The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems
This paper discusses a study of students learning core conceptual perspectives from recent scientific research on complexity using a hypermedia learning environment in which different types of scaffolding were provided. Three comparison groups used a hypermedia system with agent-based models and scaffolds for problem-based learning activities that varied in terms of the types of text based scaffolds that were provided related to a set of complex systems concepts. Although significant declarative knowledge gains were found for the main experimental treatment in which the students received the most scaffolding, there were no significant differences amongst the three groups in terms of the more cognitively demanding performance on problem solving tasks. However, it was found across all groups that the students who enriched their ontologies about how complex systems function performed at a significantly higher level on transfer problem solving tasks in the posttest. It is proposed that the combination of interactive representational scaffolds associated with NetLogo agent-based models in complex systems cases and problem solving scaffolding allowed participants to abstract ontological dimensions about how systems of this type function that, in turn, was associated with the higher performance on the problem solving transfer tasks. Theoretical and design implications for learning about complex systems are discussed.
KeywordsLearning about complex systems Ontology Hypermedia Agent-based models Scaffolding Problem based learning Digital media Conceptual change Knowledge transfer
The research discussed in this paper has been funded in part by support to the first author from the University of Sydney Faculty of Education and Social Work, the Singapore Ministry of Education to the Learning Sciences Laboratory at the National Institute of Education (NIE), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and from the Korean IT Industry Promotion Agency. Phoebe Chen Jacobson designed the Complex Systems Knowledge Mediator hypermedia learning environment used in this study. The contributions of the research assistants to this project are also gratefully acknowledged: Seo-Hong Lim, Lynn Low, and HyungShin Kim.
- Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & Donovan, S. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexificantion: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
- Charles, E. S. (2003). An ontological approach to conceptual change: The role that complex systems thinking may play in providing the explanatory framework needed for studying contemporary sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
- Charles, E. S., & d’Apollonia, S. (2004). Developing a conceptual framework to explain emergent causality: Overcoming ontological beliefs to achieve conceptual change. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Reiger (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual cognitive science society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Implications for learning and discovery in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Cognitive models of science (Vol. XV, pp. 129–186). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 265–281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K08. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York: Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
- Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239–281.Google Scholar
- Jacobson, M. J., & Spiro, R. J. (1993). Hypertext learning environments and cognitive flexibility: Research into the transfer of complex knowledge (Technical No. 573). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
- Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-11009-19093-x.
- Kapur, M. (2010). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-11010-19144-11253.
- Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Levin, J. A., Stuve, M. J., & Jacobson, M. J. (1999). Teachers’ conceptions of the internet and the world wide web: A representational toolkit as a model of expertise. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
- Parunak, H. V. D., Savit, R., & Riolo, R. L. (1998). Agent-based modeling vs. equation-based modeling: A case study and users’ guide. In Proceedings of multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation (MABS’98) (pp. 10–25). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1993). Beyond the deterministic, centralized mindsets: A new thinking for new science. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
- Thompson, K. (2008). The value of multiple representations for learning about complex systems. In Paper presented at the International Conference for the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Wilensky, U. (1998). NetLogo wolf sheep predation model. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/WolfSheepPredation.).
- Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo).
- Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (1998). Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories: An embodied modeling approach. In Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Complex Systems, Nashau, NH.Google Scholar
- Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1995). New thinking for new sciences: Constructionist approaches for exploring complexity. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar