Understanding Complex Systems: Some Core Challenges

Complex systems have a hierarchical nature and have multiple interacting levels (Wilensky & Resnick, 1999). In complex systems, the aggregate nature of the system is not predictable from isolated components but occurs through the interaction of multiple components. For example, the human body is composed of multiple sub systems and may be understood anatomically and physiologically. Only with experi ence and expertise do we come to understand how different levels of a complex sys tem are related. There are some deep principles that underlie many complex systems, some of which Jacobson and Wilensky (this issue) discussed, such as structure behavior-function (SBF) and emergence (see Goldstone & Sakamoto, 2003, for oth ers). What differentiates these complex systems from complicated systems such as pulley systems is the heterogeneity of components and their multiple levels of orga nization. For example, a pulley system is made up of several pulleys, perhaps of dif ferent sizes and orientation, but they are fundamentally the same. Compare this to an artery, which is composed of at least three different kinds of cells and networks of fi bers, all different components that together form the blood vessel. Many complex systems can be viewed as emergent or causal depending on the point of view one is taking. The human circulatory system is a good example. It is a subsystem of the human body. Many different kinds of cells form the tissues of system. The blood is composed of several different kinds of cells suspended in

[1]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Learners' (mis)understanding of important and difficult concepts: a challenge to smart machines in education , 2001 .

[2]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  S. Puntambekar,et al.  Tools for Scaffolding Students in a Complex Learning Environment: What Have We Gained and What Have We Missed? , 2005 .

[4]  R. Azevedo.  Computer Environments as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning , 2005 .

[5]  Daniel C. Moos,et al.  Can Students Collaboratively Use Hypermedia to Learn Science? The Dynamics of Self-and other-Regulatory Processes in an Ecology Classroom , 2004 .

[6]  M. Resnick,et al.  Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World , 1999 .

[7]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  A Theoretical Framework and Approach for Fostering Metacognitive Development , 2005 .

[8]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Adaptive Human Scaffolding Facilitates Adolescents’ Self-regulated Learning with Hypermedia , 2005 .

[9]  C. Hmelo‐Silver.  Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn? , 2004 .

[10]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Smart machines in education: the coming revolution in educational technology , 2001 .

[11]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? q , 2004 .

[12]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Getting the story straight: The role of narrative in teaching and learning with interactive media , 2005 .

[13]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[14]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  J. Bruner,et al.  The role of tutoring in problem solving. , 1976, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[16]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  How representation matters: comparing collaborative learning with alternative versions of hypermedia , 2005, CSCL.

[17]  Roger Azevedo,et al.  Teaching and Learning in Technology-Rich Environments , 2006 .

[18]  S. Vosniadou.  Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. , 1994 .

[19]  R. Azevedo.  Using Hypermedia as a Metacognitive Tool for Enhancing Student Learning? The Role of Self-Regulated Learning , 2005 .

[20]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  SMART Environments That Support Monitoring, Reflection, and Revision , 1998 .

[21]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School Students , 1998 .

[22]  R. Azevedo,et al.  Scaffolding Self-regulated Learning and Metacognition – Implications for the Design of Computer-based Scaffolds , 2005 .

[23]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Designing to Learn About Complex Systems , 2000 .

[24]  MICHAEL J. JACOBSON,et al.  Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices , 2001, Complex..

[25]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning , 1991 .

[26]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[27]  R. Azevedo,et al.  Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students' learning with hypermedia? , 2004 .

[28]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[29]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Towards Design Learning Environments - I: Exploring How Devices Work , 1996, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[30]  Shawn Van Etten,et al.  Big theories revisited , 2004 .

[31]  Sachiko Komagata.  Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. , 2004 .

[32]  M. Linn,et al.  Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners , 2000 .

[33]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  A Framework for Supporting Metacognitive Aspects of Online Inquiry Through Software-Based Scaffolding , 2005 .

[34]  Jos Beishuizen,et al.  Determinants of discovery learning in a complex simulation learning environment , 2005 .

[35]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Cognitive Tutors: Lessons Learned , 1995 .

[36]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning , 1998 .