Teaching and Learning About Complex Systems in K–12 Science Education: A Review of Empirical Studies 1995

Abstract

The study of complex systems has been highlighted in recent science education policy in the United States and has been the subject of important real-world scientific investigation. Because of this, research on complex systems in K–12 science education has shown a marked increase over the past two decades. In this systematic review, we analyzed 75 empirical studies to determine whether the research (a) collectively represents the goals of educational policy and real-world science, (b) has considered a variety of settings and populations, and (c) has demonstrated systematic investigation of interventions with a view to scale. Results revealed needs in five areas of research: a need to diversify the knowledge domains within which research is conducted, more research on learning about system states, agreement on the essential features of complex systems content, greater focus on contextual factors that support learning including teacher learning, and a need for more comparative research.

Keywords

complex systems science education student and teacher learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldunate

Nussbaum

(2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 519–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017

Allison

S. D.

Martiny

J. B. H.

(2008). Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 11512–11519. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801925105

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

*Assaraf

O. B.

Orion

(2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560. doi:10.1002/tea.20061

*Assaraf

O. B.

Orion

(2010). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 540–563. doi:10.1002/tea.20351

*Assaraf

O. B.

Orpaz

(2010). The “life at the poles” study unit: Developing junior high school students’ ability to recognize the relations between earth systems. Research in Science Education, 40, 525–549.

Azevedo

Cromley

J. G.

Winters

F. I.

(2005). Adaptive human scaffolding facilitates adolescents’ self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 33, 381–412. doi:10.1007/s11251-005-1273-8

Azevedo

Moos

D. C.

Greene

J. A.

Winters

F. I.

Cromley

J. G.

(2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 45–72. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9067-0

10.

Azevedo

Winters

F. I.

Moos

D. C.

(2004). Can students collaboratively use hypermedia to learn science? The dynamics of self-and other-regulatory processes in an ecology classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 215–245. doi:10.2190/hft6-8eb1-tn99-mjvq

11.

Bar-Yam

(2016). From big data to important information. Complexity, 21(Suppl. 2), 73–98. doi:10.1002/cplx.21785

12.

*Basu

Sengupta

Biswas

(2015). A scaffolding framework to support learning of emergent phenomena using multi-agent-based simulation environments. Research in Science Education, 45, 293–324. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9424-z

13.

*Ben-Zvi-Assaraf

Orion

(2010). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1253–1280. doi:10.1002/tea.20383

14.

Bettencourt

L. M. A.

Brelsford

(2014). Industrial ecology the view from complex systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19, 195–197. doi:10.1111/jiec.12243

15.

Bhatta

S. R.

Goel

(1997). Learning generic mechanisms for innovative strategies in adaptive design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 367–396.

16.

Brady

Holbert

Soylu

Novak

Wilensky

(2015). Sandboxes for model-based inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 265–286. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9506-8

17.

Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(1999). How experts differ from novices. In Bransford

J. D.

Brown

A. L.

Cocking

R. R.

(Eds.), How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 19–38). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

18.

Brown

J. S.

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189x018001032

19.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

(2010). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/publications/getting-ideas-action-building-networked-improvement-communities-education/

20.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

LeMahieu

(2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

21.

*Calderon-Canales

Flores-Camacho

Gallegos-Cazares

(2013). Elementary students’ mental models of the solar system. Astronomy Education Review, 12(1). doi:10.3847/aer2012044

22.

Capra

(1982). The turning point. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

23.

*Carlsson

(2002). Ecological understanding 2: Transformation—a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 701–715. doi:10.1080/09500690110098877

24.

Caschera

Bedau

M. A.

Buchanan

Cawse

de Lucrezia

Gazzikam

. . . Packard

N. H.

(2011). Coping with complexity: Machine learning optimization of cell-free protein synthesis. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 108, 2218–2228. doi:10.1002/bit.23178

25.

*Cheng

M. M. W.

Gilbert

J. K.

(2015). Students’ visualization of diagrams representing the human circulatory system: The use of spatial isomorphism and representational conventions. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 136–161. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.969359

26.

