ACM K-12 Taskforce. (2003). A Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science: Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee
. New York, NY: CSTA.Google Scholar
Aristotle (350 BCE/2002) Nichomachean ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (In Review). A scaffolding framework to support learning in multi-agent based simulation environments. Research in Science Education.
Basu, S., Kinnebrew, J., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Sengupta, P., Winger, J., & Biswas, G. (2012). A Science Learning Environment using a Computational Thinking Approach. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computers in Education, Singapore.
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using Agent-Based Modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14
, 81–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & deJong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving advice. Simulation, 82
(11), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14
, 161–199.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63
, 1–49.Google Scholar
Conway, M. (1997). Alice: Easy to Learn 3D Scripting for Novices, Technical Report, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (RR-63)
. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25
, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickes, A., & Sengupta, P. (2012). Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade with Multi Agent-Based Computational Models. Research in Science Education
diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human-Computer Interaction, 1
(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10
(2/3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22
(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. The MIT Press.
diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). BOXER: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of ACM, 29
(9), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
diSessa, A. A., Abelson, H., & Ploger, D. (1991a). An overview of boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10
(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991b). Inventing graphing: Children’s meta-representational expertise. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10
(2), 117–160.Google Scholar
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84
(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. In J. Green, A. Luke, & G. Kelly (Eds.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 32, pp. 268–291). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38
, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dykstra, D. I., Jr., & Sweet, D. R. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle school students. American Journal of Physics, 77
(5), 468–476.Google Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38
(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elby, A. (2000). What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19
, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. J. (2003). Representing and meaning in history and in classrooms: Developing symbols and conceptual organizations of free-fall motion. Science & Education, 12
(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzdial, M. (1995). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4
(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2008). Paving the way for computational thinking
. Communications of the ACM: Education Column. 51(8).Google Scholar
Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53
(11), 1043–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183–187.
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.Google Scholar
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp. 51–52. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.
Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An Introduction to the Profound Potential of Connected Algebra Activities: Issues of Representation, Engagement, and Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3
, 129–136.Google Scholar
Ho, C. H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22
(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2007). What You See Is What You Code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 18
, 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15
(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk: An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.
Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old routes. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving
(pp. 77–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. (37) 83–137.
Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., & Fay, A. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In J. Shrager & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation
(pp. 355–401). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24
(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12
(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50
(4), 36–42. April 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kynigos, C. (2001). E-slate Logo as a basis for constructing microworlds with mathematics teachers
(pp. 65–74). Lintz, Austria: Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference.Google Scholar
Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators’ knowing. Journal of Computers for Math Learning, 12
(2), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208
, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences
(pp. 371–388). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23
(4), 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60
, 1–64.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1690/1979). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004) Scratch: A sneak preview. In Proceedings of Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, 104–109.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models
(pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8
. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking
. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science
(pp. 3–45). MN: University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Oshima, Y. (2005). Kedama: A GUI-based interactive massively parallel particle programming system. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’05).
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas
. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism
. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7
(3–4), 429–449.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58
(3), 303–326.Google Scholar
Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61
, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18
(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 142–143.
Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1994). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, 128
, 69–69.Google Scholar
Roschelle, J., Digiano, C., Pea, R. D., & Kaput, J. (1999). Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education & Technology (M/SET), March 1–4, 1999. San Antonio, USA.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23
(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28
, 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, D. C. (2006). Guest editor’s introduction: Model-driven engineering. Computer, 39
(2), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segedy, J. R., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Biswas, G. (2012). Promoting metacognitive learning behaviors using conversational agents in a learning by teaching environment. Educational Technology Research & Development.
Sengupta, P. (2011). Design Principles for a Visual Programming Language to Integrate Agent-based modeling in K-12 Science. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Complex Systems (ICCS 2011), pp 1636–1637.
Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning Kinematics in Elementary Grades Using Agent-based Computational Modeling: A Visual Programming Based Approach. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design & Children, pp 78–87.
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14
(1), 21–50.Google Scholar
Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry
(pp. 141–171). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Wright, M. (2012). From agents to aggregation via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17
(1–2), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherin, B. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning:, 6
, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3
(2), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3
(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by example: Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43
(3), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36
(10), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, J., & Biswas, G. (2007). Simulation-based game learning environments: Building and sustaining a fish tank. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 73–80). Jhongli, Taiwan.
Tanimoto, S. L. (1990). VIVA: A visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1
, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and of Piaget’s approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience
(pp. 45–67). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42
(1), 99–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo.
Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Wilensky, U., & Novak, M. (2010). Understanding evolution as an emergent process: Learning with agent-based models of evolutionary dynamics. In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. Intelligent design controversy
. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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).
Wing, J. M. (2006) Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no.3 March 2006, pp. 33–35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366
, 3717–3725.Google Scholar