Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 6-35

  Hmelo Silver, Cindy E ^a   Liu, Lei ^b   Gray, Steven ^c   Jordan, Rebecca ^d  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^d RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ecosystems; Middle school; Science teachers; Simulations

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; STUDENTS;

BACKGROUND INFORMATION; COMPUTER BASED TOOLS; INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE; INSTRUCTIONAL MODEL; MIDDLE SCHOOL; SCIENCE TEACHERS; SIMULATIONS; STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES;

TEACHING;

EID: 84920083225     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21187     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Alonzo, A., Kobarg, M., & Seidel, T. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge as reflected in teacherstudent interactions: Analysis of two video cases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1211-1239.
2. Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth systemeducation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518-560.
3. Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 540-563.
4. Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 188-228). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
5. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Languageinthe classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 18-33.
6. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73-105.
7. Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
8. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2001). Epistemologically authentic experimentation. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from professional, instructional, and everydayscience (pp. 351-392). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
10. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1041-1053.
11. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Di Sessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
12. Cole, M. (1999). Cultural psychology: Somegeneral principles and aconcrete example. In Y. Engström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectiveson activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13. Copur-Gencturk, Y., Hug, B., & Lubienski, S. T. (2014). The effects of a master's program on teachers' science instruction: results from classroom observations, teacher reports, and student surveys. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 219-249.
14. Copur-Gencturk, Y., Papakonstantinou, A., & Parr, L. R. (2013). The impact of content-focused and sustained professional development on standards-based high school mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
15. Danish, J. A., Peppler, K., Phelps, D., & Washington, D. (2011). Life in the hive: Supporting inquiry into complexity within the zone of proximal development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 454-467.
16. De Jong, T., & Pieters, J. (2006). The design of powerful learning environments. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbookofeducational psychology (pp. 739-754). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
17. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journalof the Learning Sciences, 19, 3-53.
18. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teachingscienceingrade K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific: How children learn to observe the biological world. Review of Educational Research, 79, 39-68.
20. Eberbach, C., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Observing the seen and unseen: Computer and social mediation of a complex biological system. In Z. C. Zacharia, C. P. Constantinou, & M. Papaevripidou (Eds.), Computer basedlearninginscience (pp. 213-224). Warsaw, Poland: OEliZK.
21. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.
23. Forman, E. A., & Ford, M. J. (2014). Authority and accountability in light of disciplinary practices in science. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 199-210.
24. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., & Soloway, E. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curriculum in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922-939.
25. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A., & Resnick, L. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berliner, & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York, NY: MacMillan.
26. Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students' understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 16-28.
27. Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitama-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaboraive learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 57-73). New York: Routledge.
28. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journalofthe Learning Sciences, 15, 53-61.
30. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 48-94.
31. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107.
32. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., Gray, S., Demeter, M., Rugaber, S., Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2008). Focusing on function: Thinking below the surface of complex natural systems. Science Scope, 31(9), 27-35.
33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expertnovice understandingofcomplex systems. Journalofthe LearningSciences, 16, 307-331.
34. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understandingofacomplex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127-138.
35. Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In B. Fishman, & S. O'Conner-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings, International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2000 (ICLS) (pp. 221-227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students' systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 22-28.
37. Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller. (1996). Representing students' thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bidemensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 941-970.
38. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journalof the Learning Sciences, 15, 11-34.
39. Jeong, H., & Songer, N. B. (2008). Understanding scientific evidence and the data collection process: Explorations of why, who, when, what, and how. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Science education: Issues and challenges. Hauppauge, NY: NovaSciencePublishers.
40. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 4:39-103.
41. Jordan, R. C., Brooks, W. R., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2014). Balancing broad ideas with context: An evaluation of student accuracy in describing ecosystem processes after a system-level intervention. Journal of Biological Education, 48, 57-62.
42. Jordan, R. C., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Gray, S. (2013). Fostering reasoning about complex systems: using the aquarium as a model ecosystem. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 12, 55-64.
43. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., 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, 7, 313-350.
44. 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.
45. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children's ideas about ecology 2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 19-34.
46. Lee, H., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 923-948.
47. Lee, H.-S., Linn, M. C., Varma, K., & Liu, O. L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry science units impact classroom learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 71-90.
48. Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87-163.
49. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023-1040.
50. Manz, E. (2012). Understanding the codevelopment of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Science Education, 96, 1071-1105.
51. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, 1, 12-21.
52. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students'construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 153-191.
53. Minner, D. D., Jurist, L., & Century, A. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-What is it and what does it matter? Results from a research synthesis 1984-1982. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 474-496.
54. Newton, L., & Rogers, L. (2003). Thinking frameworks for planning ICT in science lessons. School Science Review, 84, 113-120.
55. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
56. O'Donnell, A. M., & O'Kelly, J. O. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results. Educational PsychologyReview, 6, 321-349.
57. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 345-375.
58. Papeveridou, M., Constantinou, C. P., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Modeling complex marine ecosystems: An investigation of two teaching approaches with fifth graders. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 145-157.
59. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon, & D. Perkins (Eds.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60. Penner, D. E. (2001). Complexity, emergence, and synthetic models in science education. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science (pp. 177-208). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Pimental, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers' beliefs. Science Education, 97, 367-394.
62. Powell, A. B., Francisco, J., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners' mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 405-435.
63. Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 81-130.
64. Reiner, M., & Eilam, B. (2001). A systems view of learning. International Journal of Science Education 23:551-568.
65. Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. D. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of anemerging paradigm (pp. 209-248). MahwahNJ: Erlbaum.
66. Sabelli, N. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5-10.
67. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-73. DOI:10.1002/sce.20023.
68. Sandholtz, J. H., & Ringstaff, C. (2013). Assessing the impact of teacher professional development on science instruction in the early elementary grades in rural US schools. Professional Development in Education, 39, 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2012.751044.
69. Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1050-1078.
70. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
71. Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T., & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: The effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1436-1460.
72. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
73. Sinclair, B. B., Naizer, G., & Ledbetter, C. (2011). Observed implementation of a science professional development program forK-8 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 579-594.
74. Sinha, S., Gray, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., Goel, A., & Rugaber, S. (2013). Conceptual representations for transfer: A case study tracing back and looking forward. Frontline Learning Research, 1, 3-23.
75. Songer and Kali. (2014). Science education and the learning sciences as coevolving species. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, second edition (pp. 565-586). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
76. Stahl, G. (2006). Supporting group cognition in an online math community: A cognitive tool for smallgroup referencingintext chat. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 103-122.
77. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315-337.
78. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher aspartner: Exploring participant structure, asymmetry, and identity workinscaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 393-429.
79. Tobin, K. (2012). Sociocultual perspectives on science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer.
80. Van Duzor, A. G. (2011). Capitalizing on teacher expertise: Motivations for contemplating transfer from professional development to the classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 363-374.
81. Van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227-269.
82. Vattam, S., Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Gray, S., & Sinha, S. (2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Educational Technology & Society, 14, 66-81.
83. Webb, N. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. O'Donnell (Eds.), International handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 19-40). New York: Routledge.
84. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behaviorinpeer-directed groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119.
85. White, B. Y. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
86. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria VA: ASCD.
87. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, sheep, or firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171-210.
88. Yoon, S. (2008). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journalof Science Education, 30, 1-32.