Promoting Conceptual Change for Complex Systems Understanding: Outcomes of an Agent-Based Participatory Simulation

• Abrahamson D, Wilensky U (2004) SAMPLER: Collaborative interactive computer-based statistics learning environment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Mathematical Education. Copenhagen

• Anderson PW, Arrow KJ, Pines D (eds) (1988) The economy as an evolving complex system. Westview Press, Redwood City

  Google Scholar 

• Assaraf OB-Z, Orion N (2005) Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):518–560

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Assaraf OB-Z, Orion N (2010) System thinking skills at the elementary school level. J Res Sci Teach 47(5):540–563

  Google Scholar 

• Axelrod RM, Cohen MD (2000) Harnessing complexity: organizational implications of a scientific frontier. Basic Books, New York

  Google Scholar 

• Becu N, Bousquet F, Barreteau O, Perez P, Walker A (2003) A methodology for eliciting  and  modeling  Stakeholders  representations  with  agent  based modeling. In: Hales D, Edmonds B, Norling E, Rouchier J (eds) Multi-agent-based Simulation iii. 4th International Workshop, MABS 2003 Melbourne, Australia, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence) vol 2927. Springer, p 131-148.

• Bell RL, Trundle KC (2008) The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. J Res Sci Teach 45:346–372

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blikstein P, Wilensky U (2004) MaterialSim: An agent-based simulation toolkit for learning materials science. In International Conference on Engineering Education, Gainesville. Gainesville, FL.

• Casti JL (1994) Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. Harper Collins, New York

  Google Scholar 

• Centola D, Wilensky U, McKenzie E (2000). A hands-on modeling approach to evolution: Learning about the evolution of cooperation and altruism through multi-agent modeling-The EACH Project. In: Fourth international conference of the learning sciences. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp 166–173

• Chi MTH (2005) Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. J Learn Sci 14(2):161–199

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chi MTH, Roscoe RD, Slotta JD, Roy M, Chase CC (2012) Misconceived Causal Explanations for Emergent Processes. Cognitive Sci 36(1):1–61. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Colella V (2000) Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. J Learn Sci 9(4):471–500

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Danish J, Peppler K, Phelps D, Washington D (2011) Life in the hive: supporting inquiry into complexity within the zone of proximal development. J Sci Educ Technol 20(5):454–467

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996) Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

  Google Scholar 

• Etienne M (2003) SYLVOPAST: a multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2):5

  Google Scholar 

• Farmer JD, Foley D (2009) The economy needs agent-based modelling. Nature 460(7256):685–686

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Feltovich PJ, Spiro RJ, Coulson RL (1989) The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: the deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, no. 4, p. 58

• Feltovich PJ, Spiro RJ, Coulson RL (1993) Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. In: Frederiksen N, Mislevy RJ, Bejar I (eds) Test theory for a new generation of tests. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 181–217

  Google Scholar 

• Feltovich PJ, Spiro RJ, Coulson RL, Adami JF (1994) Conceptual understanding and stability, and knowledge shields for fending off conceptual change. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield

  Google Scholar 

• Forrester JW (1987) Lessons from system dynamics modeling. Syst Dyn Rev 3(2):136–149

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Forrester JW (1993) System dynamics and the lessons of 35 Years. In: Greene KBD (ed) A systems-based approach to policymaking. Springer, US, pp 199–240

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Forrester JW (1994) Learning through system dynamics as preparation for the 21st century. In: Keynote address for systems thinking and dynamic modelling conference for K-12 Education. Concord, MA

• Forrester JW (1996) System dynamics and K-12 teachers. In: Presented at the University of Virginia School of Education, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Forrester JW (2009) System dynamics: the classroom experience: quotations from K-12 Teachers. ClexExchange, Acton

  Google Scholar 

• Gadgil S, Nokes-Malach TJ, Chi MTH (2012) Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learn Instr 22(1):47–61

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Goh SE, Yoon SA, Wang J, Yang Z, Klopfer E (2012) Investigating the relative difficulty of complex systems ideas in biology. In: 10th International conference of the learning sciences: the future of learning, ICLS 2012. Sydney, Australia

• Goldstone RL (2006) The complex systems see-change in education. J Learn Sci 15(1):35–43

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Government of South Australia. (2012). Biosecurity SA: European Rabbits In Australia

• Grotzer T (2012) Learning causality in a complex world: understandings of consequence. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

  Google Scholar 

• Grotzer T, Basca BB (2003) How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? J Biol Edu 38(1):16–29

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Grotzer T, Tutwiler MS, Dede C, Kamarainen A, Metcalf S (2011). Helping students learn more expert framing of complex causal dynamics in ecosystems using EcoMUVE. In: National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference. Orlando, FL

• Grotzer T, Kamarainen AM, Tutwiler MS, Metcalf S, Dede C (2013) Learning to reason about ecosystems dynamics over time: the challenges of an event-based causal focus. Bioscience 63(4):288–296

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gupta A, Hammer D, Redish EF (2010) The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics. J Learn Sci 19(3):285–321

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hmelo-Silver CE, Azevedo R (2006) Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. J Learn Sci 15(1):53–61

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hmelo-Silver CE, Pfeffer MG (2004) Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science 28(1):127–138

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hmelo-Silver CE, Marathe S, Liu L (2007) Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. J Learn Sci 16(3):307–331

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Holland JH (1995) Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity. Basic Books, New York

  Google Scholar 

• Jacobson MJ (2001) Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity 6(3):41–49

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jacobson MJ, Archodidou A (2000) The design of hypermedia tools for learning: fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. J Learn Sci 9(2):145–199

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Jacobson MJ, Kapur M, So H-J, Lee J (2011) The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems. Instr Sci 39(5):763–783

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Koppal M, Caldwell A (2004) Meeting the challenge of science literacy: Project 2061 efforts to improve science education. Cell Biol Educ 3(1):28–30

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lansing S, Kremer J (1993) Emergent properties of balinese water temple networks: coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. Am Anthropol 95:97–114

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Learmonth GP Sr, Plank J (2015) Participatory simulation as a tool of policy informatics: definitions, literature review, and research directions. In: Johnston EW (ed) Governance in the information era: theory and practice of policy informatics. Routledge, New York

  Google Scholar 

• Lee H-S, Linn MC, Varma K, Liu OL (2010) How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning? J Res Sci Teach 47(1):71–90

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lees AC, Bell DJ (2008) A conservation paradox for the 21st century: the European wild rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, an invasive alien and an endangered native species. Mamm Rev 38(4):304–320

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lemke JL, Sabelli NH (2008) Complex systems and educational change: towards a new research agenda. Educ Philos Theory 40(1):118–129

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Levy ST, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the Levels of Complexity. Cognit and Instr 26(1):1–47

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Linn MC, Lee H-S, Tinker R, Husic F, Chiu JL (2006) Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313(5790):1049–1050

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Liu L, Hmelo-Silver CE (2010). Computer-supported collaborative scientific conceptual change: effects of collaborative processes on student learning. In: E-collaborative knowledge construction learning from computer-supported and virtual environments. Information Science Reference

• Lynam T, Bousquet F, Le Page C, d’ Aquino P, Barreteau O, Chinembiri F, Mombeshora B (2002) Adapting science to adaptive managers: spidergrams, belief models, and multi-agent systems modeling. Conserv Ecol 5(2):24

  Google Scholar 

• Mainzer K (2007). Thinking in complexity: the computational dynamics of matter, mind, and mankind. Springer Science & Business Media

• Maroulis S, Guimerà R, Petry H, Stringer MJ, Gomez LM, Amaral LAN, Wilensky U (2010) Complex systems view of educational policy research. Science (New York) 330(6000):38–39

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. In: Wright D (ed) Chelsea Green Pub: White River Junction

• Mitchell M (2009) Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press, New York

  Google Scholar 

• National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press

• New Jersey Department of Education (2006) New Jersey core curriculum content standards for science

• NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington

  Google Scholar 

• Plank J, Feldon D, Sherman W, Elliot J (2011) Complex systems, interdisciplinary collaboration, and institutional renewal. Change Mag High Learn 43(3):35–43

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Quintana C, Reiser BJ, Davis E, Krajcik J, Fretz E, Duncan RG, Kyza E, Edelson D, Soloway E (2004) A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. J Learn Sci 13(3):337-386

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Resnick M (1996) Beyond the centralized mindset. J Learn Sci 5(1):1–22

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Resnick M, Wilensky U (1998) Diving into complexity: developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. J Learn Sci 7(2):153–172

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rosenthal R (1991) Meta-analytic procedures for social research. SAGE

• Schwartz CV, White BY (2005) Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition Instruct 23(2):165–205

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Settlage J (1994) conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. J Res Sci Teach 31(5):449–457

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Smetana LK, Bell RL (2012) Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. Int J Sci Educ 34(9):1337–1370. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Trundle KC, Bell RL (2010) The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: a quasi-experimental study. Comput Educ 54:1078–1088

  Article  Google Scholar 

• van Joolingen WR, de Jong T, Dimitrakopoulout A (2007) Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. J Comput Assist Lear 23(2):111–119

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Vattam SS, Goel AK, Rugaber S, Hmelo-Silver CE, Jordan R, Gray S, Sinha S (2011) Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. J Educ Technol Soc 14(1):66–81

  Google Scholar 

• Virginia Department of Education (2014) Standards of learning. http://www.doe.virginia.gov. Retrieved 31 July 2015

• Weiss IR, Pasley JD, Smith PS, Banilower ER, Heck DJ (2003) Looking inside the classroom: a study of mathematics and science education in the United States. Horizon Research Inc, Chapel Hill

  Google Scholar 

• West JJ, Dowlatabadi H (1999) On assessing the economic impacts of sea-level rise on developed coasts. Routledge, London

  Google Scholar 

• Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL

• Wilensky U, Centola D (2007) Simulated evolution: Facilitating students’ understanding of the multiple levels of fitness through multi-agent modeling. In: Evolution Challenges Conference. Phoenix, AZ

• Wilensky, U, Reisman, K (1998) Connected Science: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories-an Embodied Modeling Approach. In: Bar-Yam Y (ed) Proceedings of the second international conference on complex systems. Nashua, NH

• Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wilensky, U, Stroup, W (1999) HubNet. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/hubnet.html. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL

• Wilensky U, Stroup W (2000a) Embodied science learning: students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. In: Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA

• Wilensky U, Stroup W (2000b) Networked gridlock: students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet architecture. In: Fishman BJ, O’Connor-Divelbiss SF (eds) Fourth international conference of the learning sciences. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 282–289

  Google Scholar 

• Wilensky U, Stroup W (2003) Embedded complementarity of object-based and aggregate reasoning in students developing understanding of dynamic systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, April 1–5

• Winn W, Stahr F, Sarason C, Fruland R, Oppenheimer P, Lee YL (2005) Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. J Res Sci Teach 43(1):25–42

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yoon SA (2008) An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. Int J Sci Educ 30(1):1–32

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yoon SA (2011) Using social network graphs as visualization tools to influence peer selection decision-making strategies to access information about complex socioscientific issues. J Learn Sci 20(4):549–588

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zucker AA, Tinker R, Staudt C, Mansfield A, Metcalf S (2008) Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II project. J Sci Educ Technol 17:42–48

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references