Fish Swim, Rocks Sit, and Lungs Breathe: Expert-Novice Understanding of Complex Systems

Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver

Summarized by Ginger

1. The goal: This study was to understand how experts and novices differed in their understanding
of two complex systems, the human respiratory system and an aquarium ecosystem. In
particular, researchers examined how a representation of complex system, Structure-Behaviorfunction theory (SBF), might account for these differences.
2. SBF provides a representation that can account for how people think about complex systems
(Goel et al., 1996). SBF is particularly relevant in understanding biological systems because an
important domain principle is the relation between form, function, and mechanism. SBF as a
conceptual representation also explains how they are causally related through actions.
3. Complex systems are characterized by multilevel organization, interconnections, heterogeneous
components, and invisible dynamic processes.
4. Emergent system: The outcomes are not predetermined. The behavior of the system arises as a
function of spatial and temporal interactions between its components. Structure and function in
biological systems are causally related through behavioral mechanisms. Complex biological
systems are composed of interrelated structural, behavioral, and functional levels.
5. Deep principles: The core ideas that underlie a given domain such as emergence and SBF. SBF
representation may provide a deep principle that is useful for thinking and learning about
complex systems.
6. Structure: Structure refer to elements of a system. Structures can vary in size and organization.
Structures can be visible and macroscopic. They can also be hierarchically organized.
7. Behaviors: Behaviors refer to mechanisms of how the structures of a system achieve their
outcome or function. Behaviors can be nested, or they can be interacting.
8. Functions: Functions refer to the role of an element in a system.
9. Mental model: Mental model analyses to capture the holistic character of participants
representations, complementing the fine-grained SBF coding. Five analogous models were
identified for each system. (Page 316-table 1&2)
Method
Participants: For the aquarium system interviews, the participants were 30 seventh-grade students
from a suburban public middle school, 26 preservice teachers for a large public university, and 10
experts. For the human respiratory system interviews, the participants were 21 middle school
children, 20 preservice teachers, and 13 experts.
Procedure
Individual interviews that ranged from 20 to 40 min. All interviews were tape-recorded and
transcribed. For the aquarium system, the participants were given a paper that had a three-sided
rectangular shape. For the human respiratory system, participants were given a piece of paper with
an outline of a human body. The participants used markers to draw anything. Interviews included
open-ended questions and problems to elicit participants knowledge.
Coding and Analysis

Participants interviews were transcribed and coded according to an SBF coding scheme for the
presence or absence of a target concept. The coding scheme identified a target list of structures and
a list of corresponding behaviors and functions. To measure interrater reliability, one primary
researcher conducted the majority the coding and a second independent research assistant code
20% of the transcripts. The SBF coding was analyzed with a 3*3 mixed analysis of variance. Planned
contrasts compared the two novice groups with the experts and compared the middle school
students with the preservice teachers. The mental model coding was analyzed with maximum
likelihood chi-squares.
Results
SBF Analysis: Difference between experts and novices, particular in behaviors and functions, but not
the two groups of novices. (Page 318 table 3&4)
Mental Modal Analysis: Providing a converging source of evidence that novices had simple,
structurally based models, whereas the experts were able to focus more on the underlying function
and behavior. Preservice teachers tended to hold more sophisticated models than middle school
students. Experts were not equal: there were qualitative distinctions between the two type experts,
biologists and hobbyists.
Discussion
Structures are easier to comprehend than functions or behaviors, particular for novices. Structures
are more easily represented than behaviors and functions. For the experts, the behavioral and
functional understanding of the system serves as a deep principle to organize their knowledge of the
system. Understanding the behaviors and functions of a system indicates a more elaborate network
of ideas and interrelationships.
Implication for designing instruction
Function-centered instruction can help students to conceptualize systems as a web of interrelated
behaviors that allow structures to accomplish particular functions and promote more coherent
understanding.
The SBF representation offers a way for learns to look behind the scenes at phenomena that are not
readily available to unaided perception.
Designing instruction to support complex systems understanding requires providing learners with
opportunities to interact with these systems. Computational tools and simulations offer promise to
help make the invisible visible and highlight nonsalient aspects of a system.
Conceptual tools such as SBF help teachers to teach.
Conclusion
SBF is an appropriate representation because it is consistent with both the structure of the domain
as well as how experts understand complex systems. These analyses of expert understanding
provide suggestions for representational tools to support learning and instruction as well as provide
possible target models for instruction. The expertexpert differences raise some interesting
questions about what might be an appropriate target model.