Review Article

Trends and research outcomes of technology-based interventions for complex thinking development in higher education: A review of scientific publications

Azeneth Patiño 1 * , María Soledad Ramírez-Montoya 1 , Gerardo Ibarra-Vazquez 1
More Detail
1 Institute for the Future of Education, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, MEXICO* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), October 2023, ep447, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13416
Published Online: 19 June 2023, Published: 01 October 2023
OPEN ACCESS   2836 Views   1868 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Complex thinking is a desired competency in 21st-century university students, so technology-based teaching and learning strategies must be carefully considered when training them in complex reasoning skills. This systematic review aims to map research on the use of teaching and learning strategies supported by technology to enhance complex thinking skills in university students. This review reports results according to PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. The search strategy was performed in June 2022 in Scopus and Web of Science databases. Of 151 records initially identified between 2018 and 2022, 32 papers were included in the final synthesis per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results of this review indicate that (1) tech-based strategies for complex thinking development are based on active learning approaches including problem-based learning, case-based learning, collaboration-driven and discussion-based learning, project-based learning, assessment- and feedback-oriented activities, and mind mapping techniques; (2) most of the documented strategies were implemented in hybrid contexts; (3) traditional instructional materials commonly used for promoting higher order thinking skills such as reading assignments, videos, and eliciting/reflexive questions are still effective in fostering complex thinking when delivered through technology; and (4) custom-built technological development for complex thinking development software that incorporates emerging technologies is scarce at present. Further research is needed to document the interventions that train students interactively in complex thinking skills using Education 4.0 technologies.
Keywords: complex thinking, higher education, educational technology, educational innovation, Education 4.0

CITATION (APA)

Patiño, A., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Ibarra-Vazquez, G. (2023). Trends and research outcomes of technology-based interventions for complex thinking development in higher education: A review of scientific publications. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(4), ep447. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13416

REFERENCES

  1. Ahmed, M., Hayat, R., Ahmad, M., Kheir, A., Shaheen, F. A., Raza, M. A., & Ahmad, S. (2022). Impact of climate change on dryland agricultural systems: A review of current status, potentials, and further work need. International Journal of Plant Production, 16, 341-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-022-00197-1
  2. Baena-Rojas, J. J., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., Mazo-Cuervo, D. M., & López-Caudana, E. O. (2022). Traits of complex thinking: A bibliometric review of a disruptive construct in education. Journal of Intelligence 10(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030037
  3. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
  4. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw Hill.
  5. Brandt, H. M., Sundstrom, B., Monroe, C. M., Turner-Mcgrievy, G., Larsen, C., Stansbury, M., & West, D. S. (2020). Evaluating a technology-mediated HPV vaccination awareness intervention: A controlled, quasi-experimental, mixed methods study. Vaccines, 8(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8040749
  6. Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009
  7. Brown, J. (2013). A review of the evidence on technology-based interventions for the treatment of tobacco dependence in college health. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(3), 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12000
  8. Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., & Duncan, R. G. (2020). Disagreeing about how to know: The instructional value of explorations into knowing. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1786387
  9. Degener, S., & Berne, J. (2017). Complex questions promote complex thinking. The Reading Teacher, 70(5), 595-599. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1535
  10. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D C Heath. https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000
  11. Farrer, L., Gulliver, A., Chan, J. K., Batterham, P. J., Reynolds, J., Calear, A., Tait, R., Bennett, K., & Griffiths, K. M. (2013). Technology-based interventions for mental health in tertiary students: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(5), e101. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2639
  12. Gao, P. P., Nagel, A., & Biedermann, H. (2020). Categorization of educational technologies as related to pedagogical practices. In K. Tirri, & A. Toom (Eds.), Pedagogy in basic and higher education–Current developments and challenges. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88629
  13. Goicovic Madriaza, G. (2015). Estrategias para el pensamiento complejo en estudiantes de pregrado basadas en el proceso creativo de Leonardo Da Vinci [Strategies for complex thinking in undergraduate students based on the creative process of Leonardo Da Vinci]. Visión Docente ConCiencia [Conciencia Teaching Vision], 13(76), 6-22.
  14. Gómez-Francisco, T., Rubio-Gonzalez, J., & González-Morales, W. (2019). Pedagogía de la pregunta en la enseñanza-aprendizaje del derecho como innovación metodológica [Pedagogy of the question in the teaching-learning of law as a methodological innovation]. Revista Pedagogía Universitaria y Didáctica Del Derecho [University Pedagogy and Law Didactics Magazine], 6(2), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-5885.2019.55306
  15. Hightow-Weidman, L. B., Muessig, K., Rosenberg, E., Sanchez, T., LeGrand, S., Gravens, L., & Sullivan, P. S. (2018). University of North Carolina/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) for addressing the HIV epidemic among adolescents and young adults in the united states: Protocol and rationale for center development. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(8), e10365. https://doi.org/10.2196/10365
  16. Jaaron, A. A. M., & Backhouse, C. J. (2018). Operationalization of service innovation: A systems thinking approach. The Service Industries Journal, 38(9-10), 561-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1411480
  17. Katsioudi, G., & Kostareli, E. (2021). A sandwich-model experiment with personal response systems on epigenetics: Insights into learning gain, student engagement and satisfaction. FEBS Open Bio, 11(5), 1282-1298. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13135
  18. Koerber, S., Mayer, D., Osterhaus, C., Schwippert, K., & Sodian, B. (2015). The development of scientific thinking in elementary school: A comprehensive inventory. Child Development, 86(1), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12298
  19. Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A., Bustamante-Bello, M.-R., Rosas-Fernández, J.-B., & Molina, A. (2021). The core components of Education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering education. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107278
  20. Miranda, J., Pérez-Rodríguez, R., Borja, V., Wright, P. K., & Molina, A. (2019). Sensing, smart, and sustainable product development (S3 product) reference framework. International Journal of Production Research, 57(14), 4391-4412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1401237
  21. Miranda, J., Rosas-Fernandez, J. B., & Molina, A. (2020a). Achieving innovation and entrepreneurship by applying Education 4.0 and open innovation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC49519.2020.9198638
  22. Miranda, J., Rosas-Fernández, J. B., & Molina, A. (2020b). Collaborative networking to enable innovation and entrepreneurship through open innovation hubs: The Entrepreneurship Learning Center of Mexico City. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises (pp. 311-323). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62412-5_26
  23. Morin, E. (1986). El método 3: El conocimiento del conocimiento [Method 3: The knowledge of knowledge]. Ediciones Cátedra, S. A.
  24. Morin, E. (1994). Carta de la transdisciplinariedad [Charter of trans disciplinarity]. https://biblioteca.multiversidadreal.com/index.php?page=13&id=1306&db=
  25. Morin, E. (2014). Introduction à la pensée complexe [Introduction to complex thinking]. Éd Points.
  26. Oliveira, B. G., Liboni, L. B., Cezarino, L. O., Stefanelli, N. O., & Miura, I. K. (2020). Industry 4.0 in systems thinking: From a narrow to a broad spectrum. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 37(4), 593-606. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2703
  27. Ololube, N. P., Kpolovie, P. J., & Makewa, L. N. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of research on enhancing teacher education with advanced instructional technologies. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8162-0
  28. Oreopoulos, P., & Petronijevic, U. (2018). Student coaching: How far can technology go? Journal of Human Resources, 53(2), 299-329. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.53.2.1216-8439R
  29. Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., McGreal, R., & Obiageli Agbu, J.-F. (2022). Complex digital horizons in the future of Education 4.0: Insights from UNESCO recommendations. RIED-Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia [RIED-Ibero-American Journal of Distance Education], 25(2), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.2.33843
  30. Reyneke, F., Fletcher, L., & Harding, A. (2018). The effect of technology-based interventions on the performance of first-year university statistics students. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(2), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1477557
  31. Rodríguez-Abitia, G., Martínez-Pérez, S., Ramirez-Montoya, M. S., & Lopez-Caudana, E. (2020). Digital gap in universities and challenges for quality education: A diagnostic study in Mexico and Spain. Sustainability, 12(21), 9069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219069
  32. Salinitri, F. D., Wilhelm, S. M., & Crabtree, B. L. (2015). Facilitating facilitators: Enhancing PBL through a structured facilitator development program. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1509
  33. Sellars, M., Fakirmohammad, R., Bui, L., Fishetti, J., Niyozov, S., Reynolds, R., Thapliyal, N., Smith, Y., & Ali, N. (2018). Conversations on critical thinking: Can critical thinking find its way forward as the skill set and mindset of the century? Education Sciences, 8(4), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040205
  34. Silva Pacheco, C. (2020). Art education for the development of complex thinking meta-competence: A theoretical approach. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(1), 242-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12261
  35. Slack, H. R., & Priestley, M. (2022). Online learning and assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the impact on undergraduate student well-being. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2076804
  36. Straková, Z., & Cimermanová, I. (2018). Critical thinking development–A necessary step in higher education transformation towards sustainability. Sustainability, 10(10), 3366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103366
  37. Sung, H., Cao, S., Ruis, A. R., & Williamson Shaffer, D. (2019). Reading for breadth, reading for depth: Understanding the relationship between reading and complex thinking using epistemic network analysis. In Proceedings of the CSCL 2019 (pp. 376-383).
  38. Suryansyah, S. A., Kastolani, W., & Somantri, L. (2021). Scientific thinking skills in solving global warming problems. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 683(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/683/1/012025
  39. Terry, R., Taylor, J., & Davies, M. (2019). Chapter 21: Successful teaching in virtual classrooms. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), Learning and teaching in higher education. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975087.00035
  40. Tofighi, B., Leonard, N., Greco, P., Hadavand, A., Acosta, M. C., & Lee, J. D. (2019). Technology use patterns among patients enrolled in inpatient detoxification treatment. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 13(4), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000494
  41. Valladares, L. (2022). Post-truth and education: STS vaccines to re-establish science in the public sphere. Science & Education, 31(5), 1311-1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00293-0
  42. Vázquez-Parra, J. C., Castillo-Martínez, I. M., Ramírez-Montoya, M. S., & Millán, A. (2022). Development of the perception of achievement of complex thinking: A disciplinary approach in a Latin American student population. Education Sciences, 12, 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050289
  43. Velducea, W., Marín Uribe, R., & Soto Valenzuela, M. C. (2019). Estrategias de intervención y pensamiento complejo en la formación universitaria: Revisión sistemática [Intervention strategies and complex thinking in university education: Systematic review]. Revista Publicando [Magazine Publishing], 6(20), 5-11.
  44. Wang, X., Hunter, D. J., Vesentini, G., Pozzobon, D., & Ferreira, M. L. (2019). Technology-assisted rehabilitation following total knee or hip replacement for people with osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20, 506. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2900-x
  45. Wheeler, G. (2006). Ten years of science education standards and the roadmap to success. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 169-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb18072.x
  46. Zadi, I. C., Montanher, R. C., & Monteiro, A. M. (2021). Juego digital para aprender inglés como segunda lengua utilizando el pensamiento complejo [Digital game to learn English as a second language using complex thinking]. Revista Científica General José María Córdova [General Scientific Journal José María Córdova], 19(33), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.21830/19006586.727
  47. Zalba-Azzoni, E. M., & Orta-Martínez, M. M. (Eds.). (2011). Estrategias para el desarrollo del pensamiento complejo y competencias. Sistematización de experiencias y buenas prácticas de docentes universitarios [Strategies for the development of complex thinking and competencies. Systematization of experiences and good practices of university teachers]. Innova CESAL.
  48. Zebrack, B., & Isaacson, S. (2012). Psychosocial care of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer and survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(11), 1221-1226. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5467
  49. Zha, P., Mahat, G., Qureshi, R., Zhao, L., Shen, Q., Chao, Y. -., & Liu, Y. (2021). Utilizing a WeChat intervention to improve HIV and AIDS education among college students in China. Health Education Journal, 80(8), 1002-1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211023084
  50. Zhou, L., Rudhumbu, N., Shumba, J., & Olumide, A. (2020). Role of higher education institutions in the implementation of sustainable development goals. In G. Nhamo, & V. Mjimba (Eds.), Sustainable development goals and institutions of higher education (pp. 87-96). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26157-3_7
  51. Zimmerman, C., & Croker, S. (2014). A prospective cognition analysis of scientific thinking and the implications for teaching and learning science. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13(2), 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.13.2.245