Instructional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 5–24 | Cite as

Observing complex systems thinking in the zone of proximal development

  • Joshua Danish
  • Asmalina Saleh
  • Alejandro Andrade
  • Branden Bryan
Article

Abstract

Our paper builds on the construct of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky in Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978) to analyze the relationship between students’ answers and the help they receive as they construct them. We report on a secondary analysis of classroom and interview data that was collected with 1st and 2nd grade students completing a short scaffolded inquiry project designed to help them learn about how honeybees collect nectar. We explore how the progression of questions reveal students’ understanding of complex systems by examining how students’ progression through the questions tended to become more sophisticated as we increased support. We further compare two complex-systems perspectives, Component-Mechanism-Phenomena and agent-based approaches, to see how each would categorize students’ explanations. Findings demonstrate the value of the ZPD as an analytic framework in exploring students’ systems understanding in terms of the nature of questions (e.g., sequencing, type of question) and multiple conceptual models (e.g., component-mechanisms-phenomenon, single agent or aggregate behaviors), and how this might impact students’ groupings according to their ability and subsequent instructional support.

Keywords

Zone of proximal development Complex systems Early elementary Student performance 

References

  1. Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42(5), 518–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assaraf, O. B.-Z., & Orion, N. (2009). System thinking skills at the elementary school level. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. doi: 10.1002/tea.20351.Google Scholar
  3. Boblett, N. (2012). Scaffolding: Defining the Metaphor. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: new environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Cazden, C. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
  6. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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(2):100–148.Google Scholar
  8. Danish, J. A., Peppler, K., Phelps, D., & Washington, D. (2011). Life in the hive: Supporting inquiry into complexity within the zone of proximal development. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5):454–467.Google Scholar
  9. Danish, J. A., Saleh, A., & Andrade, A. (2014). Software scaffolds for supporting teacher-led inquiry into complex systems concepts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity–theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstone, R. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2009). Collective behavior. Topics in cognitive science, 1(3), 412–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01038.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstone, R. L., & Janssen, M. A. (2005). Computational models of collective behavior. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9(9), 424–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greeno, J. G. (2011). A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction. Theories of learning and studies of instructional practice (pp. 41–71). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greeno, J. G. (2015). Commentary: Some prospects for connecting concepts and methods of individual cognition and of situativity. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 248–251. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1077708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-Novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331. doi: 10.1080/10508400701413401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holland, J. H. (1992). Complex adaptive systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
  21. Karaboga, D., & Akay, B. (2009). A survey: algorithms simulating bee swarm intelligence. Artificial Intelligence Review, 31(1–4), 61–85. doi: 10.1007/s10462-009-9127-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  24. NRC. (2013). Next generation science standards. National Academy Press: Washington DC.Google Scholar
  25. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G.,… Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 337–386.Google Scholar
  26. Roth, W.-M., Lee, Y. J., & Hsu, P. L. (2009). A tool for changing the world: possibilities of cultural-historical activity theory to reinvigorate science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 131–167. doi: 10.1080/03057260903142269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2007). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sinha, S., Gray, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., Goel, A., et al. (2013a). Conceptual representations for transfer: A case study tracing back and looking forward. Frontline Learning Research, 1(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sinha, S., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Eberbach, C., Jordan, R., Brooks, W. R., Yu, Y., & Damsa, C. (2013b). Charting mechanistic reasoning across aquatic ecosystems. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Rio Grande, Puerto RicoGoogle Scholar
  30. Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wells, G. (2002). The role of dialogue in activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(1), 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 Scholar
  35. 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), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (2000). Networked Gridlock: Students Enacting Complex Dynamic Phenomena with the HubNet Architecture. Paper presented at the The Fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Cognitive Science ProgramIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations