The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Curriculum Unit for Promoting Complex System Thinking: The Case of Combined System Dynamics and Agent Based Models for Population Growth
Open accessAbstract
Calls for school curricula to increase students' exposure to complex systems are clearly warranted, given the topic's learnability and the increasing prevalence of such systems.This study deepens our understanding of 16 ninth graders' system thinking by identifying some cognitive aspects involved in the acquisition process while studying specially designed simulation-based curriculum for a full semester.Students manipulated two simulation-types: (a) providing a top-down view of the system behavior -based on the system dynamics model, and (b) providing a bottom-up view of the same system -based on the agent-based model.Contrasting these simulation outputs scaffold students' ability to relate the system macro and micro levels.We focused on complex system conceptual knowledge (dynamic equilibrium) and diverse system thinking modes (stochastic or dynamic thinking) by examining students' written and computerized products and pre-posttests results.A significant improvement in most students' system thinking abilities has been found.Implications for school science instruction are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Also Ben-Zvi Assaraf and Orion (2005), Eilam and Reisfeld (2017), and Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017) start with identification of the structural components involved in the phenomenon to be studied.”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
In the citing paper
“In line with Verhoeff et al. (2008) the authors conclude that shifting between complementary multiple representations of the macro-and micro-level scaffolds students' complex systems thinking, i.e., understanding the visualization of the macro-level as emerging from the micro-level interactions occurring among the system components.”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
In the citing paper
“Looking at our analysis in section The Conceptual Nature of Systems Thinking, it is striking that three studies feature systems modeling strategies that clearly have a theoretical basis Eilam and Reisfeld (2017), Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017), and Verhoeff et al. (2008).”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
In the citing paper
“In these studies, all models represent an underlying systems concept, i.e., the hierarchical systems concept in the study of Verhoeff et al. (2008), the Component Mechanisms Phenomenon concept of Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017), and the Dynamical Systems concept in the study of Eilam and Reisfeld (2017).”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
In the citing paper
“In addition, the dynamic and quantitative nature of the simulations and the graphs they produced, improved students' stochastic thinking and their ability to perceive biological phenomena as a series of complex events that occur simultaneously over time.”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
In the citing paper
“As the studies of Eilam and Reisfeld (2017) and Hmelo-Silver et al. (2017) illustrate, deeper understanding of the dynamic nature of systems could be furthered by a quantitative modeling approach.”
From The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education (2018) · cites this paper as Eilam and Reisfeld (2017)
Citations
Cites
Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust
Chi, M. T. H. (2005) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1 · Cited by 894
Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_2 · Cited by 857
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Theoretical Nature of Systems Thinking. Perspectives on Systems Thinking in Biology Education
Verhoeff, R. P., Knippels, M.-C. P. J., Gilissen, M. G. R., & Boersma, K. T. (2018) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2018.00040 · Cited by 151
Metadata
- Authors
- Faculty of Education, U. O. H., Billie, E., Dorit, R., & Faculty of Education, U. O. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Venue
- Journal of Advances in Education Research
- Published
- 2017-05-18
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2519-7002 (ISSN-L)
- 2519-7010
- OpenAlex
- W2615461542
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Advances in Education Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Social Sciences › Education › Chaos, Complexity, and Education
- Keywords
- complex systems thinking, system dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling, population growth, simulation-based training, dynamic equilibrium, stochastic thinking, dynamic thinking, ninth grade students, science curriculum, computer simulation in education
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