Sandboxes for Model-Based Inquiry


In this article, we introduce a class of constructionist learning environments that we call Emergent Systems Sandboxes (ESSs), which have served as a centerpiece of our recent work in developing curriculum to support scalable model-based learning in classroom settings. ESSs are a carefully specified form of virtual construction environment that support students in creating, exploring, and sharing computational models of dynamic systems that exhibit emergent phenomena. They provide learners with “entity”-level construction primitives that reflect an underlying scientific model. These primitives can be directly “painted” into a sandbox space, where they can then be combined, arranged, and manipulated to construct complex systems and explore the emergent properties of those systems. We argue that ESSs offer a means of addressing some of the key barriers to adopting rich, constructionist model-based inquiry approaches in science classrooms at scale. Situating the ESS in a large-scale science modeling curriculum we are implementing across the USA, we describe how the unique “entity-level” primitive design of an ESS facilitates knowledge system refinement at both an individual and social level, we describe how it supports flexible modeling practices by providing both continuous and discrete modes of executability, and we illustrate how it offers students a variety of opportunities for validating their qualitative understandings of emergent systems as they develop.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15


  1. Abrahamson D, Wilensky U (2004) ProbLab: a computer-supported unit in probability and statistics. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Bergen, Norway

  2. Balacheff N, Kaput J (1997) computer-based learning environments in mathematics. In: Bishop AJ, Clements K, Keitel C, Kilpatrick J, Laborde C (eds) International handbook of mathematics education. Springer, Netherlands, pp 511–564. Retrieved from

  3. Blikstein P, Wilensky U (2004) MaterialSim: an agent-based simulation toolkit for learning materials science. In: International conference on engineering education. Gainsville, Florida

  4. 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 14:81–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brady C, White T, Davis S, Hegedus S (2013) SimCalc and the networked classroom. In: Hegedus S, Roschelle J (eds) The SimCalc vision and contributions: democratizing access to important mathematics. Springer, New York, NY, pp 99–121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Kindfield A, Horwitz P, Tinker R, Gerlits B, Willett J (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: what do they learn? how do they learn? how do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13:23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burg B, Kuhn A, Parnin C (2013) 1st international workshop on live programming (LIVE 2013). In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on software engineering, pp 1529–1530 Retrieved from

  8. Caperton IH (2010) Toward a theory of game-media literacy: playing and building as reading and writing. Int J Gaming Comput Mediat Simul 2(1):1–16

  9. Carey S (1988) Reorganization of knowledge in the course of acquisition. In: Ontogeny, phylogeny, and historical development. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 1–27

  10. Clement J (1982) Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. Am J Phys 50:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking (2010) Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking (2011) Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. National Research Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davis SM (2010) Generative activities: making sense of 1098 functions. In: Lesh R, Galbraith PL, Haines CR, Hurford A (eds) Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies. Springer, New York, NY, pp 189–198

    Google Scholar 

  14. diSessa AA (1988) Knowledge in pieces. In: Constructivism in the computer age. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 49–70

  15. diSessa AA (1993) Toward an epistemology of physics. Cogn Instr 10:105–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. diSessa AA (1996) What do “just plain folk” know about physics? In: The handbook of education and human development: new models of learning, teaching, and schooling. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 709–730

  17. diSessa AA (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning and literacy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  18. diSessa AA, Sherin B (1998) What changes in conceptual change? Int J Sci Educ 20:1155–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Driver R, Squires A, Rushworth P, Wood-Robinson V (1994) Making sense of secondary science: research into children’s ideas. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  20. Finzer W, Erickson T, Binker J (2002) Fathom dynamic statistics software. Key Curriculum Press Technologies, Emeryville, CA

  21. Glaser R, Chi MTH (1988) Overview. In: The nature of expertise. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, pp xv–xxvii

  22. Gobert J, Horwitz P, Tinker B, Buckley B, Wilensky U, Levy ST, Dede C (2003) Modeling across the curriculum: scaling up modeling using technology. In: Paper presented at the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Boston, MA

  23. Goody J (1977) The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guzdial M (1994) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interact Learn Environ 4(1):001–044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hammer D (1996) Misconceptions or p-prims: how may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? J Learn Sci 5:97–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hammer D, Elby A, Scherr RE, Redish EF (2005) Resources, framing, and transfer. In: Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp 89–120

  27. Hawkins D (1974) The informed vision: essays on learning and human nature. Algora Publishing, New York, NY

  28. Jackiw N (1991) The geometer’s sketchpad [Software]. Key Curriculum Press Technologies, Emeryville, CA

  29. Jona K, Wilensky U, Trouille L, Horn MS, Orton K, Weintrop D, Beheshti E (2014) Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). In: Paper presented at the future directions in computer science education summit meeting, Orlando, FL

  30. Kafai YB (1995) Minds in play: computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kafai YB (2006) Constructionism. In: The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York

  32. Kaput J, Roschelle J (1996) SimCalc MathWorlds. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA

    Google Scholar 

  33. Konold C, Miller CD (2005) TinkerPlots: dynamic data exploration. Key Curriculum Press, Emeryville, CA

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  35. Laborde JM (1990) CABRI Geometry [Software]. Brooks-Cole Publishing Co, New York, NY

  36. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Cambridge handbook learning sciences, pp 371–388

  37. Lesh R, Doerr H (2000) Symbolizing, communicating, and mathematizing: key components of models and modeling. In: Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 361–384

  38. Lesh R, Doerr H (2003) Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In: Beyond constructivism: a models & modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

  39. Lesh R, Doerr H (eds) (2003b) Beyond constructivism: a models & modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problems solving. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lesh R, Doerr H (2012) Alternatives to trajectories and pathways to describe development in modeling and problem solving. In: Blum W, Ferri RB, Maaß K (eds) Mathematikunterricht im Kontext von Realität, Kultur und Lehrerprofessionalität. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Germany, pp 138–147

  41. Lesh R, Hoover M, Hole B, Kelly A, Post T (2000) Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In: Kelly A, Lesh R (eds) Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 591–646

  42. Lesh R, Hamilton E, Kaput J (eds) (2008) Models & modeling as foundations for the future in mathematics education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  43. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009a) Crossing levels and representations: the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum. J Sci Educ Technol 18:224–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009b) Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: navigating the complexities of the particulate world. J Sci Educ Technol 18:243–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Levy ST, Novak M, Wilensky U (2006) Students’ foraging through the complexities of the particulate world in the Connected Chemistry (MAC) curriculum. In: Annual meeting of the American educational research association, San Francisco. Retrieved from

  46. Martin F, Hjalmarson M, Wankat P (2006) When the model is a program. In: Lesh R, Hamilton E, Kaput J (eds) Foundations for the future in mathematics education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  47. McCloskey M (1984) Naive theories of motion. In: Mental models. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

  48. McDermott LC (1983) Critical review of research in the domain of mechanics. In: First international workshop research on physics education. Paris, pp 139–182

  49. Minsky M (1986) The society of mind. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  50. Moreno-Armella L, Hegedus SJ (2009) Co-action with digital technologies. ZDM Math Educ 41(4):505–519. doi:10.1007/s11858-009-0200-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moreno-Armella L, Sriraman B (2005) The articulation of symbol and mediation in mathematics education. ZDM Math Educ 37(6):476–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving, vol 14. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  53. NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  54. Noss R, Hoyles C (1996) Windows on mathematical meanings: learning cultures and computers. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Osborne R, Wittrock M (1985) The generative learning model and its implications for science education. Stud Sci Educ 12:59–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Papert S, Harel I (1991) Situating constructionism. In: Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, New York

  58. Passmore CM, Svoboda J (2012) Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. Int J Sci Educ 34(10):1535–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66(2):211–227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207

  60. Roth WM (1995) Affordances of computers in teacher–student interactions: the case of interactive physics™. J Res Sci Teach 32(4):329–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Schwartz JL, Yerushalmy M (1987) The geometric supposer: an intellectual prosthesis for making conjectures. Coll Math J 18(1):58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Schwarz CV, Reiser BJ, Davis EA, Kenyon L, Achér A, Fortus D, Krajcik J (2009) Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):632–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sengupta P, Wilensky U (2005) NIELS: an emergent multi-agent based modeling environment for learning physics. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS). Utrecht, Netherlands

  64. Sengupta P, Wilensky U (2009) Learning electricity with NIELS: thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. Int J Comput Math Learn 14:21–50

  65. Sengupta P, Farris AV, Wright M (2012) From agents to continuous change via aesthetics: learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technol Knowl Learn 17(1–2):23–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sengupta P, Kinnebrew JS, Basu S, Biswas G, Clark D (2013) Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Educ Inf Technol 18:351–380

  67. Sherin B (2006) Common sense clarified: the role of intuitive knowledge in physics problem solving. J Res Sci Teach 43:535–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sherin B, diSessa AA, Hammer D (1993) Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through the collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ 3:91–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Simon HA, Chase WG (1973) Skill in chess: experiments with chess-playing tasks and computer simulation of skilled performance throw light on some human perceptual and memory processes. Am Sci 61(4):394–403

    Google Scholar 

  70. Smith JP, diSessa AA, Roschelle J (1994) Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J Learn Sci 3(2):115–163. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0302_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stewart J, Cartier JL, Passmore CM (2005) Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In: How students learn: science in the classroom. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 515–565

  72. Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry—incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12:285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stroup W, Wilensky U (2014) On the embedded complementarity of agent-based and aggregate reasoning in students' developing understanding of dynamic systems. Technol Knowl Learn 19(1–2):1–34

    Google Scholar 

  74. Stroup W, Ares N, Hurford A (2005) A dialectic analysis of generativity: issues of network-supported design in mathematics and science. Math Think Learn 7(3):181–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Stroup W, Ares N, Hurford A, Lesh RA (2007) Diversity by design: the what, why and how of generativity in next-generation classroom networks. In: Lesh RA, Kaput JJ (eds) Foundations of the future: twenty-first century models and modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tasar MH (2010) What part of the concept of acceleration is difficult to understand: the mathematics, the physics, or both? ZDM Math Educ 42:469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tisue S, Wilensky U (2004) NetLogo: design and implementation of a multi-agent modeling environment. In: Proceedings of the agent 2004 conference on social dynamics: interaction, reflexivity and emergence, Chicago, IL

  78. Trouille L, Beheshti E, Horn M, Jona K, Kalogera V, Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2013) Bringing computational thinking into the high school science and math classroom. In: American astronomical society meeting abstracts, vol 221

  79. Trowbridge DE, McDermott LC (1980) Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension. Am J Phys 48:1020–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Trowbridge DE, McDermott LC (1981) Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. Am J Phys 49:242–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. White BY (1993) ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instr 10(1):1–100. doi:10.2307/3233779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Wieman CE, Adams WK, Perkins KK (2008) PhET: simulations that enhance learning. Science 322(5902):682–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wilensky U (1996) Making sense of probability through paradox and programming: a case study in a connected mathematics framework. In: Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

  84. Wilensky U (1999a) NetLogo [computer software] version. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  85. Wilensky U (1999b) GasLab: an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring micro-and-macro- views of gases. In: Roberts N, Feurzeig W, Hunter B (eds) Computer modeling and simulation in science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–178

    Google Scholar 

  86. Wilensky U (2001) Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In: Proceedings of EuroLogo 2001. Linz, Austria

  87. Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab modeling toolkit [special issue]. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1): 1–4

  88. Wilensky U (2014) Computational thinking through modeling and simulation. In: Whitepaper presented at the summit on future directions in computer education. Orlando, FL.

  89. Wilensky U, Papert S (2006) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Annual meeting of the American educational research association, San Francisco

  90. Wilensky U, Papert S (2010) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Proceedings of constructionism 2010 Paris, France

  91. 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. Cogn Instr 24:171–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wilensky U, Stroup W (1999a) HubNet. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  93. Wilensky U, Stroup W (1999) Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms. In: Proceedings of the 1999 conference on computer support for collaborative learning, CSCL ‘99 Palo Alto, CA

  94. Wilensky U, Levy S, Novak M (2004) Connected chemistry curriculum. Retrieved from

  95. Wilensky U, Brady C, Horn M (2014) Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Commun ACM 57(8):17–21

  96. Wilkerson-Jerde MH (2012) The DeltaTick project: learning quantitative change in complex systems with expressive technologies. Retrieved from

  97. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Wilensky U (2010) Restructuring change, interpreting changes: the deltatick modeling and analysis toolkit. In: Proceedings of constructionism 2010. Paris, France

  98. Windschitl M, Thompson J, Braaten M (2008) Beyond the scientific method: model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Sci Educ 92(5):941–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wittrock M (1989) Generative processes of comprehension. Educ Psychol 24(4):345–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Wittrock M (1992) Generative learning processes of the brain. Educ Psychol 27(4):531–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The research reported here is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant #DRL-1020101. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corey Brady.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brady, C., Holbert, N., Soylu, F. et al. Sandboxes for Model-Based Inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 24, 265–286 (2015).

Download citation


  • Constructionism
  • Design
  • Agent-based modeling
  • Scalability