ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
Objective: This paper will present an overview of a structured review of the theory and evidence for using the Gerlach and Ely (GEM) Instructional Design Model in elementary science education in a way that supports the development of system thinking skills and creative abilities among sixth-grade students in the Saudi education system. Methodology: A structured analytical review method was used as the primary methodology for this review. The majority of the literature reviewed is from the theoretical framework, empirical background, and literature citations from the doctoral dissertation on GEM-based instructional modules in elementary science education in Saudi Arabia. The literature reviews synthesized instructional design principles, systems thinking frameworks, and creativity theories referenced in the foundational dissertation. Results: The findings of this review indicate that the alignment between the objectives, content organization, instructional strategy, and assessments provided through the GEM model creates a pedagogically cohesive learning environment that could foster higher-order thinking for students. When implemented in a systematic and intentional way, the GEM model-based instructional modules have demonstrated strong theoretical alignment with supporting systems thinking and enhancing creative abilities in students (particularly in terms of flexibility, elaboration, and originality). Limitations / Implications: This review has highlighted the need for additional research to provide evidence for integrating instructional design models (such as the GEM model) with systems thinking and creative abilities in elementary science education. Empirical studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of the GEM model-based integrated interventions at different grade levels and in different educational settings. Originality / Value: This paper extends the current body of knowledge by providing an analytical link between instructional design theory, systems thinking, and creative capacity in an elementary science framework designed for use in the Saudi educational setting. The review is further positioned within contemporary global reform agendas that emphasize systemic literacy and creative adaptability in elementary education.
Alanazi, A. A., & Khairani, A. Z. (2025). The effects of GEM (Gerlach and Ely Model) instructional modules on developing creative abilities and systems thinking skills in science among 6th grade elementary students in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Curriculum and Assessment in Science, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.64753/jcasc.v10i3.2449
Alazri, A. A., & Shahat, M. A. (2025). Enhancing systems thinking in elementary science education: A STEM-based approach for fourth-grade learners. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 17(4), 629–641. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2025.404
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2010). Systems thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 540–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20351
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
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
Bielik, T., Krell, M., Zangori, L., & Ben Zvi Assaraf, O. (2023). Investigating complex phenomena: Bridging between systems thinking and modeling in science education. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1308241. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1308241
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Budak, M., & Ceyhan, G. (2024). Research trends on systems thinking approach in science education: A bibliometric review. International Journal of Science Education, 46(5), 485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2245106
Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x
Craft, A. (2005). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. Routledge.
Demirçal?, S. (2025). The impact of STS-oriented nature education programs on middle school students’ creativity. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1556. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111556
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.
English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K–12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1
Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1980). Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Gilissen, M. G. R., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., Verhoeff, R. P., & Boersma, K. T. (2020). Bringing systems thinking into the classroom. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1755741
Government of Saudi Arabia. (2016). Saudi Vision 2030. https://www.vision2030.gov.sa
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
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Henriksen, D., Mishra, P., & Fisser, P. (2016). Infusing creativity in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27–37.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Azevedo, R., & Duncan, R. G. (2017). Problem-based learning and systems thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 661–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-1
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110098912
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). The Four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013688
Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260708560225
Lankers, A., Timm, J., & Schmiemann, P. (2023). Students’ systems thinking while modeling a dynamic ecological system. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1187237. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1187237
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Ministry of Education. (2019). Education and Vision 2030 reform framework. Government of Saudi Arabia. https://moe.gov.sa
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills 2030. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 creative thinking framework. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/innovation/creative-thinking/
OECD. (2024). A profile of an evaluation and assessment agency: Saudi Arabia’s Education and Training Evaluation Commission (ETEC). OECD Publishing.
Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2010). A guide to conducting a systematic literature review of information systems research (Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10[26]). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1954824
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Park, H., Byun, S., Sim, J., Han, H., & Baek, Y. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of creativity in STEM education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(5), 1093–1109.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of JBI scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important? Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Eds.). (2009). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III). Routledge.
Richmond, B. (1993). Systems thinking. System Dynamics Review, 9(2), 113–133.
Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), 705–725.
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Sari, D. R. (2025). Educating for complexity: A bibliometric analysis of systems thinking in 21st-century science education. F1000Research, 14, 937. https://f1000research.com/articles/14-937
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. Doubleday.
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
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics. McGraw-Hill.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, Article 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Scholastic Testing Service.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Lewin, S., & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Fostering students’ creativity and critical thinking. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/62212c37-en
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). Creativity and motivation in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 109–135.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
Yoon, S., Anderson, E., Lin, J., & Elinich, K. (2018). How students learn about complex systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 285–316.
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume III): Creative minds, creative schools. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/4c03f63c-en
UNESCO. (2022). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
Alanazi, A., & Khairani, A. Z. (2026). Instructional Design through the Gerlach and Ely Model in Elementary Science Education: Implications for Fostering Systems Thinking and Creative Capacities in the Saudi Context. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 15(1), 1291–1320.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode