Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 921–953 | Cite as

Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade with Multi-Agent-Based Computational Models

Article

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate how elementary school students develop multi-level explanations of population dynamics in a simple predator–prey ecosystem, through scaffolded interactions with a multi-agent-based computational model (MABM). The term “agent” in an MABM indicates individual computational objects or actors (e.g., cars), and these agents obey simple rules assigned or manipulated by the user (e.g., speeding up, slowing down, etc.). It is the interactions between these agents, based on the rules assigned by the user, that give rise to emergent, aggregate-level behavior (e.g., formation and movement of the traffic jam). Natural selection is such an emergent phenomenon, which has been shown to be challenging for novices (K16 students) to understand. Whereas prior research on learning evolutionary phenomena with MABMs has typically focused on high school students and beyond, we investigate how elementary students (4th graders) develop multi-level explanations of some introductory aspects of natural selection—species differentiation and population change—through scaffolded interactions with an MABM that simulates predator–prey dynamics in a simple birds-butterflies ecosystem. We conducted a semi-clinical interview based study with ten participants, in which we focused on the following: a) identifying the nature of learners’ initial interpretations of salient events or elements of the represented phenomena, b) identifying the roles these interpretations play in the development of their multi-level explanations, and c) how attending to different levels of the relevant phenomena can make explicit different mechanisms to the learners. In addition, our analysis also shows that although there were differences between high- and low-performing students (in terms of being able to explain population-level behaviors) in the pre-test, these differences disappeared in the post-test.

Keywords

Agent-based models Multi-agent-based models Science education Misconceptions Natural selection Evolution NetLogo MABMs Modeling Computational models Conceptual change 

References

  1. Abrahamson, D. (2004). Keeping meaning in proportion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., Fisher, K., & Norman, G. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Sengupta, P. (2011). Scaffolding to support learning of ecology in simulation environments. In G. Biswas, & S. Bull (Eds.). Lecture notes in computer science, AIED 2011, 6738/2011, 417–419.Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein, A. C. (1975). Children’s concepts of how people get babies. Child Development, 46(1), 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: a constructionist learning environment for materials science using multi-agent simulation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning.Google Scholar
  6. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., & Ferrari, M. (1998). The nature of naïve explanations in natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1231–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coley, J. D. (2000). On the importance of comparative research: the case of folkbiology. Child Development, 71, 82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1989). On the origin of species. New York: Gramercy (Republication of the first edition, published in 1859).Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, & literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors’ via the fossil record. The American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J. K. (1982). Children’s science and its implications for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, S. J. (1996). Full House: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. New York: Harmony Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendrix, J. R., Mertens, T. R., & Baumgartner, R. S. (1981). Individualizing instruction through concept assessment. American Biology Teaching, 43(5), 246–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: expert-novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holland, J. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  21. Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naïve thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keil, F. C. (1992). The origins of autonomous biology. In M. R. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 103–137). Hilldale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kelemen, D. (1999). The origins of teleological thought. In M. Corballis & S. Lea (Eds.), Descent of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Perry, J. (2005a). Using palm technology in Participatory Simulations of complex systems: a new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005b). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
  27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice 6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153–196). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maxwell, J. C. (1871 (2001)). Theory of heat. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics. Science Education, 20, 1075–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Roschelle, J. (1991). Students’ construction of qualitative physics knowledge: Learning about velocity and acceleration in a computer microworld. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  37. Sengupta, P. (2009). Designing across ages: Learning Electricity with multi-agent based computational models. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Multi-agent-based modeling and learning electricity: Design and epistemological issues. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific enquiry. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (under review). Balancing electrons & learning electricity in 5th grade: emergence, electric current and MABMs. Cognition and Instruction. Google Scholar
  41. Simons, H. (Ed.) (1980). Towards a science of the singular: Essays about case study in educational research and evaluation. CARE Occasional publications, No. 10, Norwich, Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, J., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1993/1994). Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.Google Scholar
  43. Solomon, G., Johnson, S., Zaitchick, X., & Carey, S. (1996). Like father, like son: young children’s understanding of how and why offspring resemble their parents. Child Development, 67, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Strogatz, S. (2003). Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order. New York: Hyperion Books.Google Scholar
  45. Taber, K. S. (2008). Exploring conceptual integration in student thinking: evidence from a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1915–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White, P. A. (1997). Naïve ecology: causal judgments about a simple ecosystem. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo . Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  48. Wilensky, U. (2003). Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab modeling toolkit. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(1), 1–41 (special issue on agent-based modeling).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1). Google Scholar
  51. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series, 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mind, Matter & Media Lab, Department of Teaching & LearningVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations