Exploring Shifts in Middle School Learners’ Modeling Activity While Generating Drawings, Animations, and Computational Simulations of Molecular Diffusion

  • Michelle H. Wilkerson-Jerde
  • Brian E. Gravel
  • Christopher A. Macrander
Article

Abstract

Modeling and using technology are two practices of particular interest to K-12 science educators. These practices are inextricably linked among professionals, who engage in modeling activity with and across a variety of representational technologies. In this paper, we explore the practices of five sixth-grade girls as they generated models of smell diffusion using drawing, stop-motion animation, and computational simulation during a multi-day workshop. We analyze video, student discourse, and artifacts to address the questions: In what ways did learners’ modeling practices, reasoning about mechanism, and ideas about smell shift as they worked across this variety of representational technologies? And, what supports enabled them to persist and progress in the modeling activity? We found that the girls engaged in two distinct modeling cycles that reflected persistence and deepening engagement in the task. In the first, messing about, they focused on describing and representing many ideas related to the spread of smell at once. In the second, digging in, they focused on testing and revising specific mechanisms that underlie smell diffusion. Upon deeper analysis, we found these cycles were linked to the girls’ invention of “oogtom,” a representational object that encapsulated many ideas from the first cycle and allowed the girls to restart modeling with the mechanistic focus required to construct simulations. We analyze the role of activity design, facilitation, and technological infrastructure in this pattern of engagement over the course of the workshop and discuss implications for future research, curriculum design, and classroom practice.

Keywords

Simulation Scientific modeling Scientific practices Computational modeling Animation Multiple representations 

References

  1. Achieve Inc (2013) Next generation science standards. Achieve, Inc., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth S (1999) The functions of multiple representations. Comput Educ 33(2):131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth S (2006) DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learn Instr 16(3):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ainsworth S, Prain V, Tytler R (2011) Drawing to learn in science. Science 333(6046):1096–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blikstein P, Wilensky U (2009) An atom is known by the company it keeps: a constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(2):81–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brizuela BM (2004) Mathematical development in young children: exploring notations. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Brizuela BM, Earnest D (2008) Multiple notational systems and algebraic understandings: the case of the “best deal” problem. In: Kaput J, Carraher D, Blanton M (eds) Algebra in the early grades. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Mahwah, pp 273–301Google Scholar
  8. Brown AL (1992) Design experiments: theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. J Learn Sci 2(2):141–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandrasekharan S, Subramanian V, Nersessian N (2012) Computational modeling: Is this the end of thought experimenting in science? In: Frappier M, Meynell L, Brown J (eds) Thought experiments in philosophy, science and the arts. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang HY, Quintana C, Krajcik JS (2010) The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Sci Educ 94(1):73–94Google Scholar
  11. Chang HY, Quintana C, Krajcik J (2013) Using drawing technology to assess students’ visualizations of chemical reaction processes. J Sci Educ Technol 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9468-2
  12. Chapman OL (2000) Learning science involves language, experience, and modeling. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chi MT (1997) Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. J Learn Sci 6(3):271–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiu JL, Linn MC (2012) The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualizations. In: Zohar A, Dori YJ (eds) Metacognition in science education. Springer, Netherlands, pp 133–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Church B, Gravel BE, Rogers C (2007) Teaching parabolic motion with stop-action animations. Int J Eng Edcu 23(5):861–867Google Scholar
  16. Cobb P, Confrey J, Disessa A, Lehrer R, Schauble L (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educ Res 32(1):9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins A (1992) Toward a design science of education. In: Scanlon E, O’Shea T (eds) New directions in educational technology. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins A, Ferguson W (1993) Epistemic forms and epistemic games: structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educ Psychol 28(1):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Jong T, van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68(2):179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Derry SJ, Pea RD, Barron B, Engle RA, Erickson F, Goldman R, Hall R, Koschmann T, Lemke J, Sherin M, Sherin BL (2010) Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. J Learn Sci 19(1):3–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. diSessa AA, Hammer D, Sherin B, Kolpakowski T (1991) Inventing graphing: meta-representational expertise in children. J Math Behav 10(2):117–160Google Scholar
  22. Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21(1):1–25Google Scholar
  23. Edelson DC, Gordon DN, Pea RD (1999) Addressing the challenge of inquiry based learning. J Learn Sci 8(3–4):392–450Google Scholar
  24. Engle RA, Conant FR (2002) Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cogn Instr 20(4):399–483Google Scholar
  25. Enyedy N (2005) Inventing mapping: creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cogn Instr 23(4):427–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frederiksen JR, White BY (1998) Teaching and learning generic modeling and reasoning skills. Interact Learn Environ 5(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frederiksen JR, White BY (2002) Conceptualizing and constructing linked models: Creating coherence in complex knowledge systems. In: Brna P, Baker M, Stenning K, Tiberghien A (eds) The role of communication in learning to model. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 69–96Google Scholar
  28. Gobert J, O’Dwyer L, Horwitz P, Buckley B, Levy ST, Wilensky U (2011) Examining the relationship between students’ understanding of the nature of models and conceptual learning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Int J Sci Educ 33(5):653–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldman SR (2003) Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? Learn Instr 13(2):239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gravel BE, Scheuer N, Brizuela BM (2013) Using representations to reason about air and particles. In: Brizuela BM, Gravel BE (eds) Show me what you know: exploring student representations across STEM disciplines. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 163–182Google Scholar
  31. Greeno JG, Hall RP (1997) Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan 78(5):361–367Google Scholar
  32. Hammer D (2004) The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children’s inquiries. In: Redish E, Vincentini M (eds) Enrico fermi summer school. Italian Physical Society, Course CLVIGoogle Scholar
  33. Hammer D, Berland LK (2013) Confusing claims for data: a critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. J Learn Sci. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.802652 Google Scholar
  34. Hawkins D (1974) Messing about in science. In: Hawkins D (ed) The informed vision: essays on learning and human nature. Agathon, New York, pp 63–75Google Scholar
  35. Jackson SL, Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1994) Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interact Learn Environ 4(3):233–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnstone AH (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. J Comput Assist Learn 7(2):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahn J (2013) Kindergarteners’ idiosyncratic representations of movement. In: Brizuela BM, Gravel BE (eds) Show me what you know: exploring student representations across STEM disciplines. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 43–64Google Scholar
  38. Kaput J (1991) Notations and representations as mediators of constructive processes. In: von Glasersfeld E (ed) Radical constructivism in mathematics education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, pp 53–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaput J (1994) Democratizing access to calculus: New routes to old roots. In: Schoenfeld A (ed) Mathematical thinking and problem solving. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 77–156Google Scholar
  40. Kaput J, Noss R, Hoyles C (2002) Developing new notations for a learnable mathematics in the computational era. In: English LD (ed) Handbook of international research in mathematics education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  41. Kelly RM, Jones LL (2007) Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations. J Sci Educ Technol 16(5):413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kolodner JL, Camp PJ, Crismond D, Fasse B, Gray J, Holbrook J, Puntambekar S, Ryan M (2003) Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design into practice. J Learn Sci 12(4):495–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kozma RB (ed) (2003) Technology, innovation, and educational change: a global perspective. A report of the second information technology in education study. Module 2. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  44. Kozma RB, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teach 34(9):949–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (Sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2000) Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. J Appl Dev Psychol 21(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer K (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  48. Lesh R, Doerr HM (2003) Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  49. Levy D (2013) How dynamic visualization technology can support molecular reasoning. J Sci Educ Technol 22(5):702–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Louca TL, Zacharia CZ (2008) The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modeling tools in early science education: the cases of textual and graphical program languages. Int J Sci Educ 30(3):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Louca LT, Zacharia ZC, Michael M, Constantinou CP (2011) Objects, entities, behaviors, and interactions: a typology of student-constructed computer-based models of physical phenomena. J Educ Comput Res 44(2):173–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manz E (2012) Understanding the co development of modeling practice and ecological knowledge. Sci Educ 96(6):1071–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R (2008) Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 45(3):273–292Google Scholar
  54. Medina R, Suthers D (2013) Inscriptions becoming representations in representational practices. J Learn Sci 22(1):33–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Merritt JD, Krajcik J, Shwartz Y (2008) Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference for the learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, vol 2, pp 75–81Google Scholar
  56. National Research Council Board on Science Education (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2013) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. Special Report 13-304. Arlington, VA. Available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd
  58. Nemirovsky R (1994) On ways of symbolizing: the case of Laura and the velocity sign. J Math Behav 13:389–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ochs E, Jacoby S, Gonzales P (1994) Interpretive journeys: how physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations 1:151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Papert S (1993) The children’s machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Papert S (1996) An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int J Comput Math Learn 1(1):95–123Google Scholar
  63. Pérez Echeverría MP, Scheuer N (2009) External representations as learning tools. Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge. Sense Publishers, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  64. Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prain V, Tytler R (2012) Learning through constructing representations in science: a framework of representational construction affordances. Int J Sci Educ 34(17):2751–2773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roschelle J, Knudsen J, Hegedus S (2010) From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: advanced designs for teaching and learning. In: Jacobson MJ, Reimann P (eds) Designs for learning environments of the future: international perspectives from the learning sciences. Springer, New York, pp 233–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Russ RS, Scherr RE, Hammer D, Mikeska J (2008) Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: a framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Sci Educ 92:499–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schauble L (1996) The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Dev Psychol 32(1):102–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schwarz CV, White BY (2005) Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cogn Instr 23(2):165–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Acher A, Fortus D et al (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Searl E, Gravel BE, Rogers C, Danahy, EE (2010) Sam Animation (v1.2) [Computer Software]. Tufts University, Medford, MAGoogle Scholar
  72. Sherin BL (2001) A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. Int J Comput Math Learn 6(1):1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sherin B, diSessa AA, Hammer D (1993) Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ 3(2):91–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shwartz Y, Weizman A, Fortus D, Krajcik J, Reiser BJ (2008) The IQWST experience: using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. Elem Sch J 109(2):199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith JP, diSessa AA, Roschelle J (1993–1994) Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J Learn Sci 3(2):115–163Google Scholar
  76. Smith DC, Cypher A, Tesler L (2000) Programming by example: novice programming comes of age. Commun ACM 43(3):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stieff M (2005) Connected chemistry: a novel modeling environment for the chemistry classroom. J Chem Educ 82(3):489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Stieff M (2011) Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 48(10):1137–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1998) Secondary students’ dynamic modeling processes: analyzing, reasoning about, synthesizing, and testing models of stream ecosystems. J Sci Educ Technol 7(3):215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. TechSmith (2010) Camtasia Studio. Retrieved from http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.asp
  81. Trey L, Khan S (2008) How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Comput Educ 51(2):519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tversky B, Morrison JB, Betrancourt M (2002) Animation: can it facilitate? Int J Hum Comput Stud 57(4):247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tytler R, Prain V, Peterson S (2007) Representational issues in students learning about evaporation. Res Sci Educ 37(3):313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vergnaud G (1998) A comprehensive theory of representation for mathematics education. J Math Behav 17(2):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. White BY, Frederiksen JR (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cogn Instr 16(1):3–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. White BY, Collins A, Frederiksen JR (2011) The nature of scientific meta-knowledge. In: Khine MS, Saleh IM (eds) Models and modeling: cognitive tools for scientific enquiry. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wieman CE, Adams WK, Perkins KK (2008) PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science 322(5902):682–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab multi-agent modeling toolkit. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theirs—an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instr 24(2):171–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Gravel BE, Macrander CA (2013) SiMSAM: an integrated toolkit to bridge student, scientific, and mathematical ideas using computational media. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning. International Society of the Learning Sciences, vol 2, pp 379–381Google Scholar
  91. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright CG (2013) “I thought the smaller the wave was, the louder the sound was”: Highlighting negotiation in developing meta-representational competence. In: Brizuela BM, Gravel BE (eds) Show me what you know: exploring student representations across STEM disciplines. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 102–118Google Scholar
  93. Xie Q, Tinker R (2006) Molecular dynamics simulations of chemical reactions for use in education. J Chem Educ 83(1):77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, vol 5. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  95. Zhang J (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cogn Sci 21(2):179–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhang ZH, Linn MC (2011) Learning from chemical visualizations: comparing generation and selection. Int J Sci Educ. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.792971 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle H. Wilkerson-Jerde
    • 1
  • Brian E. Gravel
    • 1
  • Christopher A. Macrander
    • 1
  1. 1.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations