In today’s world, acquiring essential skills is crucial for empowering individuals, particularly children, to handle everyday challenges and tasks in a technologically advanced society. Among these skills, computational thinking (CT) plays a vital role in problem-solving and adapting to the complex and evolving demands of the 21st century. However, it is necessary to explore the role of other thinking skills alongside CT, considering that CT cannot be improved and applied in isolation.
Objective
This paper aims to address the gap in knowledge regarding the application of systems thinking to CT development and its integration into education settings.
Methods
Results from two studies, focusing on CT development using educational robotics and maker technologies, form the basis of this paper. The research findings are synthesized and consolidated using the systemic FMA (framework of ideas, methodology, and area of concern) model.
Results
The research findings illustrate that utilizing a diverse set of approaches, methods, and tools can improve CT skill development across different educational settings.
Conclusions
The adapted FMA model promotes methodological pluralism and facilitates a critical examination of CT development boundaries, leading to both conceptual and practical changes. This approach enables the recognition of emergent properties, the design of interventions, and the incorporation of multiple perspectives.
Boccani S, Chioccariello A, Earp J, and Nordic@ BETT2018 Steering Group. The Nordic approach to introducing Computational Thinking and programming in compulsory education: Report prepared for the Nordic@ BETT2018 Steering Group: Nordic@ BETT2018 Steering Group. https://doi.org/10.17471/54007.
2.
BorowskiT. P21 framework for 21st century learning. The Battelle for Kids. 2019.
3.
KhoiriAKomariahNUtamiRTParamartaVSunarsiD. 4Cs analysis of 21st century skills-based school areas. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2021 Feb 1 (Vol. 1764 No. 1, p. 012142). IOP Publishing.
Acevedo-BorregaJValverde-BerrocosoJGarrido-ArroyoMDC. Computational Thinking and Educational Technology: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Educ Sci (Basel). 2022;12(1):39.
6.
DongYCateteVJociusRLytleNBarnesTAlbertJJoshiDRobinsonRAndrewsA. PRADA: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 2019 Feb 22 (pp. 906–912).
7.
JociusRJoshiDDongYRobinsonRCatetéVBarnesTAlbertJAndrewsALytleN. Code, connect, create: The 3c professional development model to support computational thinking infusion. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 2020 Feb 26 (pp. 971–977). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366797.
8.
BiddyQChakarovAGBushJElliottCHJacobsJReckerMSumnerTPenuelW. A professional development model to integrate computational thinking into middle school science through codesigned storylines. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 2021;21(1):53–96.
9.
BocconiSChioccarielloAKampylisPDagienėVWastiauPEngelhardtKEarpJHorvathMJasutėEMalagoliCMasiulionytė-DagienėV. Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: State of play and practices from computing education. 2022:138.
10.
FengSYangD. Teachers’ Perspective on Implementing Computational Thinking in Elementary Classrooms. In: IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE. 2021, pp. 1–5.
11.
IsraelMLiuRYanWSherwoodHMartinWFancsaliCRivera-CashEAdairA. Understanding barriers to school-wide computational thinking integration at the elementary grades: Lessons from three schools. In Computational Thinking in PreK-5: Empirical Evidence for Integration and Future Directions. 2022 Jan 15 (pp. 64–71). https://doi.org/10.1145/3507951.3519289.
12.
LaiRPYEllefsonMR. How multidimensional is computational thinking competency? A bi-factor model of the computational thinking challenge. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2023;61:259–82.
13.
ShuteVJSunCAsbell-ClarkeJ. Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review. 2017;22:142–58.
14.
WeintropDBeheshtiEHornMOrtonKJonaKTrouilleLWilenskyU. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2016;25:127–47. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.
15.
BowersJDamelinDEidinEMcIntyreC. Keeping cool with sagemodeler. The Science Teacher. 2022;89(4):18–25.
16.
ShinNBowersJRoderickSMcIntyreCStephensALEidinEKrajcikJDamelinD. A framework for supporting systems thinking and computational thinking through constructing models. Instructional Science. 2022;50(6):933–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09590-9.
17.
HaasAGrapinSEWendelDLlosaLLeeO. How fifth-grade English learners engage in systems thinking using computational models. Systems. 2020;8(4):47. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8040047.
18.
HamidiAMirijamdotterAMilradM. A Complementary View to Computational Thinking and Its Interplay with Systems Thinking. Educ Sci (Basel). 2023;13(2):201.
AhoAV. Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal. 2012;55:833–35. DOI: 10.1093/comjnl/bxs074.
21.
FraillonJAinleyJSchulzWFriedmanTDuckworthD. Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA international computer and information literacy study international report. Springer Nature. 2020. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5.
22.
DenningPJ. The profession of IT: Beyond computational thinking. Commun ACM. 2009;52:28–30.
23.
DenningPJTedreM. Computational Thinking. Mit Press. 2019.
24.
PapertS. Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. 1990;10:1095592.
25.
YadavAGoodJVoogtJFisserP. Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education: Bridging the Worlds of Work and Education. 2017;1051–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_49.
26.
GroverSPeaR. Computational Thinking: A Competency Whose Time Has Come. Computer Science Education. 2021;19:1257–58.
27.
AbelsonHKongS-C. Computational Thinking Curricula in K–12: International Implementations. MIT Press. 2024.
28.
MeadowsDH. Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing; 2008.
29.
JacksonMC. Creative holism: a critical systems approach to complex problem situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research. 2006;23(5):647–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.799.
30.
ReynoldsMHolwellS. Introducing systems approaches. Systems Approaches to Making change: A Practical Guide. 2020;1–24.
31.
CabreraDColosiL. Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): A theory of thinking and of things. Evaluation and Program Planning. Elsevier Ltd; 2008. p. 311–317.
32.
CabreraDCabreraL. Complexity and Systems Thinking Models in Education: Applications for Leaders. Learning, Design, and Technology. 2019;1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_101-1.
KiwelekarAWNavandarSYadavDK. A two-systems perspective for computational thinking. In: Intelligent Human Computer Interaction: 12th International Conference, IHCI 2020 Daegu, South Korea, November 24-26, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 12. Springer, 2021, pp. 3–11.
35.
HolmeT. Systems Tinking as a Vehicle to Introduce Additional Computational Tinking Skills in General Chemistry. In: ACS Symposium Series. ACS Publications, 2019, pp. 239–250. DOI: 10.1021/bk-2019-1316.ch014.
36.
EasterbrookS. From computational thinking to systems thinking: A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing. 2014. Epub ahead of print 2014. DOI: 10.2991/ict4s-14.2014.28.
37.
ChecklandPHolwellS. Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Syst Pract Action Res. 1998;11:9–21.
38.
McdermidDC. Applying Checkland ’s FMA Approach to a Software Engineering Problem using Action Research. Copyright Warning. 2001;186–94.
39.
BadaSOOlusegunS. Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2015;5:66–70. DOI: 10.9790/7388-05616670.
40.
StevensonMBowerMFalloonGForbesAHatzigianniM. By design: Professional learning ecologies to develop primary school teachers’ makerspaces pedagogical capabilities. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2019;50(3):1260–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12743.
41.
Tofel-GrehlCFeldonDJeongSSearleKHansenTBennettB. Impacts of maker technologies on classroom learning outcomes: A mixed methods explanatory study. The Journal of Educational Research. 2023;116(4):198–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2023.2239185.
42.
MishraPKoehlerMJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teach Coll Rec. 2006;108(6):1017–54.
43.
HamidiATavajohSMilradM. Combining Maker Technologies to Promote Computational Thinking and Heart-ware skills through Project-based Activities: Design Considerations and Empirical Outputs. In: The Fifth APSCE International Conference on Computational Thinking and STEM Education, 2-4 June, 2021, Singapore. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, 2021, pp. 107–112.
44.
HamidiAZeregaRTavajohSMilradMMasielloI. Digital Competence & Computational Thinking for Preschool Pre-service Teachers: From Lab to Practice. In Sixth APSCE International Conference on Computational Thinking and STEM Education, 5-17 June Delft, The Netherlands. 2022. DOI: 10.34641/ctestem.2022.464.
45.
LeePTLeeXRLowCWKokilaA. Implementing Computational Thinking through Nonformal Learning in after School Activities at Students Society Club. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 2019 Jun 13 (pp. 201–202).
46.
HoverstadtP. The Grammar of Systems from Order to Chaos & Cack. SCiO Publications, UK, 2022.
47.
MidgleyGRajagopalanR. Critical Systems Thinking, Systemic Intervention, and Beyond. Handbook of Systems Sciences. 2021;107–157.
48.
MohammadiMFaskhodiAA. Modeling the dynamics of knowledge management in educational institutes: A system dynamics approach. Education and Self Development. 2022;17:86–104. DOI: 10.26907/esd.17.2.09.
49.
CabreraDColosiLLobdellC. Systems thinking. Eval Program Plann. 2008;31:299–310.
50.
CabreraDCabreraL. Systems thinking made simple: new hope for solving wicked problems. 2015. 244 p.
51.
OseredchukOSadovyiMPelekhVKoriakinaITsarovaY. Emergent properties of modern education. Amazonia Investiga. 2024;13(76):63–74.
52.
MonahanCMunakataMVaidyaA. Creativity as an emergent property of complex educational system. Northeast Journal of Complex Systems (NEJCS). 2019;1(1):4.
53.
GentiliPLCardinaliGDominiciPGrohmannDMenconiMESantiC. The Science of Complex Systems for Preparing the New Generation to Tackle Global Challenges. In 8th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’22). Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València; 2022. p. 959–66.
54.
ReynoldsMBlackmoreCIsonRShahRWedlockE. The role of systems thinking in the practice of implementing sustainable development goals. Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. 2018:677–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_42.
55.
Skolverket. ICILS: en studie om digital kompetens. Available from: http://www.skolverket.se/ [Accessed 1 June 2024].
56.
SalavatiS. Dilemmas in Teachers’ Use of Digital Technologies in Everyday School Practice. In: Dilemmas 2015 Papers from the 18th Annual International Conference Dilemmas for Human Services: Organizing, Designing and Managing. 2017. Epub ahead of print 2017. DOI: 10.15626/dirc.2015.16.
57.
BarrVStephensonC. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?ACM Inroads. 2011;2:48–54.
58.
LaneAReynoldsM. Systems thinking in practice: mapping complexity. In Mapping Environmental Sustainability2017;17–44. Policy Press.
59.
MeadowsD. Leverage points. Places to Intervene in a System. 1999;19:28.
60.
RichKMYadavASchwarzCV. Computational thinking, mathematics, and science: Elementary teachers’ perspectives on integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2019;27(2):165–205.
KafaiYProctorCLuiD. From theory bias to theory dialogue: Embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 Cs education. ACM Inroads. 2020;11:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381887.
63.
KafaiYBProctorC. A Revaluation of Computational Thinking in K–12 Education: Moving Toward Computational Literacies. Educational Researcher. 2022;51:146–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211057904.
64.
Esteve-MonFMAdell-SeguraJLlopis NebotMÁValdeolivas-NovellaMPachecoAparicio J. The development of computational thinking in student teachers through an intervention with educational robotics. 2019. https://doi.org/10.28945/4442.
65.
KelentrićMHellandKArstorpA-T. Professional Digital Competence Framework for Teachers. The Norwegian Centre for ICT in Education. 2017;134:1–74.
66.
VuorikariRKluzerSPunieY. DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens-With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes2022.
