Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 66-81

  Vattam, Swaroop S ^a   Goel, Ashok K ^a   Rugaber, Spencer ^a   Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^b   Jordan, Rebecca ^b   Steven, Gray ^b   Sinha, Suparna ^b  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Complex systems; Educational technology; Interactive learning environments; Model based inquiry; Science education

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952845794     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bhatta, S., & Goel, A. (1997). Learning generic mechanisms for innovative design adaptation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 367-396.
2. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: A new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3-4), 363-392.
3. Bredeweg, B., & Forbus, K. (2003). Qualitative modeling in education. AI Magazine, 2003.
4. Buckley, B. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. Internationaljournal of Science Education, 22, 895-935.
5. Chandrasekaran, B. (1994). Functional representation: A brief historical perspective. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 8(2), 173-197.
6. Chi, M. (2005) Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
7. Clement, J. (2008). Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation, Dordrecht: Springer.
8. Darden, L. (Ed.), (2006). Reasoning in Biological Discoveries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Dawes, J. (2000). Tropical aquarium fish: A step by step guide to setting up and maintaining a freshwater or marine aquarium, Sterling Publishing.
10. Edelson, D. (1997). Realizing authentic scientific learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.
11. Erden, M., Komoto, H., van Beek, T., D'Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: Approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(2), 147-169.
12. Feurzeig, W., & Roberts, N. (1999). Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education, New York: Springer.
13. Goel, A., & Bhatta, S. (2004). Use of design patterns in analogy-based design. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18(2), 85-94.
14. Goel, A., Gomez, A., Grue, N., Murdock, W., Recker, M., & Govindaraj, T. (1996, June). Towards design learning environments: Explaining how devices work. In Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, Canada.
15. Goel, A., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior & function of complex systems: The SBF modeling language. International Journal of AI in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 23, 23-35.
16. Goel, A., & Stroulia, E. (1996). Functional device models and model-based diagnosis in adaptive design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10, 355-370.
17. Graesser, A., VanLehn, K., Rose, C., Jordan, P., & Harter, D. (2001). Intelligent tutoring systems with conversational dialogue. AI Magazine, 22(4), 39-52.
18. Hmelo, C., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
19. Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Demeter, M., Gray, S., Liu, L., Vattam, S., Rugaber, S., & Goel, A. (2008). Focusing on function: Thinking below the surface of complex natural systems. Science Scope, 31(9), 27-35.
20. Hmelo-Silver, C, Marathe, S., Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307-331.
21. Hmelo-Silver, C., Liu, L., Gray, S., Finkelstein, H., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Enacting things differently: Using NetLogo models to learn about complex systems. Paper presented at biennial meeting of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.
22. Jordan, R., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gray, S., Goel, A., & Rugaber, S. (2009). Modeling practices as a function of task structure. Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, San Diego, CA.
23. Jordan, R., Singer, F., Vaughan, J., & Berkowitz, A. (2008). What should every citizen know about ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7,495-500.
24. Koedinger, K., & Nathan, M. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representation on qualitative reasoning. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164.
25. Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic recognition of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 16(2), 145-163.
26. Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 11-46), Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1999). Teaching children science: A project-based approach, New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Kreutzer, W. (1986). Systems simulation: Programming styles and languages, Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley
29. Lajoie, S. P., Lavigne, N. C., Guerrera, C, & Munsie, S. D. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the context of Bio World. Instructional Science, 29, 155-186.
30. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023-1040.
31. Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Polluck, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32. Metcalf, S, Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000) Model-It: A design retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies in learning (pp. 77-116), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Narayanan, N. H. (2007). The impact of cognitively based design of expository multimedia. In D. Alamargot, P. Terrier & J.M. Cellier (Eds.), Written Documents in the Workplace, Elsevier Science, 243-260.
34. National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. New Jersey Department of Education (2006). New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards for Science, Retrieved June 19, 2010, from, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/core_ideas_NJ_Science_Standards.pdf.
37. Novak, J., & Gowin, D. (1984). Learning how to learn, New York: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Paperi (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39. Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185-217.
40. Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1987). Computer-aided reasoned discourse, or, how to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), Cognitive science and its applications for human computer interaction (pp. 109-162), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Stadelmann, P., Finley, L., & Vriends, M. (2003). Tropical fish: Setting up and taking care of aquariums made easy: Expert advice for new aquarists (p. 96), Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series.
42. Stansbury, E. (1999). The simplified classroom aquarium: A teacher's guide to operating and maintaining a small classroom aquarium (p. 138), Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
43. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315-337.
44. Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., & Weiner, A. (2001). Representational and advisory guidance for students learning scientific inquiry. In D. Forbus & P. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education (pp. 7-35), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
45. van Joolingen, W., & de Jong, T. (2003). SIMQUEST: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology learning environments (pp. 1-32), Amsterdam: Kluwer.
46. Vattam, S., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., & Jordan, R. (2009, July). From conceptual representations to simulations: Why and how, In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on AI in Education (pp. 593-595), Brighton, UK.
47. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo, Retrieved December 15, 2010, from, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/.
48. 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.