonstrate progress in entry-level skills such as identifying the structural elements of a system, distinguishing basic relationships, and describing processes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Many topics addressed in educational processes must be evaluated using a holistic approach due to the complex structure formed by interacting elements.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings reveal that elementary school students can demonstrate progress in entry-level skills such as identifying the structural elements of a system, distinguishing basic relationships, and describing processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that systems thinking should be integrated into elementary school curricula in a gradual and practice-based manner.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sistem düşüncesi · ilkokul eğitimi · bütüncül öğrenme

Abstract

Many topics addressed in educational processes must be evaluated using a holistic approach due to the complex structure formed by interacting elements. In this context, systems thinking should be considered a fundamental approach in understanding learning processes. However, a review of the literature reveals that studies have largely focused on secondary and higher education levels, while research targeting the elementary school level remains relatively limited. Building on this research gap, this study aims to examine research focused on systems thinking at the elementary school level within a critical and holistic framework. The research was conducted using a descriptive and critical review methodology. As a result of searches conducted in the Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases, empirical studies that directly address systems thinking and were conducted with elementary school students were included in the review. The selected studies were analyzed in terms of their objectives, methodological approaches, instructional designs, and the dimensions of systems thinking they addressed. The findings reveal that elementary school students can demonstrate progress in entry-level skills such as identifying the structural elements of a system, distinguishing basic relationships, and describing processes. In particular, it was determined that outdoor activities, simulation-based environments, gamification, and visualization tools support student engagement. In contrast, it was observed that understanding feedback loops and long-term dynamic processes remained more limited. These findings indicate that systems thinking should be integrated into elementary school curricula in a gradual and practice-based manner.

Özet

Eğitim süreçlerinde ele alınan birçok konu, birbiriyle etkileşim hâlindeki unsurların oluşturduğu karmaşık yapı nedeniyle bütüncül bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmelidir. Bu çerçevede sistem düşüncesi, öğrenme süreçlerinin anlamlandırılmasında temel bir yaklaşımla değerlendirilmelidir. Ancak alanyazın incelendiğinde, çalışmaların büyük ölçüde ortaöğretim ve yükseköğretim düzeylerine odaklandığı, ilkokul düzeyine yönelik araştırmaların ise görece sınırlı kaldığı dikkat çekmektedir. Bu çalışma, söz konusu araştırma boşluğundan hareketle, ilkokul düzeyinde sistem düşüncesine odaklanan araştırmaları eleştirel ve bütüncül bir çerçevede incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, betimsel ve eleştirel derleme yöntemiyle yürütülmüştür. Web of Science, ERIC ve Google Scholar veri tabanlarında yapılan taramalar sonucunda, sistem düşüncesini doğrudan konu alan ve ilkokul öğrencileriyle gerçekleştirilen ampirik çalışmalar incelemeye dâhil edilmiştir. Seçilen çalışmalar; amaçları, yöntemsel yaklaşımları, öğretim tasarımları ve ele aldıkları sistem düşüncesi boyutları açısından analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, ilkokul öğrencilerinin sistemin yapısal öğelerini tanıma, temel ilişkileri ayırt etme ve süreçleri betimleme gibi giriş düzeyindeki becerilerde ilerleme gösterebildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle dış mekân etkinlikleri, simülasyon temelli ortamlar, oyunlaştırma ve görselleştirme araçlarının öğrenci katılımını desteklediği belirlenmiştir. Buna karşılık, geri bildirim döngüleri ve uzun erimli dinamik süreçlerin kavranmasının daha sınırlı kaldığı görülmüştür. Bu bulgular, ilkokul düzeyinde sistem düşüncesinin öğretim programlarına kademeli ve uygulama temelli biçimde entegre edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Atik, H., Özcan, H. (2026). Developing Systems Thinking at the Elementary School Level: A Critical Review of Pedagogical Approaches and Research Trends. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.33907/turkjes.1849987

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems thinking basics: From concepts to causal loops. Pegasus Communications.
  2. Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050
  3. Azevedo, R., Winters, F. I., & Moos, D. C. (2004). Can students use a hypermedia tool to learn about complex systems? The role of self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–122.
  4. Batzri, O., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., Cohen, C., & Orion, N. (2015). Understanding the Earth systems: Expressions of dynamic and cyclic thinking among university students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 761–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9562-8
  5. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20061
  6. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 925–951.
  7. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003
  8. Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2000). Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16(4), 249–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.198
  9. Bozkurt, E. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of systems thinking research in science education 1991–2022. Science Education International, 34(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i3.6
  10. Brandstädter, K., Harms, U., & Großschedl, J. (2012). Assessing system thinking through different concept-mapping practices. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2147–2170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.716549
  11. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities. American Educational Research Journal,55(4), 761–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218758668
  12. Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5. baskı). SAGE Publications.
  13. Curwen, M. S., Ardell, A., & MacGillivray, L. (2024). Observers of the world: Primary grade students imagining solutions for broken environmental and social systems. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984241307381
  14. English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
  15. Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 655–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749313
  16. Fisher, D. M. (2023). Systems thinking activities used in K-12 for up to two decades. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1059733. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1059733
  17. Forrester, J. W. (2007). System dynamics—the next 50 years. System Dynamics Review, 23(2‐3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.381
  18. Frank, M. (2000). Engineering systems thinking: Cognitive competencies. Systems Engineering, 3(2), 163–168.
  19. Gilissen, M. G. R., Knippels, M. C. P. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2020). Variation theory in lesson study to improve systems thinking in biology education. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 9(3), 245–259.
  20. Golan, R., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Preparing students to reason about complex systems. Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences içinde (ss. 214–221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  21. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516.
  22. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2. baskı). SAGE Publications.
  23. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
  24. Grotzer, R. J. (2004). Understanding causal complexity: A framework for learning and teaching. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  25. Grotzer, T. A., & Bell-Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655891
  26. Hannon, B., & Ruth, M. (2000). Dynamic modeling in the new millennium. Springer.
  27. Hapgood, S., Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2004). Instructional investigation of a physical system: The case of light. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(4), 455–505.
  28. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7
  29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
  30. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Gray, S. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 395–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21187
  31. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7
  32. Hogan, K. (2000). Eco-Echo: A method for helping students visualize and evaluate their biological knowledge. The Science Teacher, 67(8), 34–38.
  33. Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319–345.
  34. Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A Learning Progression for Feedback Loop Reasoning at Lower Elementary Level. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.943789
  35. Hung, W. (2008). The 3C3R model: A conceptual framework for designing problems in PBL. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1006
  36. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence (A. Parsons & S. Milgram, Trans.). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000
  37. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4
  38. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022
  39. Kitchenham, B., Brereton, O. P., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009
  40. Klopfer, E., & Resnick, M. (2003). Digital manipulative patches. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Educationiçinde (Cilt 1, ss. 1–8).
  41. Koski, M. I., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). An exploratory study on how primary pupils approach systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(4), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9234-z
  42. Listyarini, I., Budiman, M. A., Lede, A. M., & Wu, M. C. (2025). Enhancing elementary education through technology-based learning media: A constructivist problem-based learning approach. PANDU: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat, 1(2), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.65818/pandu.v1i2.199
  43. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations and hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1023–1040.
  44. Maani, K. E., & Maharaj, V. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.281
  45. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  46. Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., Wyse, S. A., & Ebert-May, D. (2010). Just the facts? Introductory undergraduate biology courses focus on low-level cognitive skills. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0001
  47. Nordby, S. K., Øygardslia, K., Sverdrup, U., & Sverdrup, H. (2016). The art of gamification: Teaching sustainability and system dynamics. Proceedings of the 34th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Delft, Hollanda.
  48. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93(6), 325–331.
  49. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell Publishing.
  50. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1122533
  51. Putica, K. B. (2025). Meta-analysis of the effects of the STEM teaching approach on the development of 21st-century competencies related to learning natural sciences. İçinde STEM/ STEAM/ STREAM approach in theory and practice of contemporary education (ss. 61-70). DOI UBKG. https://doi.org/10.46793/STREAM25.061P
  52. Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2024). Systems thinking and sustainability education. In H. Qudrat-Ullah (Ed.), Systems thinking for sustainability education in business schools (pp. 11–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61077-6_2
  53. Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113–133.
  54. Richmond, B. (2001). Introduction to systems thinking. High Performance Systems.
  55. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 705–725. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ884069
  56. Romdhon, J., Masrifah, M., Shiyama, N. M., & Suharyati, H. (2024). Applying constructivist learning theory to enhance student learning outcomes in elementary schools. International Journal of Sustainable Development & Future Society, 2(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.62157/ijsdfs.v2i2.73.
  57. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, maxims, and systems: The nature of educational change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5–9.
  58. Sari, D. R., Rahardjo, S. B., & Prayitno, B. A. (2025). Educating for complexity: A bibliometric analysis of systems thinking in 21st-century science education. F1000Research, 14(937). https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.168515.1
  59. Sheehy, N., Wylie, J., McGuinness, C., & Orchard, G. (2000). Learning about complex systems. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(3), 223–230.
  60. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  61. Sommer, C., & Lücken, M. (2010). System competence – Definition and assessment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3920–3924.
  62. Sterman, J. D. (2010). Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 26(4), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.445
  63. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.
  64. Talanquer, V., Mahaffy, G., & Mahaffy, P. G. (2019). Systems thinking in chemistry education: Theoretical framework and methodological approaches. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2720–2729. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00261
  65. Voulvoulis, N., Giakoumis, T., Hunt, C., Kioupi, V., Petrou, N., Souliotis, I., Vinda, C., & Wanprakob, A. (2022). Systems thinking as a paradigm shift for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 17, 761–775.
  66. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  67. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
  68. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Open University Press.
  69. White, B. Y. (2000). Conceptual change. A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Cilt 2, ss. 247–251). American Psychological Association.
  70. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1
  71. Yoon, S. A., Goh, S.-E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746090
  72. York, S., Lavi, R., Dori, Y. J., & Orgill, M. (2019). Applications of systems thinking in STEM education. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(12), 2742–2751. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00261
  73. Yulianto, A., Sopandi, W., Riandi, R., & Hamdu, G. (2025). A decade-long trend in the development of systems thinking skills on science learning: Contributions to elementary schools. Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran ve Pembelajaran, 11(2), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.33394/jk.v11i2.15279