The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems

Instructional Science

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 763-783

  Jacobson, Michael J ^a   Kapur, Manu ^b   So, Hyo Jeong ^b   Lee, June ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Agent based models; Conceptual change; Digital media; Hypermedia; Knowledge transfer; Learning about complex systems; Ontology; Problem based learning; Scaffolding

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961169266     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9147-0     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. 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.
2. Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & Donovan, S. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4. Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexificantion: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: HarperCollins.
5. Charles, E. S. (2003). An ontological approach to conceptual change: The role that complex systems thinking may play in providing the explanatory framework needed for studying contemporary sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
6. Charles, E. S., & d'Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual cognitive science society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Cognitive models of science (Vol. XV, pp. 129-186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
9. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
10. Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
12. diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265-281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K08. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
14. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: Freeman and Company.
15. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 393-408.
16. Goldstone, R. L. (2006). The complex systems see-change in education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 35-43.
17. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465-516.
18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307-331.
19. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41-49.
21. Jacobson, M. J. (2008). Hypermedia systems for problem-based learning: Theory, research, and learning emerging scientific conceptual perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 5-28.
22. Jacobson, M. J., & Archodidou, A. (2000). The design of hypermedia tools for learning: Fostering conceptual change and transfer of complex scientific knowledge. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 149-199.
23. Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239-281.
24. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1993). Hypertext learning environments and cognitive flexibility: Research into the transfer of complex knowledge (Technical No. 573). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.
25. Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1995). Hypertext learning environments, cognitive flexibility, and the transfer of complex knowledge: An empirical investigation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(5), 301-333.
26. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
27. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379-424.
28. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-11009-19093-x.
29. Kapur, M. (2010). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-11010-19144-11253.
30. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
31. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
33. Levin, J. A., Stuve, M. J., & Jacobson, M. J. (1999). Teachers' conceptions of the internet and the world wide web: A representational toolkit as a model of expertise. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 1-23.
34. Parunak, H. V. D., Savit, R., & Riolo, R. L. (1998). Agent-based modeling vs. equation-based modeling: A case study and users' guide. In Proceedings of multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation (MABS'98) (pp. 10-25). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
35. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1993). Beyond the deterministic, centralized mindsets: A new thinking for new science. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
37. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of Learning Science, 7(2), 153-172.
38. Sabelli, N. (2006). Understanding complex systems strand: Complexity, technology, science, and education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5-9.
39. Tergan, S. O. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext/hypermedia design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(3), 209-235.
40. Thompson, K. (2008). The value of multiple representations for learning about complex systems. In Paper presented at the International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
41. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 123-183.
42. Wilensky, U. (1998). NetLogo wolf sheep predation model. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. (http://ccl. northwestern. edu/netlogo/models/WolfSheepPredation.).
43. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University (http://ccl. northwestern. edu/netlogo).
44. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (1998). Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories: An embodied modeling approach. In Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Complex Systems, Nashau, NH.
45. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
46. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1995). New thinking for new sciences: Constructionist approaches for exploring complexity. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
47. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
48. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.