Toward a Learning Progression of Complex Systems Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research on what students know about complex systems shows that they typically have challenges in understanding particular system ideas such as nonlinearity, complex causality, and decentralized control. Yet this research has yet to adopt a systematic approach to learning about complex systems in an ordered way in line with the Next Generation Science Standards’ call for learning pathways that guide teaching and learning along a developmental continuum. In this paper, we propose that learning progressions research can provide a conceptual framework for identifying a learning pathway to complex systems understanding competence. As a first step in developing a progression, we articulate a sequence of complex systems ideas, from the least to most difficult, by analyzing students’ written responses using an item response theory model. Results show that the easiest ideas to comprehend are those that relate to levels or scales within systems and the interconnected nature of systems. The most difficult ideas to grasp are those related to the decentralized organization of the system and the unpredictable or nondeterministic nature of effects. We discuss implications for this research in terms of developing curricular content that can guide learning experiences in grades 8–12 science education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".