Learning Functional Models of Aquaria: The ACT Project on Ecosystem Learning in Middle School Science

  • Ashok K. Goel
  • Spencer Rugaber
  • David A. Joyner
  • Swaroop S. Vattam
  • Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
  • Rebecca Jordan
  • Suparna Sinha
  • Sameer Honwad
  • Catherine Eberbach
Chapter

Abstract

The ACT project is an ongoing collaboration among learning, cognitive, computing and biological scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology and Rutgers University, focusing on learning functional models of ecosystems in middle school science. In particular, ACT (for Aquarium Construction Toolkit) is an interactive learning environment for stimulating and scaffolding construction of Structure-Behavior-Function (SBF) models to reason about classroom aquaria. Initial results from deployment of ACT in several classrooms with a few hundred middle school children indicate statistically significant improvement in identification of the structure, behaviors and functions of classroom aquaria as well as appropriation of SBF modeling by some middle school teachers for modeling other natural systems. In this article, we summarize and review the main results from ACT on learning about SBF models of ecosystems in middle school science and describe self-regulated learning in ACT, while also looking ahead and outlining the design of a metacognitive ACT toolkit.

References

  1. Aleven, V., McLaren, B., Roll, I., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Toward tutoring help seeking: Applying cognitive modeling to meta-cognitive skills. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2004) (pp. 227–239). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Aleven, V., Stalh, E., Schworm, S., Ficher, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments at metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition: Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhatta, S., & Goel, A. (1997). Learning generic mechanisms for innovative design adaptation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., & Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: A New agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3–4), 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandrasekaran, B. (1994). Functional representations and causal processes. In M. Yovits (Ed.), Advances in computers (pp. 73–143). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clement, J. (2008). Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Dawes, J. (2000). Tropical aquarium fish: A step by step guide to setting up and maintaining a freshwater or marine aquarium. Sterling publishing, New York City.Google Scholar
  11. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations from research and implementation. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Edelson, D. (1997). Realizing authentic scientific learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. In K. Tobin & B. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erden, M., Komoto, H., van Beek, T., D’Amelio, V., Echavarria, E., & Tomiyama, T. (2008). A review of function modeling: Approaches and applications. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 22(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goel, A., Gomez, A., Grue, N., Murdock, W., Recker, M., & Govindaraj, T. (1996). Towards design learning environments—Explaining how devices work. In Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, Cognitive Science Society, ACM, International Society of the learning Sciences, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Goel, A., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior and function of complex systems: The SBF modeling language. International Journal of AI in Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 23, 23–35. Special Issue on Developing and Using Engineering Ontologies.Google Scholar
  17. Goel, A., Vattam, S., Rugaber, S., Joyner, D., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan R, et al. (2010) Learning functional and causal abstractions of classroom Aquaria. In Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Springer, Cognitive Science Society, ACM, International Society of the learning Sciences, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  18. Hmelo, C., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Honwad, S., Eberbach, C., Sinha, S., Goel, A, et al. (2011). Foregrounding behaviors and functions to promote ecosystem understanding. In Proceedings of 9th Hawaii International Conference on Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hmelo-Silver, C., Liu, L., Gray, S., Finkelstein, H., & Schwartz, R. (2007). Enacting things differently: Using NetLogo models to learn about complex systems. Paper presented at biennial meeting of European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  21. Honwad, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., Gray, S., Sinha, S, et al. (2010). Connecting the visible to the invisible: Helping middle school children understand complex ecosystem processes. In Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Springer, Cognitive Science Society, ACM, International Society of the learning Sciences, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  22. Jordan, R., Gray, S., Demeter, M., Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2009). An assessment of Students’ understanding of ecosystem concepts: Conflating ecological systems and cycles. Applied Environment Education and Communication: an International Journal, 8, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jordan, R., Singer, F., Vaughan, J., & Berkowitz, A. (2008). What should every citizen know about ecology? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 495–500. Ecological Society of America.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitamura, Y., Sano, T., Namba, K., & Mizoguchi, R. (2002). A functional concept ontology and its application to automatic recognition of functional structures. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 16(2), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murdock, J. W., & Goel, A. (2001). Learning about constraints by reflection. In Procs. Fourteenth Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AI-01). In Stroulia and S. Matwin (Eds.), LNAI 2056, (pp. 131–140). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Murdock, J. W., & Goel, A. (2003). Localizing planning with functional process models. In Procs. Thirteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-03), (pp. 73–81). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murdock, J. W., & Goel, A. (2008). Meta-case-based reasoning: Self-improvement through self-understanding. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. New Jersey Department of Education. (2006). Core Curriculum Content Standards. In State of New Jersey Department of Education. Retrieved June 19, 2008, from http://www.state.nj.us/education/cccs/.
  33. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  34. Robbins, J., & Redmiles, D. (1999). Cognitive Support, UML Adherence, and XMI Interchange in Argo/UML. In Proceedings of Conference on Construction of Software Engineering Tools (CoSET 99) (pp. 61–70). Springer, Cognitive Science Society, ACM, International Society of the learning Sciences, Los Angeles, California.Google Scholar
  35. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic Fidely or mediating collaborative inquiry. In D. Day & D. Kovacs (Eds.), Computer, communication and mental models. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  36. Sabelli, N. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simon, H. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.Google Scholar
  38. Simon, H. (1999). Can there be a science of complex systems? In Y. Bar-Yam (Ed.), Unifying themes in complex systems (pp. 3–14). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
  39. Sinha, S., Gray, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Honwad, S., Eberbach, C, et al. (2010). Appropriating conceptual representations: A case of transfer in a middle school science teacher. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Springer, Cognitive Science Society, ACM, International Society of the learning Sciences, Chicago. June 28–29, 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Stadelman, P., & Finley, L. (2003). Tropical fish: setting up and taking care of aquariums made easy: Expert advice for new aquarists. Hauppauge, New York: Barron’s Educational Series.Google Scholar
  41. Stansbury, E. (1999). The simplified classroom aquarium: A teacher’s guide to operating and maintaining a small classroom aquarium. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas publisher.Google Scholar
  42. Stewart, J., Cartier, J., & Passmore, C. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How people learn. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  43. Vattam, S., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Gray, S., et al. (2011). Understanding complex natural systems by articulating structure-behavior-function models. Special issue on Creative Design, 14(1), 166–181.Google Scholar
  44. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL.
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashok K. Goel
    • 1
  • Spencer Rugaber
    • 2
  • David A. Joyner
    • 1
  • Swaroop S. Vattam
    • 1
  • Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver
    • 3
  • Rebecca Jordan
    • 4
  • Suparna Sinha
    • 5
  • Sameer Honwad
    • 6
  • Catherine Eberbach
    • 7
  1. 1.Design & Intelligence LaboratorySchool of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of EducationRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural ResourcesSchool of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  5. 5.Department of Educational PsychologyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  6. 6.Center for Play, Science and Technology Learning (SciPlay)Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  7. 7.Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations