Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2005). Understanding chance: From student voice to learning supports in a design experiment in the domain of probability. In G. M. Lloyd, M. Wilson, J. L. M. Wilkins, & S. L. Behm (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1–7). Roanoke, VA: Virginia Tech University.
Abrahamson, D., Janusz, R. M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). There once was a 9-block…—A middle-school design for probability and statistics. Journal of Statistics Education,
Ashcroft, J. N., & Mermin, D. (1976). Solid state physics
. New York: Holt, Rinegart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bagno, E., & Eylon, B.-S. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics,
, 726. doi:10.1119/1.18642
Bagno, E., Eylon, B.-S., & Ganiel, U. (2000). From fragmented knowledge to a knowledge structure: Linking the domains of mechanics and electromagnetism. Physics Education Research Supplement. American Journal of Physics,
(S2), S16–S26. doi:10.1119/1.19515
Belcher, J. W., & Olbert, S. (2003). Field line motion in classical electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics,
, 220. doi:10.1119/1.1531577
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006). A case study of multi-agent-based simulation in undergraduate materials science education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Chicago, IL, 18–21 June.
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Implementing agent-based modeling in the classroom—lessons from empirical studies in undergraduate engineering education. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merinboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). Utrecht, The Netherlands: ICLS (June 2008).
Brown, D., & Clement, J. (1989). Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction. Instructional Science,
Carey, S. (1988). Conceptual differences between children and adults. Mind and Language,
, 167–181. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.1988.tb00141.x
Centola, D., McKenzie, E., & Wilensky, U. (2000). Survival of the groupiest: Facilitating students’ understanding of multi-level evolution through multi-agent modeling—The EACH project.
The Fourth International Conference on Complex Systems. Nashua, NH: New England Complex Systems Institute.
Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B. A. (2000). Matter and interactions I: Modern mechanics and matter and interactions II: Electric and magnetic interactions
. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
, 161–199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
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,
, 27–43. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5
Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
, 1241–1257. doi:10.1002/tea.3660301007
Clement, J., & Steinberg, M. (2002). Step-wise evolution of models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
(4), 389–452. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_1
Cohen, R., Eylon, B. S., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts. American Journal of Physics,
, 407–412. doi:10.1119/1.13226
Confrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation and their role in the development of exponential functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
(1), 66–86. doi:10.2307/749228
diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction,
, 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20
(10), 1155–1191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dori, Y., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14
(2), 243–279. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3
Drude, P. (1900). Lehrbuch der Optik.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science Education,
, 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupin, J., & Johsua, S. (1987). Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, L. D. (1995). Microworlds as representations. In A. A. diSessa, C. Hoyles, & R. Noss (Eds.), Computers and exploratory learning
(pp. 127–154). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory and Cognition, 7
(2), 149–158.Google Scholar
Eylon, B.-S., & Ganiel, U. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: The missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in student reasoning. International Journal of Science Education,
(1), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the interpretation of X2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, J., & White, B. (1988). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments,
, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederiksen, J., & White, B. (1992). Mental models and understanding: A problem for science education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology
(pp. 211–226). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Frederiksen, J., White, B., & Gutwill, J. (1999). Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
(7), 806–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129).
Goldstone, R., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
(4), 465–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groen, G., & Kieran, C. (1983). In search of Piagetian mathematics. In H. Ginsburgh (Ed.), The development of mathematical thinking
(pp. 352–375). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics,
, 1043–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5
(2), 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartel, H. (1982). The electric circuit as a system: A new approach. European Journal of Science Education,
, 45–55.Google Scholar
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher,
, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshua, S., & Dupin, J. J. (1987). Taking into account student conceptions in instructional strategy: An example in physics. Cognition and Instruction,
, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaput, J. & West, M. (1995). Missing-value proportional reasoning problems: Factors affecting informal reasoning patterns. In G. Harel, & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 235–287). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Kittel, C. (1953). Introduction to solid state physics
. NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 6th edition, volume 4: Child psychology in practice
(pp. 153–196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Levy, S. T., Kim, H., & Wilensky, U. (2004). Connected chemistry—A study of secondary students using agent-based models to learn chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, 12–16 April.
Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: Reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction,
(1), 1–47.Google Scholar
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist,
(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, M. (1982). Intuitive physics. Scientific American,
, 122.Google Scholar
Metz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction,
(22), 219–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. (1987). The society of mind
. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International Journal of Mathematics Education and Science Technology, 3
, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas
. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism
. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Pfund, H., & Duit, R. (1998). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education
. Kiel, Alemania: IPN.Google Scholar
Rand, W., Novak, M., & Wilensky, U. (2007). BEAGLE curriculum
. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naïve physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction,
(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7
(2), 153–172. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0702_1
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2005d). N.I.E.L.S: An emergent multi-agent based modeling environment for learning physics. Proceedings of the Agent-Based Systems for Human Learning Workshop, 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, Netherlands.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006) NIELS: An agent-based modeling environment for learning electromagnetism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008a). Designing across ages: On the low-threshold-high-ceiling nature of NetLogo based learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2008), New York, NY.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008b). On the learnability of electricity as a complex system. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merri’nboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of the Learning Sciences—ICLS 2008, Vol. 3, (pp. 122–124). Utrecht, The Netherlands: ICLS.
Sengupta, P., Wilkerson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2007). On the relationship between spatial knowledge and learning electricity: Comparative case studies of students using 2D and 3D emergent, computational learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago, IL.
Sherin, B. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction, 19
(4), 479–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial
. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction,
(2), 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3
(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, M. S. (1987). Transient electrical processes as resources for causal reasoning. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Seminar, Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, 3 (Vol. 1, pp. 480–490). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry—incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Complex Systems, Boston, May 16–21.
White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction,
(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, B., Frederiksen, J., & Spoehr, K. (1993). Conceptual models for understanding the behavior of electrical circuits. In M. Caillot (Ed.), Learning electricity and electronics with advanced educational technology
(pp. 77–95). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism
. Norwood, MA: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1993). Connected mathematics: Building concrete relationships with mathematical knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wilensky, U. (1999a). NetLogo.
Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.
Wilensky, U. (1999b). GasLab: An extensible modeling toolkit for exploring micro- and macro-views of gases. In N. Roberts, W. Feurzeig, & B. Hunter (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education
(pp. 151–178). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilensky, U. (2001). Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. Proceedings of EuroLogo 2001, Linz, Austria.
Wilensky, U. (2003). Statistical mechanics for secondary school: The GasLab modeling toolkit. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
(1), 1–41. (special issue on agent-based modeling).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems and restructuration of scientific disciplines: Implications for learning, analysis of social systems, and educational policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, 7–11 April.
Wilensky, U., Hazzard, E., & Longenecker, S. (2000). A bale of turtles: A case study of a middle school science class studying complexity using StarLogoT. Paper presented at the meeting of the Spencer Foundation, New York, New York, 11–13 October.
Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2006). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. Working Paper, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
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 and Instruction,
(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1995). New thinking for new sciences: Constructionist approaches for exploring complexity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
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).