Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Complex Ecosystems Through an Agent-Based Participatory Watershed Simulation

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The properties and functions of complex systems apply across a variety of domains of science and are at the heart of the solutions to many global crises facing the world today. As such, understanding of complex systems has been increasingly recognized as a core goal of science education. Learning about complexity-related concepts and phenomena is persistently considered difficult for many students—even at the undergraduate level, but traditional pedagogical approaches have been unsuccessful in teaching complex systems effectively. Evidence indicates that agent-based participatory simulations can be promising for this purpose. Using mixed methods, cross-case analysis, we examined how undergraduates experience changes in their understanding of the watershed as a complex ecosystem with the use of a particular agent-based participatory simulation called the UVA Bay Game. While one of the cases yielded evidence of nonsignificant quantitative change between pre- and post-simulation concept maps, this study observed an overall positive increase of complex system understanding through both concept map analysis and narrative reflections on learning. Our findings extend the current understanding of the role of participatory agent-based simulations in teaching and learning about complex systems in classrooms. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Access to the software can be obtained by contacting its creator, Dr. Dirk Ifenthaler, by email at ifenthaler@uni-mannheim.de.

References

  • Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2015). A scaffolding framework to support learning of emergent phenomena using multi-agent-based simulation environments. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 293–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate—A new and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857–1882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumschein, P., Hung, W., Jonassen, D., & Strobel, J. (Eds.). (2009). Model-based approaches to learning. Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandstädter, K., Harms, U., & Großschedl, J. (2012). Assessing system thinking through different concept-mapping practices. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2147–2170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centola, D., Wilensky, U., & McKenzie, E. (2000). Survival of the groupiest: Facilitating students’ understanding of the multiple levels of fitness through multi-agent modeling-The EACH Project. International Journal of Complex Systems, 377.

  • Chesapeake Bay Program. (n.d.). Discover the Chesapeake. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Misunderstanding emergent processes as causal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubovi, I., & Lee, V. R. (2019). Instructional support for learning with agent-based simulations: A tale of vicarious and guided exploration learning approaches. Computers & Education, 142, 103644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P. J., Coulson, R. L., & Spiro, R. J. (2001). Learners’ (mis)understanding of important and difficult concepts. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 349–375). AAAI/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1993). Learning, teaching, and testing for complex conceptual understanding. Test theory for a new generation of tests, 181–217.

  • Funke, J. (1991). Solving complex problems: Exploration and control of complex problems. In R. Sternberg & P. Frensch (Eds.), Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 185–222). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Lubienski, S., & Id-Deen, L. (2006). Reconsidering the study of mathematics instructional practices: The importance of curricular context in understanding local and global teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9, 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 6–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ifenthaler, D. (2014). AKOVIA: Automated knowledge visualization and assessment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19, 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 11–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45, 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Perry, J. (2005). 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, 285–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Tissenbaum, M. B., & Kim, T. (2021). Procedural collaboration in educational games: Supporting complex system understandings in immersive whole class simulations. Communication Studies, 72(6), 994–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Learmonth, G., Smith, D. E., Sherman, W. H., White, M. A., & Plank, J. (2011). A practical approach to the complex problem of environmental sustainability: The UVA Bay Game. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 16 (1), Article 4.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral Ecology, 15(6), 1044–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2009). Transitions and tipping points in complex environmental systems. National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Jersey Department of Education. (2006). New Jersey core curriculum content standards for science.

  • Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A., Feyzi Behnagh, R., Ni, L., Mohsinah, A. A., Burgess, K. J., & Guo, L. (2019). Emerging technologies as pedagogical tools for teaching and learning science: A literature review. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottino, J. M. (2004). Engineering complex systems. Nature, 427, 399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school participants’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 784–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A., Garet, M., Desimone, L., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study. American Institutes of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rates, C. A., Mulvey, B. K., & Feldon, D. F. (2016). Promoting conceptual change for complex systems understanding: Outcomes of an agent-based participatory simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 610–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (1997). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1993). Beyond the deterministic, centralized mindsets: A new thinking for new science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  • Rutten, N., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Van Der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seel, N. M., & Blumschein, P. (2009). Modeling and simulation in learning and instruction: A theoretical perspective. In Model-based approaches to learning, 2–14. Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill Sense.

  • Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 489–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, C., & Lücken, M. (2010). System competence—Are elementary students able to deal with a biological system? NorDiNa, 6(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 57–75.

  • Stroup, W. M., & Wilensky, U. (2014). On the embedded complementarity of agent-based and aggregate reasoning in students’ developing understanding of dynamic systems. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tofel-Grehl, C., Jex, E., Searle, K., Ball, D., Zhao, X., & Bunnell, G. (2020). Electrifying: One teacher’s discursive and instructional changes through engagement in e-textiles to teach science content. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 293–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.Va. Bay Game. (n.d.). About The Game. Retrieved September 21, 2020, from https://web.arch.virginia.edu/baygame/about/

  • Virginia Department of Education. (2020). Environmental literacy. https://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/environmental_literacy/index.shtml

  • Vitale, J. M., McBride, E., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Distinguishing complex ideas about climate change: Knowledge integration vs. specific guidance. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1548–1569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), The international handbook of conceptual change (2nd ed., pp. 11–30). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2014). Examining cognitive development from a conceptual change point of view: The framework theory approach. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 645–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S. (2019). The development of students’ understanding of science. Frontiers in Education, 4, 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 381–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinerth, K., Koenig, V., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2014). Concept maps: A useful and usable tool for computer-based knowledge assessment? A literature review with a focus on usability. Computers & Education, 78, 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (1998). Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Y. Bar-Yam. In Second international conference on complex systems (pp. 171–209).

  • 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, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based design for systems learning in classrooms computer supported collaborative learning. Stanford University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

  • Yin, Y., Vanides, J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Comparison of two concept-mapping techniques: Implications for scoring, interpretation, and use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 166–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. A., Goh, S.-E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Instructional Technology and Learning Sciences, Utah State University, 2830 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322, USA

    Soojeong Jeong, Zhang Feng & David F. Feldon

  2. Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education in the College of Education, North Carolina State University, 326D Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA

    Jennifer B. Elliott

  3. Department of College English, School of International Studies, Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, 264003, Shandong, China

    Zhang Feng

Authors
  1. Soojeong Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer B. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhang Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David F. Feldon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soojeong Jeong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This study involved human participants, and all procedures of the study were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Virginia (UVA).

Consent to Participate

All participants completed an informed consent process under UVA IRB protocol that included permission for the researchers to collect data both directly from participants and from their academic records maintained by the university.

Consent for Publication

All participants completed an informed consent process under UVA IRB protocol that included permission for the researchers to publish the findings of the current study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeong, S., Elliott, J.B., Feng, Z. et al. Understanding Complex Ecosystems Through an Agent-Based Participatory Watershed Simulation. J Sci Educ Technol 31, 691–705 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09987-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09987-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation