GasLab—an Extensible Modeling Toolkit for Connecting Micro-and Macro-properties of Gases

  • Uri Wilensky
Part of the Modeling Dynamic Systems book series (MDS)


Computer-based modeling tools have largely grown out of the need to describe, analyze, and display the behavior of dynamic systems. Recent decades have seen increasing recognition of the importance of understanding the behavior of dynamic systems—how systems of many interacting elements change and evolve over time and how global phenomena can arise from local interactions of these elements. New research projects on chaos, self-organization, adaptive systems, nonlinear dynamics, and artificial life are all part of this growing interest in system dynamics. The interest has spread from the scientific community to popular culture, with the publication of general-interest books about research into dynamic systems (Gleick 1987; Waldrop, 1992; GellMann, 1994; Kelly, 1994; Roetzheim, 1994; Holland, 1995; Kauffman, 1995).


Modeling Language Average Speed Primitive Element Content Domain System Dynamic Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Buldyrev, S.V., Erickson, M.J., Garik, P., Shore, L. S., Stanley, H. E., Taylor, E. F., Trunfio, P.A. & Hickman, P. 1994. Science research in the classroom: The Physics Teacher, 32, 411–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, D., & Stroup, W. 1993. General systems theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all. Journal for Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cutnell, J., & Johnson, K. 1995. Physics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Daston, L. 1987. Rational individuals versus laws of society: From probability to statistics. In Kruger, Daston, L., & Heidelberger, M. (eds.), The probabilistic revolution, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dawkins, R 1976. The selfish gene. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dennett, D. 1995. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. diSessa, A. 1986. Artificial worlds and real experience. Instructional Science, 207–227.Google Scholar
  8. Doerr, H. 1996. STELLA®: Ten years later: A review of the literature. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisenberg, M. 1991. Programmable applications: Interpreter meets interface. MIT AI Memo 1325. Cambridge, MA: AI Lab, M.I.T.Google Scholar
  10. Feurzeig, W. 1989. A visual programming environment for mathematics education. Paper presented 4th International Conference for Logo and Mathematics Education. Jerusalem, Israel, August 15.Google Scholar
  11. Forrester, J.W. 1968. Principles of systems. Norwalk, CT: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gell-Mann, M. 1994. The quark and the jaguar. New York: W.H. Freeman.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Giancoli, D. 1984. General physics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G. 1987. Probabilistic thinking and the fight against subjectivity. In Kruger, L., Daston, L., & Heidelberger, M. (eds.), The probabilistic revolution, vol 2 Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ginsburg, H., & Opper, S. 1969. Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Giodan, A. 1991. The importance of modeling in the teaching and popularization of science. Trends in Science Education, 41(4). Google Scholar
  17. Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos. New York: Viking Penguin.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Hofstadter, D. (1979). Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, J. 1995. Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. Reading, MA: Helix Books/Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Horwitz, P. 1989. ThinkerTools: Implications for science teaching. In Ellis, J.D. (ed.), 1988 AETS yearbook: Information technology and science education, pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
  21. Horwitz, P., Neumann, E, & Schwartz, J. 1994. The Genscope Project. Connections, Spring, 10–11.Google Scholar
  22. Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. 1996. A learner-centered tool for students building models. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kauffman, S. 1995. At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford, England: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Kay, A. C. 1991. Computers, networks and education. Scientific American, September, 138–148.Google Scholar
  25. Kelly, K. 1994. Out of control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Kruger, L., Daston, L., & Heidelberger, M. (eds.) 1987.The probabilistic revolution vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Google Scholar
  27. Langton, C., & Burkhardt, G. 1997. Swarm. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Lotka, A.J. 1925. Elements of physical biology. New York: Dover Publications.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandinach, E.B., & Cline, H.F. 1994. Classroom dynamics: Implementing a technol-ogy-based learning environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Mellar et al. (1994). Learning with artificial worlds: Computer based modelling in the curriculum. London: Falmer Press. Google Scholar
  31. Minar, N., Burkhardt, G., Langton, C., & Askenazi, M. 1997. The Swarm simulation system: A toolkit for building multi-agent simulations. projects/swarm/.Google Scholar
  32. Minsky, M. 1987. The society of mind. Simon & Schuster Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  33. Nemirovsky, R. 1994. On ways of symbolizing: Tthe case of Laura and the velocity sign.Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(4), 389–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Neumann, E., Feurzeig, W., Garik, P., & Horwitz, P. 1997. OOTL. Paper presented at the European Logo Conference. Budapest: Hungary, 20–23 August.Google Scholar
  35. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. 1996. The visibility of meanings: Modelling the mathematics of banking. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  36. Ogborn, J. 1984. A microcomputer dynamic modelling system.Physics Education 19(3),138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Papert, S. 1991. Situating constructionism. In Harel, I., & Papert, S. (eds.) Constructionism pp. 1-12. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Google Scholar
  39. Papert, S. 1996. An exploration in the space of mathematics education.International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning.,1(1),95–123.Google Scholar
  40. Pea, R. 1985. Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  42. Repenning, A. 1993. AgentSheets: A tool for building domain-oriented dynamic, visual environments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  43. Repenning, A. 1994. Programming substrates to create interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 45–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Resnick, M. 1994.Turtles termites and traffic jams. Explorations in massively parallel microworlds . Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  45. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. 1995. New thinking for new Sciences: Constructionist approaches for exploring complexity. Presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. 1998. Diving into Complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richmond, B., & Peterson, S. 1990. Stella II. Hanover, NH: High Performance Systems.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, N. 1978. Teaching dynamic feedback systems thinking: An elementary view. Management Science, 24(8), 836–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Roberts, N. 1981. Introducing computer simulation into the high schools: An applied mathematics curriculum. Mathematics Teacher, 74(8), 647–652.Google Scholar
  50. Roberts, N., Anderson, D., Deal, R., Garet, M., Shaffer, W. 1983. Introduction to computer simulations: A systems dynamics modeling approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, N., & Barclay, T. 1988. Teaching model building to high school students: Theory and reality.Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Fall, 13–24.Google Scholar
  52. Roetzheim, W. 1994. Entering the complexity lab. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Shore, L. S., Erickson, M. J., Garik, P., Hickman, P., Stanley, H. E., Taylor, E. F., and Trunfio, P. 1992. Learning fractals by “doing science”: Applying cognitive apprenticeship strategies to curriculum design and instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Spohrer, J. 1994. Kidsim: Programming agents without a programming language. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 55–67.Google Scholar
  55. Starr, P. 1994. Seductions of Sim. The American Prospect, 17, 19–29.Google Scholar
  56. Thornton, R., & Sokoloff, D. 1990. Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tipler, P. 1992. Elementary modern physics. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  58. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waldrop, M. 1992. Complexity: The emerging order at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  60. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. 1998. Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilensky, U. 1991. Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In Harel, I., & Papert, P. (eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 193–204.Google Scholar
  62. Wilensky, U. 1993. Connected mathematics: Building concrete relationships with mathematical knowledge. Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
  63. Wilensky, U. 1995a. Paradox, programming and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilensky, U. 1995b. Learning probability through building computational models. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Recife, Brazil, July.Google Scholar
  65. Wilensky, U. 1996. Modeling rugby: Kick first, generalize later? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 125–131.Google Scholar
  66. Wilensky, U. 1997. What is normal anyway? Therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educational Studies in Mathematics. Special Edition on Computational Environments in Mathematics Education, ed. R. Noss, (Ed.) 33(2), 171–202.Google Scholar
  67. Wilensky, U. & Resnick, M. 1999. Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1). Google Scholar
  68. Wright, W. 1992a. SimCity. Orinda, CA: MaxisGoogle Scholar
  69. Wright, W. 1992b. SimEarth. Orinda, CA: MaxisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uri Wilensky

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations