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,*
*14*(1).

Ashcroft, J. N., & Mermin, D. (1976).

*Solid state physics*. New York: Holt, Rinegart and Winston.

Google ScholarBagno, E., & Eylon, B.-S. (1997). From problem solving to a knowledge structure: An example from the domain of electromagnetism.

*American Journal of Physics,*
*65*, 726. doi:

10.1119/1.18642.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarBagno, 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,*
*68*(S2), S16–S26. doi:

10.1119/1.19515.

Google ScholarBelcher, J. W., & Olbert, S. (2003). Field line motion in classical electromagnetism.

*American Journal of Physics,*
*71*, 220. doi:

10.1119/1.1531577.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarBlikstein, 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,*
*18*(4). doi:

10.1007/BF00118013.

Carey, S. (1988). Conceptual differences between children and adults.

*Mind and Language,*
*3*, 167–181. doi:

10.1111/j.1468-0017.1988.tb00141.x.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarCentola, 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 ScholarChi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust.

*Journal of the Learning Sciences,*
*14*, 161–199. doi:

10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarChi, 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. doi:

10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarClement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching,*
*30*, 1241–1257. doi:

10.1002/tea.3660301007.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarClement, J., & Steinberg, M. (2002). Step-wise evolution of models of electric circuits: A “learning-aloud” case study.

*Journal of the Learning Sciences,*
*11*(4), 389–452. doi:

10.1207/S15327809JLS1104_1.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarCohen, R., Eylon, B. S., & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts.

*American Journal of Physics,*
*51*, 407–412. doi:

10.1119/1.13226.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarConfrey, J., & Smith, E. (1995). Splitting, covariation and their role in the development of exponential functions.

*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,*
*26*(1), 66–86. doi:

10.2307/749228.

CrossRefGoogle ScholardiSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics.

*Cognition and Instruction,*
*10*, 105–225.

CrossRefGoogle ScholardiSessa, A., & Sherin, B. (1998). What changes in conceptual change?

* International Journal of Science Education, 20*(10), 1155–1191.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarDori, 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.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarDrude, P. (1900). *Lehrbuch der Optik.*

Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science.

*Science Education,*
*75*, 649–672.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarDupin, J., & Johsua, S. (1987). Conceptions of French pupils concerning electric circuits: Structure and evolution.

*Journal of Research in Science Teaching,*
*24*, 791–806.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarEdwards, 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 ScholarEgan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings.

* Memory and Cognition, 7*(2), 149–158.

Google ScholarEylon, B.-S., & Ganiel, U. (1990). Macro-micro relationships: The missing link between electrostatics and electrodynamics in student reasoning.

*International Journal of Science Education,*
*12*(1), 79–94.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarFisher, R. A. (1922). On the interpretation of X2 from contingency tables, and the calculation of P.

*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,*
*85*(1), 87–94.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarFrederiksen, J., & White, B. (1988). Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills.

*Journal of Interactive Learning Environments,*
*5*, 33–51.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarFrederiksen, 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 ScholarFrederiksen, 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,*
*36*(7), 806–836.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarGentner, 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,*
*17*(4), 465–516.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarGroen, 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 ScholarHalloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students.

*American Journal of Physics,*
*53*, 1043–1056.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarHammer, 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 ScholarHartel, H. (1982). The electric circuit as a system: A new approach.

*European Journal of Science Education,*
*4*, 45–55.

Google ScholarHestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory.

*The Physics Teacher,*
*30*, 141–158.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarJoshua, S., & Dupin, J. J. (1987). Taking into account student conceptions in instructional strategy: An example in physics.

*Cognition and Instruction,*
*4*, 117–135.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarKaput, 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 ScholarLehrer, 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 ScholarLevy, 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,*
*26*(1), 1–47.

Google ScholarLouca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying a new epistemological framework to science instruction.

*Educational Psychologist,*
*39*(1), 57–68.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcCloskey, M. (1982). Intuitive physics.

*Scientific American,*
*249*, 122.

Google ScholarMetz, K. E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design.

*Cognition and Instruction,*
*2*(22), 219–291.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarMinsky, M. (1987).

*The society of mind*. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.

Google ScholarPapert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics.

* International Journal of Mathematics Education and Science Technology, 3*, 249–262.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarPapert, S. (1980).

*Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas*. New York: Basic Books.

Google ScholarPapert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.),

*Constructionism*. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Google ScholarPfund, H., & Duit, R. (1998).

*Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education*. Kiel, Alemania: IPN.

Google ScholarRand, W., Novak, M., & Wilensky, U. (2007).

*BEAGLE curriculum*. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University.

Google ScholarReiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naïve physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions.

*Cognition and Instruction,*
*18*(1), 1–34.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarResnick, 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 ScholarSimon, H. A. (1969).

*The sciences of the artificial*. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Google ScholarSlotta, 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,*
*24*(2), 261–289.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarSmith, 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 ScholarSteinberg, 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,*
*12*(3), 285–302.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarTisue, 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,*
*16*(1), 3–118.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarWhite, 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 ScholarWilensky, 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 ScholarWilensky, U. (1993). Connected mathematics: Building concrete relationships with mathematical knowledge. *Unpublished doctoral dissertation*. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Wilensky, U. (1999a).

*NetLogo.*
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/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 ScholarWilensky, 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,*
*8*(1), 1–41. (special issue on agent-based modeling).

CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilensky, 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,*
*24*(2), 171–209.

CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilensky, 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).