*Chi

M. T. H.

Roscoe

Slotta

Roy

Chase

(2012). Misconceived causal explanations for “emergent” processes. Cognitive Science, 36, 1–61. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x

27.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

*Danish

J. A.

(2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 100–148. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.856793

29.

*Danish

J. A.

Peppler

Phelps

Washington

(2011). Life in the hive: Supporting inquiry into complexity within the zone of proximal development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 454–467. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9313-4

30.

*DeBoer

G. E.

Quellmalz

E. S.

Davenport

J. L.

Timms

M. J.

Herrmann-Abell

C. F.

Buckley

B. C.

Flanagan

J. C.

(2014). Comparing three online testing modalities: Using static, active, and interactive online testing modalities to assess middle school students’ understanding of fundamental ideas and use of inquiry skills related to ecosystems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 523–554. doi:10.1002/tea.21145

31.

*DeLeo

Weidenhammer

Wecht

(2012). A computer story: Complexity from simplicity. Science Teacher, 79(7), 48–53. doi:10.1057/9781137006226

32.

*Eilam

(2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science Education, 86, 645–671. doi:10.1002/sce.10041

33.

*Eilam

(2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40, 213–239. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9175-4

34.

Ertmer

P. A.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich

A. T.

Sendurur

(2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59, 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001

35.

*Evagorou

Korfiatis

Nicolaou

Constantinou

(2009). An investigation of the potential of interactive simulations for developing system thinking skills in elementary school: A case study with fifth-graders and sixth-graders. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 655–674. doi:10.1080/09500690701749313

36.

Forrester

J. W.

(1994). Systems dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Systems Dynamics Review, 10(2), 1–14. doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100211

37.

Fuentes

M. A.

(2014). Complexity and the emergence of physical properties. Entropy, 16, 4489-4496. doi:10.3390/e16084489

38.

*Gazit

Yair

Chen

(2005). Emerging conceptual understanding of complex astronomical phenomena by using a virtual solar system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 459–470. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-0221-3

39.

Gerard

L. F.

Varma

Corliss

S. B.

Linn

(2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81, 408–448. doi:10.3102/0034654311415121

40.

*Ginns

I. S.

Norton

S. J.

Mcrobbie

C. J.

(2005). Adding value to the teaching and learning of design and technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 47–60. doi:10.1007/s10798-004-6193-4

41.

*Gotwals

A. W.

Songer

N. B.

(2010). Reasoning up and down a food chain: Using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94, 259–280. doi:10.1002/sce.20368

42.

Greene

J. A.

Moos

D. C.

Azevedo

Winters

F. I.

(2008). Exploring differences between gifted and grade-level students’ use of self-regulatory learning processes with hypermedia. Computers & Education, 50, 1069–1083. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.004

43.

Greeno

(1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.1.5

44.

*Grotzer

T. A.

Bell Basca

(2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38, 16–29. doi:10.1080/00219266.2003.9655891

45.

*Grotzer

T. A.

Powell

M. M.

Derbiszewska

K. M.

Courter

C. J.

Kamarainen

A. M.

Metcalf

S. J.

Dede

C. J.

(2015). Turning transfer inside out: The affordances of virtual worlds and mobile devices in real world contexts for teaching about causality across time and distance in ecosystems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 43–69. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9241-5

46.

*Gunckel

K. L.

Covitt

B. A.

Salinas

Anderson

C. W.

(2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 843–868. doi:10.1002/tea.21024

47.

*Hmelo

C. E.

Holton

D. L.

Kolodner

J. L.

(2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9 247–298. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0903_2

48.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

Azevedo

(2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53–61. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7

49.

*Hmelo-Silver

Liu

Gray

Jordan

(2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 6–35. doi:10.1002/tea.21187

50.

*Hmelo-Silver

Marathe

Liu

(2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 307–331. doi:10.1080/10508400701413401

51.

*Hmelo-Silver

Pfeffer

M. G.

(2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2801_7

52.

