Advertisement

Stella ten years later: A review of the literature

  • Helen M. Doerr
Software Criticism

Keywords

Transpersonal Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bliss, J. and Ogborn, J. (1989). Tools for exploratory learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 5(1): 37–50.Google Scholar
  2. Bliss, J. (1994). Causality and common sense reasoning. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn and C. Tompsett (Eds.),Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer-based Modelling in the Curriculum (pp. 117–127). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boohan, R. (1994). Interpreting the world with numbers: An introduction to quantitative modeling. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn and C. Tompsett (Eds.),Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer-based Modelling in the Curriculum (pp. 49–58). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chen, D. and Stroup, W. (1993). General system theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology for all.Journal of Science Education and Technology 2(3): 447–459.Google Scholar
  5. Clauset, K., Rawley, C. and Bodeker, G. (1987). STELLA: software for structural thinking.Collegiate Microcomputer 5(4): 311–319.Google Scholar
  6. Choate, J. (1993). Iterative models in the secondary mathematics curriculum: some examples. In T. Breiteig, I. Huntley and G. Kaiser-Messmer (Eds.),Teaching and Learning Mathematics in Context (pp. 151–162). West Sussex, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Coon, T. (1988). Using STELLA simulation software in life science education.Computers in Life Science Education 5(9): 65–71.Google Scholar
  8. Costanza, R. (1987). Simulation modeling on the Macintosh using STELLA.BioScience 37(2): 129–132.Google Scholar
  9. Cox, M. and Webb, M. (1994). Developing software and curriculum materials: The Modus project. In H. Mellar, J. Bliss, R. Boohan, J. Ogborn and C. Tompsett (Eds.),Learning with Artificial Worlds: Computer-based Modelling in the Curriculum (pp. 188–198). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Draper, F. (1990). Learner-directed systems education: a successful example.System Dynamics Review 6(2): 209–213.Google Scholar
  11. Draper, F. (1993). A proposed sequence for developing systems thinking in a grades 4–12 curriculum.System Dynamics Review 9(2): 207–214.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, D. and Hamson, M. (1990).Guide to Mathematical Modelling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Forrester, J. (1968). Principles of Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Forrester, J. (1991). System dynamics-adding structure and relevance to pre-college education. In K. R. Manning (Ed.),Shaping the future. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Forrester, J. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In K. B. De Greene (Ed.),A systems-based approach to policymaking. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  17. Forrester, J. (1994).Learning through system dynamics as preparation for the 21st century. Keynote address presented at Systems Thinking and Dynamic Modeling for K-12 Education Conference, June 27–29, 1994, Concord, MA. Text available from the Creative Learning Exchange, Acton, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Heckenlively, D. (1987). A critique of STELLA for simulation modeling.Collegiate Microcomputer 2: 123–137.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J. and Soloway, E. (1995, April).Learner-centered software design to support students building models. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  20. Kaylan, A. R. (1993). Productivity tools as an integrated modeling and problem solving environment. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.),Advanced Educational Technologies for Mathematics and Science (pp. 439–468). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O. and Stein, M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching.Review of Educational Research 60(1): 1–64.Google Scholar
  22. Littleton, L. and Meskimen, L. (1994, November).Modeling systems within the STELLA II environment for pre-college education. Paper presented at Supercomputing '94 Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. Mandinach, E. (1987).The use of simulations in learning and transfer of higher-order cognitive skills. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 915)Google Scholar
  24. Mandinach, E. (1988).The cognitive effects of simulation-modeling software and systems thinking on learning and achievement. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 297 718)Google Scholar
  25. Mandinach, E. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems.Journal of Educational Computing Research 5(2): 221–243.Google Scholar
  26. Mandinach, E. and Cline, H. (1989). Applications of simulation and modeling in precollege education.Machine-Mediated Learning 3: 189–205.Google Scholar
  27. Mandinach, E. and Cline, H. (1994).Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technology-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Mandinach, E. and Thorpe, M. (1987).The systems thinking and curriculum innovation project: technical report, part I (TR87-6), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Educational Technology Center.Google Scholar
  29. Mandinach, E. and Thorpe, M. (1988).The systems thinking and curriculum innovation project: technical report, part 2 (TR88-12), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Educational Technology Center.Google Scholar
  30. Mandinach, E., Thorpe, M. and Lahart, C. (1988).The impact of the systems thinking approach on teaching and learning activities (TR88-31). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.Google Scholar
  31. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council (1989).Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council (1990).Reshaping school mathematics: As philosophy and framework for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989).Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  34. Niedderer, H., Schecker, H. and Bethge, T. (1991). The role of computer-aided modelling in learning physics.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 7: 84–95.Google Scholar
  35. Peterson, S. (1985). Using STELLA in environmental education.Environmental Education Report and Newsletter Oct: 13–17.Google Scholar
  36. Resnick, M. (1994).Turtles, termites, and traffic jams. Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Richmond, B. (1985).STELLA [computer program]. Lyme, NH: High Performance Systems.Google Scholar
  38. Riley, D. (1990). Learning about systems by making models.Computers in Education 15(1–3): 255–263.Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, N. (1981). Introducing computer simulation into the high schools: an applied mathematics curriculum.Mathematics Teacher, pp. 647–652.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, N. and Barclay, T. (1988). Teaching model building to high schools students: theory and reality.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching Fall: 13–24.Google Scholar
  41. Schecker, H. P (1993). The didactic potential of computer aided modeling for physics education. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.),Advanced Educational Technologies for Mathematics and Science (pp. 165–207). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Schecker, H. P (1994). System dynamics in high school physics. InProceedings — Education — of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference, July (pp. 74–84). Stirling, Scotland.Google Scholar
  43. Steed, M. (1992). STELLA, a simulation construction kit: cognitive process and educational implications.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 11: 39–52.Google Scholar
  44. Stuntz, L. (1994). Systems education for kindergarten through twelfth grade in the United States: A view from the Creative Learning Exchange.The Creative Learning Exchange Newsletter 3(4): 1–4.Google Scholar
  45. Tinker, R. (1993). Modelling and theory building: Technology is support of student theorizing. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.),Advanced Educational Technologies for Mathematics and Science (pp. 91–113). Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Webb, M. and Hassell, D. (1988). Opportunities for computer based modelling and simulation in secondary education. In F. Lovis and E. D. Tagg (Eds.),Computers in Education, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 First European Conference on Computers in Education-ECCE 88, International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 271–277). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  47. Whitfield, A. (1988). STELLA and its impact on the teaching of mathematical modelling. In F. Lovis and E. D. Tagg (Eds.),Computers in Education, Proceedings of the IFIP TC3 First European Conference on Computers in Education-ECCE 88, International Federation for Information Processing (pp. 299–304). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Wilensky, U. (1996). Modeling rugby: kick first, generalize later?International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 1(1): 125–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen M. Doerr
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematics and Mathematics Education Syracuse UniversityNew YorkSyracuse

Personalised recommendations