Abstract

This study explores how systems thinking–oriented thinking routines can be integrated into middle school social studies instruction and how such practices are experienced by students and teachers. Framed as an exploratory, classroom-based inquiry, the study examines the implementation of visible thinking routines designed to support students’ engagement with complex and interconnected social phenomena. The study was conducted over an eight-week period with fifth-grade students in a public middle school. Data were collected through a combination of pre- and post-intervention descriptive performance measures, student written reflections, and a semi-structured teacher interview, reflecting an exploratory mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, while qualitative data were examined using thematic analysis to capture patterns in cognitive engagement, affective responses, and instructional processes. The findings suggest that thinking routines supported students in organizing their ideas, recognizing relationships among system elements, and reflecting on their own reasoning processes. Students also reported positive affective experiences, including increased engagement and enjoyment, particularly as they became more familiar with open-ended and dialogic learning activities. From the teacher’s perspective, the routines facilitated deeper student explanations and supported instructional coherence, while also presenting challenges related to time management and instructional balance. Rather than advancing causal claims, the study offers context-sensitive insights into how systems thinking–oriented pedagogy can be enacted within everyday classroom practice. The findings highlight the pedagogical and leadership relevance of thinking routines as tools that support reflective, relational, and sustainability-oriented ways of thinking. By foregrounding the philosophical and normative dimensions of pedagogical design, the study contributes to ongoing discussions on how education can cultivate forms of thinking necessary for engaging responsibly with complexity in contemporary educational systems.

Keywords

References

• Adewumi, T., Alkhaled, L., Buck, C., Serrano Hernández, S., Brilioth, S., Kekung, M., . . . Barney, E. (2025). Probing Chain-of-Thought (ProCoT): Stimulating critical thinking and writing of students through engagement with large language models. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 7(4), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202536789
• 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
• Ben-Zvi Assaraf, Z., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351
• Biesta, G. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.
• Biesta, G. (2022). World-centred education: A view for the present. Routledge.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
• Chaaban, Y., Al-Thani, H., & Du, X. (2024). A systems-thinking approach to evaluating a university professional development programme. Professional Development in Education, 50(2), 296-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2193199
• Checkland, P. (2012). Four conditions for serious systems thinking and action. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(5), 465–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2158
• Chen, J.-Y., & Jan, M. (2024). Developing thinking routines instructional design principles. In Lindgren, R., Asino, T. I., Kyza, E. A., Looi, C. K., Keifert, D. T., & Suárez, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2024) (pp. 107–114). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2024.231933
• Clark, V. L. P., & Creswell, J. W. (2008). The mixed methods reader. Sage.
• Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.
• Feriver Gezer, Ş. (2018). Systems thinking skills of preschool children in early childhood education contexts of Turkey and Germany (Publication no. 509565) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
• Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. MIT Press.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
• Hmelo-Silver, C.E (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3
• 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
• Kamalam, S. (2017). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Pondicherry Journal of Nursing, 11(2), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.5005/pjn-11-2-42
• Karaarslan Semiz, G., & Teksöz, G. (2023). Tracing system thinking skills in science curricula: a case study from Turkey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10383-w
• Kordova S., Frank M, & Nissel Miller A. (2018). Systems thinking education—seeing the forest through the trees. Systems, 6(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6030029
• Kwambaza, C. P., & Basela, J. M. (2024). Parents' practices in promoting pupils' critical thinking skills in pre-primary schools. International Journal of Didactical Studies, 5(2), 26210. https://doi.org/10.33902/ijods.202426210
• Manurung, M. R., Masitoh, S., & Arianto, F. (2022). How thinking routines enhance critical thinking of elementary students. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 3(6), 640–650. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v3i6.260
• Maxwell, J. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Sage.
• Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Earthscan.
• Mehren, R., Rempfler, A., Buchholz, J., Hartig, J., & Ulrich‐Riedhammer, E. M. (2018). System competence modelling: Theoretical foundation and empirical validation of a model involving natural, social and human‐environment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 685-711. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21436
• Nasution, E. Y. P., Yulia, P., & Deswita, R. (2025). A modified project-based learning model to promote students' creative thinking ability. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 7(2), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202530694
• Oyman Bozkurt, N. & Bozkurt, E. (2024). Systems thinking in education: A bibliometric analysis. Education and Science, 49(218), 205–231. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2024.12634
• Panzavolta, S., Mosa, E., & Laici, C. (2019). Making learning and thinking visible: An analysis on the use of thinking routines. In L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICERI2019 Conference (pp. 6772–6781). IATED Academy. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2019.1617
• Peng, J., Sun, M., Yuan, B., Lim, C. P., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Wang, M. (2023). Visible thinking to support online project-based learning: Narrowing the achievement gap between high- and low-achieving students. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11896-1
• Ponce de leon, I. (2025). CUDOs to the teachers: Using Merton’s norms of scientific practice to guide lessons in critical thinking. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 7(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202525475
• Prabawani, B., Hadi, S. P., Zen, I. S., Hapsari, N. R., & Ainuddin, I. (2022). Systems thinking and leadership of teachers in education for sustainable development: a scale development. Sustainability, 14(6), 3151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063151
• Project Zero. (September 2023). Project Zero's thinking routine toolbox. https://pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines
• Prout, P. F., Wolgemuth, J. R., Gray, C. C., Lowe, G. M., Thorpe, V., & Killam, R. (2021). I was wondering: Reflections on collaborative practice by five researchers in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Reflective Practice, 22(5), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1938998
• Ramos-Vallecillo, N., Murillo-Ligorred, V., & Lozano-Blasco, R. (2024). University students’ achievement of meaningful learning through participation in thinking routines. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 14, 1012–1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14040066
• Richmond, B. (1994). Systems thinking/system dynamics: Let’s just get on with it. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100204
• Ritchhart, R., Church, M., Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: how to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Wiley
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
• Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
• Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 27–33.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research, 16(5–6), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505427
• 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.447
• Sweeney, L.B. & Sterman, J.D. (2000), Bathtub dynamics: Initial results of a systems thinking inventory. System Dynamics Review, 16, 249–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.198
• Talley, E. K., & Hull, R. B. (2023). Systems thinking for systems leadership: Promoting competency development for graduate students in sustainability studies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(5), 1039-1057. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-11-2021-0489
• Tishman, S., & Palmer, P. (2005). Visible Thinking. Leadership Compass, 2(4), 1–3.
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245656
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2017). Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002474/247444e.pdf
• Yeh, Y.-C., Wang, C. M., Ting, Y.-S., & Chiang, J.-L. (2025). A visible thinking approach for preservice teacher training: Effects and mechanisms for professional development in creativity instruction. Teaching Education, 36(3), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2025.2485230
• 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
• York, S., & Orgill M. (2020). ChEMIST table: A tool for designing or modifying instruction for a systems thinking approach in chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2114–2129. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00382

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.