*Hogan

(2000). Assessing students’ systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 22–28. doi:10.1080/00219266.2000.9655731

53.

*Hogan

Thomas

(2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 319–345. doi:10.1023/a:1012243102249

54.

Hordijk

Kauffman

S. A.

Steel

(2011). Required levels of catalysis for emergence of autocatalytic sets in models of chemical reaction systems. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 12, 3085–3101. doi:10.3390/ijms12053085

55.

*Ioannidou

I. A.

Paraskevopoulos

Tzionas

(2006). An interactive computer graphics interface for the introduction of fuzzy inference in environmental education. Interacting With Computers, 18, 683–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.10.007

56.

*Ioannidou

Repenning

Webb

Keyser

Luhn

Daetwyler

(2010). Mr. Vetro: A collective simulation for teaching health science. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 141–166. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9082-8

57.

Institute of Education Sciences & National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Author.

58.

Jacobson

(2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41–49. doi:10.1002/cplx.1027

59.

*Jordan

Gray

Demeter

Lui

Hmelo-Silver

(2009). An assessment of students’ understanding of ecosystem concepts: Conflating ecological systems and cycles. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 8(1), 40–48. doi:10.1080/15330150902953472

60.

*Jordan

R. C.

Brooks

W. R.

Hmelo-Silver

Eberbach

Sinha

(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(2), 57–62. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.821080

61.

*Jordan

R. C.

Gray

S. A.

Brooks

W. R.

Honwad

Hmelo-Silver

(2013). Process-based thinking in ecosystem education. Natural Sciences Education, 42, 68–74. doi:10.1080/1533015x.2013.797860

62.

*Keynan

Ben-Zvi Assaraf

Goldman

(2014). The repertory grid as a tool for evaluating the development of students’ ecological system thinking abilities. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 90–105. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.012

63.

*Klopfer

Scheintaub

Huang

Wendel

Roque

(2009). The simulation cycle: Combining games, simulations, engineering and science using StarLogo TNG. E-Learning, 6, 71–96. doi:10.2304/elea.2009.6.1.71

64.

*Klopfer

Yoon

Perry

(2005). Using palm technology in participatory simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14, 285–297. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-7194-0

65.

*Klopfer

Yoon

(2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24, 157–178. doi:10.1016/s0303-2647(03)00115-1

66.

Kolodner

(2004). The learning sciences: Past, present and future. Educational Technology, 44(3), 37–42. doi:10.5040/9781474258029.ch-015

67.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310

68.

Levin

Lubchenko

(2008). Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. Bioscience, 58(1), 27–32. doi:10.1641/b580107

69.

*Levy

S. T.

Wilensky

(2008). Inventing a “mid level” to make ends meet: Reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1–47. doi:10.1080/07370000701798479

70.

*Levy

S. T.

Wilensky

(2009). Students’ learning with the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 243–254. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9145-7

71.

*Levy

S. T.

Wilensky

(2011). Mining students’ inquiry actions for understanding of complex systems. Computers & Education, 56, 556–573. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.015

72.

*Lin

(2003). Students’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1529–1544. doi:10.1080/0950069032000052045

73.

*Liu

Hmelo-Silver

(2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023–1040. doi:10.1002/tea.20297

74.

Lewis

(2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71, 36-43. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00116

75.

Mayring

(2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://217.160.35.246/fqs-texte/2-00/2-00mayring-e.pdf

76.

Mitchell

(2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

77.

*McNeal

K. S.

Libarkin

J. C.

Ledley

T. S.

Bardar

Haddad

Ellins

Dutta

(2014). The role of research in online curriculum development: The case of EarthLabs climate change and earth system modules. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62, 560–577. doi:10.5408/13-060.1

78.

*Mohan

Chen

Anderson

C. W.

(2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675–698. doi:10.1002/tea.20314

79.

The National Academies. (2009). Keck Futures Initiative: Complex Systems: Task group summaries. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

80.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

81.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

82.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

83.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

84.

Office of Management and Budget. (1995). Standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_race-ethnicity

85.

*Pallant

Lee

(2015). Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 378–395. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3

86.

*Pallant

Lee

Pryputniewicz

(2012). Modeling earth’s climate. Science Teacher, 79(7), 38–42. doi:10.2307/4448063

87.

Parker

Leinhardt

(1995). Percent: A privileged proportion. Review of Educational Research, 65, 421–481. doi:10.3102/00346543065004421

88.

Parnafes

(2010). When simple harmonic motion is not that simple: Managing epistemological complexity by using computer-based representations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 565–579. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9224-9

89.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12 education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: Author.

90.

Pea

R. D.

(2016). The prehistory of the learning sciences. In Evans

M. A.

Packer

M. J.

Sawyer

R. K.

(Eds.), Reflections on the learning sciences (pp. 32–58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

91.

*Penner

D. E.

(2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<784::aid-tea3>3.0.co;2-e

92.

Penuel

Fishman

(2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 281–304. doi:10.1002/tea.21001

93.

*Peppler

Danish

J. A.

Phelps

(2013). Collaborative gaming: Teaching children about complex systems and collective behavior. Simulation & Gaming, 44, 683–705. doi:10.1177/1046878113501462

94.

*Perkins

D. N.

Grotzer

T. A.

(2005). Dimensions of causal understanding: The role of complex causal models in students’ understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41(1), 117–165. doi:10.1080/03057260508560216

95.

*Plate

(2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 26, 19–33. doi:10.1002/sdr.432

96.

*Puk

Stibbards

(2011). Growth in ecological concept development and conceptual understanding in teacher education: The discerning teacher. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 6, 191–211. doi:10.1080/1533015x.2011.549796

97.

Randler

Bogner

F. X.

(2009). Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 315–337. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9117-4

98.

*Reiss

M. J.

Tunnicliffe

S. D.

(2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31, 383–399. doi:10.1023/ a:1013116228261

99.

*Repenning

Ioannidou

Luhn

Daetwyler

Repenning

(2010). Mr. Vetro: Assessing a collective simulation framework. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 21, 515–537. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9082-8

100.

*Resnick

(1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0501_1

101.

*Richardson

M. L.

Hari

(2009). Building ecological complexity in the classroom using pea aphids & components of their community. American Biology Teacher, 71, 286–290. doi:10.2307/27669432

102.

*Riess

Mischo

(2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 705–725. doi:10.1080/ 09500690902769946

103.

*Rodríguez

Kohen

Delval

(2015). Children and adolescents’ thoughts on pollution: Cognitive abilities required to understand environmental systems. Environmental Education Research, 21(1), 76–91. doi.10.1080/13504622.2013.862613

104.

Sabelli

N. H.

(2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5–9. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_3

105.

Sah

Singh

L. O.

Clauset

Bansal

(2014). Exploring community structure in biological networks with random graphs. BMC Bioinformatics, 15(220). doi:10.1186/1471-2105-15-220

106.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2015). Introduction: The new science of learning. In Sawyer

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

107.

Servedio

M. R.

Brandvain

Dhole

Fitzpatrick

C. L.

Goldberg

E. E.

Stern

C. A.

Van Cleve

Yeh

D. J.

(2014). Not just a theory: The utility of mathematical models in evolutionary biology. PLOS Biology, 12(12), 1–5. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002017

108.

Sherrington

(2010). Physics and complexity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1914), 1175–1189. doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0208

109.

Sole

(2015). Bioengineering the biosphere? Ecological Complexity, 22, 40–49. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2015.01.005

110.

*Songer

N. B.

Kelcey

Gotwals

A. W.

(2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 610–613. doi:10.1002/tea.20313

111.

*Stavrou

Duit

(2014). Teaching and learning the interplay between chance and determinism in nonlinear systems. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 506–530. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.802056

112.

*Stavrou

Duit

Komorek

(2008). A teaching and learning sequence about the interplay of chance and determinism in nonlinear systems. Physics Education, 43, 417–422. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/43/4/011

113.

*Stroup

W. M.

Wilensky

(2014). On the embedded complementarity of agent-based and aggregate reasoning in students’ developing understanding of dynamic systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 19–52. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9218-4

114.

Sweeney

L. B.

Sterman

J. D.

(2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. Systems Dynamics Review, 23, 285–311. doi.org/10.1002/sdr.366

115.

Thelan

Smith

(1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

116.

*Thompson

Reimann

(2010). Pattern of use of an agent-based model and a system dynamics model: The application of patterns of use and the impacts on learning outcomes. Computer & Education, 54, 392–403. doi:10.1016/j.compedu .2009.08.020

117.

*Tsurusaki

B. K.

Anderson

C. W.

(2010). Students’ understanding of connections between human engineered and natural environmental systems. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5, 407–433. doi:10.1002/ 9781118230107.ch14

118.

*Vachliotis

Salta

Tzougraki

(2014). Meaningful understanding and systems thinking in organic chemistry: Validating measurement and exploring relationships. Research in Science Education, 44, 239–266. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9382-x

119.

*van Borkulo

S. P.

van Joolingen

W. R.

Savelsbergh

E. R.

de Jong

. (2012). What can be learned from computer modeling? Comparing expository and modeling approaches to teaching dynamic systems behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 267–275. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9314-3

120.

*Varma

Linn

M. C.

(2012). Using interactive technology to support students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 453–464. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9337-9

121.

*Vattam

S. S.

Goel

A. K.

Rugaber

Hmelo-Silver

Jordan

Gray

Sinha

(2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Educational Technology & Society, 14, 66–81. doi:10.14786/flr.v1i1.14

122.

*Verhoeff

R. P.

Waarlo

A. J.

Boersma

K. T.

(2008) Systems modeling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 543–568. doi:10.1080/09500690701237780

123.

West

G. B.

(2014). A theoretical physicists journey into biology: From quarks and strings to cells and whales. Physical Biology, 11(5), 1–6. doi:10.1088/1478-3975/11/5/053013

124.

Wilensky

Jacobson

M. J.

(2015). Complex systems and the learning sciences. In Sawyer

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 319–338). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

125.

*Wilensky

Resnick

(1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. doi:10.1023/a:1009421303064

126.

*Wilensky

Reisman

(2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 171–209. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1

127.

*Wilkerson-Jerde

M. H.

Wilensky

U. J.

(2015). Patterns, probabilities, and people: Making sense of quantitative change in complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24, 204–251. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.976647

128.

Wilson

S. M.

(2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340, 310–313. doi:10.1126/science.1230725

129.

*Wu

(2010). Modelling a complex system: Using novice-expert analysis for developing an effective technology-enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 195–219. doi:10.1080/09500690802478077

130.

*Yoon

S. A.

(2008). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1–32. doi:10.1080/09500690601101672

131.

*Yoon

S. A.

(2011). Using social network graphs as visualization tools to influence peer selection decision-making strategies to access information about complex socioscientific issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 549–588. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.563655

132.

Yoon

S. A.

(in press). Complex systems and the Learning Sciences: Implications for learning, theory, and methodologies. In The international handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

133.

Yoon

S. A.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

(2017). What do learning scientists do? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26, 167–183. doi:10.1080/10508406.2017.1279546

134.

Yoon

S. A.

Klopfer

Anderson

Koehler-Yom

Sheldon

Schoenfeld

. . . Goh

(2016). Designing computer-supported complex systems curricula for the Next Generation Science Standards in high school science classrooms. Systems, 4(4), 38. doi:10.3390/systems4040038

135.

*Yoon

S. A.

Koehler-Yom

Anderson

Lin

Klopfer

(2015). Using an adaptive expertise lens to understand the quality of teachers’ classroom implementation of computer-supported complex systems curricula in high school science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33, 237–251. doi:10.1080/02635143.2015.1031099

Teaching and Learning About Complex Systems in K–12 Science Education: A Review of Empirical Studies 1995–2015

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References