Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 53-61

  Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a,c   Azevedo, Roger ^b  

^a The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 32644440879     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7     Document Type: Short Survey

References (41)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science, (n.d.). AAAA project 2061 biology textbooks evaluation. Retrieved November 19, 2003, from http://www. project2061.org/research/textbook/hsbio/about.htm
2. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 167-207.
3. Azevedo, R. (in press-a). Computers as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist.
4. Azevedo, R. (in press-b). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist.
5. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523-535.
6. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students' ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-370.
7. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Winters, F. I., Moos, D. C., & Greene, J. A. (2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381-412.
8. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.
9. Azevedo, R., Winters, F. I., & Moos, D. C. (2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn about science? The dynamics of self- and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 215-245.
10. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3/4, 271-312.
11. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26. 369-398.
12. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
13. Charles, E., & d'Apollonia, S. (2003). When mold molds and ants anchor: Building explanatory frameworks with complex systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
14. Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. (2004). What have we learned about student engagement in the past twenty years. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited (pp. 299-328). 9-9Greenwich, CT: Information Publishing Age.
15. de Jong, T., Beishuizen, J., Hulshof, C., Prins, F., van Rijn, H., van Somersen, M., et al. (2005). Determinants of discovery learning in a complex simulation learning environment. In P. Gardenfors & P. Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education, and communication technology (pp. 257-283). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16. Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Spiro, R. J. (2001). Learners' (mis)understanding of important and difficult concepts. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 349-375). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI/MIT Press.
17. Goel, A. K., Gomez de Silva Garza, A., Grué, N., Murdock, J. W., Recker, M. M., & Govinderaj, T. (1996). Towards designing learning environments -i: Exploring how devices work. In C. Fraisson, G. Gauthier, & A. Lesgold (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems: Lecture notes in computer science. New York: Springer.
18. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 414-466.
19. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
20. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235-266.
21. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. M. O'Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology (pp. 147-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2004, June). Understanding complex systems: An expert-novice comparison. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Honolulu, HI.
23. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of acomplex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127-138.
24. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(2), 1-9.
25. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3/4, 313-350.
26. Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (in press). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
28. Liu, L., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Marathe, S. (2005a, April). Function before form: An alternative approach to learning about complex systems. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal CA.
29. Liu, L., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Marathe, S. (2005b). How representation matters: Comparing collaborative learning with alternative versions of hypermedia. In T. Koschmann, D. D. Suthers, & T-W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 2005 (pp. 398-402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30. Mandinach, E., & Cline, A. (2000). It won't happen soon: Practical, curricular, and methodological problems in implementing technology based constructivist approaches in classrooms. In S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as 'cognitive tools II: No more walls: Theory change, paradigm shifts and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 377-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267-301.
32. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2002). NCATE 2000 Standards -Revised. Washington, DC. (http://www. ncate.org/public/ faqStandards.asp?ch=4#faq4)
33. Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423-451.
34. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
35. Quintana, C., Zhang, X., & Krajcik, J. (in press). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of on-line inquiry through software-based scaffolding. Educational Psychologist.
36. Vick, J. E., Azevedo, R., & Hofman, N. S. (April, 2005). Expert-novice differences in the understanding and detection of self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montréal, Canada.
37. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
38. Vye, N., Schwartz, D., Bransford, J., Barron, B., Zech, L., & CTGV. (1998). SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and revision. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 305-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (in press). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist.
40. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3-19.
41. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.