The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions
Open accessAbstract
Complex systems are pervasive in the world around us. Making sense of a complex system should require that a person construct a network of concepts and principles about some domain that represents key (often dynamic) phenomena and their interrelationships. This raises the question of how expert understanding of complex systems differs from novice understanding. In this study we examined individuals' representations of an aquatic system from the perspective of structural (elements of a system), behavioral (mechanisms), and functional aspects of a system. Structure–Behavior–Function (SBF) theory was used as a framework for analysis. The study included participants from middle school children to preservice teachers to aquarium experts. Individual interviews were conducted to elicit participants' mental models of aquaria. Their verbal responses and pictorial representations were analyzed using an SBF‐based coding scheme. The results indicated that representations ranged from focusing on structures with minimal understanding of behaviors and functions to representations that included behaviors and functions. Novices' representations focused on perceptually available, static components of the system, whereas experts integrated structural, functional, and behavioral elements. This study suggests that the SBF framework can be one useful formalism for understanding complex systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x · Cited by 910
Creating visual explanations improves learning
Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6 · Cited by 298
Evagorou, M., Korfiatis, K., Nicolaou, C., & Constantinou, C. (2009) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690701749313 · Cited by 216
Emerging trends in gamification for clinical reasoning education: a scoping review
Lee, C.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Lai, H.-Y., Chen, P.-J., Chen, M.-M., & Yau, S.-Y. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07044-7 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Hmelo‐Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G.
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 127-138
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W4249959789
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.