StarLogo TNG

Making Agent-Based Modeling Accessible and Appealing to Novices
  • Eric Klopfer
  • Hal Scheintaub
  • Wendy Huang
  • Daniel Wendel

Computational approaches to science are radically altering the nature of scientific investigatiogn. Yet these computer programs and simulations are sparsely used in science education, and when they are used, they are typically “canned” simulations which are black boxes to students. StarLogo The Next Generation (TNG) was developed to make programming of simulations more accessible for students and teachers. StarLogo TNG builds on the StarLogo tradition of agent-based modeling for students and teachers, with the added features of a graphical programming environment and a three-dimensional (3D) world. The graphical programming environment reduces the learning curve of programming, especially syntax. The 3D graphics make for a more immersive and engaging experience for students, including making it easy to design and program their own video games. Another change to StarLogo TNG is a fundamental restructuring of the virtual machine to make it more transparent. As a result of these changes, classroom use of TNG is expanding to new areas. This chapter is concluded with a description of field tests conducted in middle and high school science classes.


Virtual Machine Execution Model Puzzle Piece Execution Cycle Movement Command 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agalianos, A., Noss, R., Whitty, G.: Logo in mainstream schools: the struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education 22(4), 479–500 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Association for the Advancement of Science: Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Begel, A.: LogoBlocks: A graphical programming Language for interacting with the world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Cambridge, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casti, J.L.: Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. Abacus, London (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cypher, A., Smith, D.C.: Kidsim: End user programming of simulations. In: I.R. Katz, R.L. Mack, L. Marks, M.B. Rosson, J. Nielsen (eds.) Proceedings of ACM CHI'95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems', Vol. 1 of Papers: Programming by Example, pp. 27–34, ACM, Denver, CO (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    diSessa, A.: Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    diSessa, A., Abelson, H.: Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM 29(9), 859–868 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, I.: Children as software designers: A constructionist approach for learning mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior 9(1), 3–93 (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel, I., Papert, S. (eds): Constructionism, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holland, J.H.: Emergence: From chaos to order. Helix, Reading, MA (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kafai, Y.B.: Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children's Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kafai, Y.B.: Software by kids for kids. Communications of the ACM 39(4), 38–39 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Logo Computer Systems Inc. Microworlds Logo, Highgate Springs, VT (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lucena, A.T. (n.d.): Children's understanding of place value: The design and analysis of a computer game.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mathworks: Matlab, Natick, MA (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nature: 2020 Vision. Nature 440, 398–419, New York, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papert, S.: The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Basic Books, New York, NY (1993).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Resnick, M.: Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds (Complex Adaptive Systems). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1994)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Resnick, M.: Rethinking learning in the digital age. In: G. Kirkman (ed) The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Resnick, M., Bruckman, A., Martin. D.: Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions 3(5), 40–50, New York, NY (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., Silverman, B.: Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal 35(3–4), 443–452, Yorktown Heights, NY (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Cooke, S.: The Computer Clubhouse. In: D. Schon, B. Sanyal, W. Mitchell (eds): High Technology and Low-Income Communities. pp. 266–286. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roberts, N., Anderson, D., Deal, E., Garet, M., Shaffer, W.: Introduction to Computer Simulation: A System Dynamics Modeling Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roschelle, J.: CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ (1996)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roschelle, J., Kaput, J.: Educational software architecture and systemic impact: The promise of component software. Journal of Education Computing Research 14(3), 217–228, Baywood, NY (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roughgarden, J., Bergman, A., Shafir, S., Taylor, C.: Adaptive computation in ecology and evolution: A guide for future research. In: R. K. Belew and M. Mitchell (eds.). Adaptive Individuals in Evolving Populations: Models and Algorithms, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Science of Complexity Vol. 16, pp. 25–30. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sander, T.I., McCabe, J.A.: The Use of Complexity Science. A Report to the U.S. Department of Education. USGPO, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soloway, E., Pryor, A., Krajik, J., Jackson, S., Stratford, S.J., Wisnudel, M., Klein, J.T.: Scienceware model-it: Technology to support authentic science inquiry. T.H.E. Journal, 25(3), 54–56, Irvine, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    State of Maine, D.o.E.: Maine Learning Technology Initiative, Augsuta, ME (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Waldrop, M.M.: Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY (1992)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    White, B.: Thinkertools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction 10, 1100, Philadpelphia, PA (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilensky, U.: 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), New York, NY (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Klopfer
    • 1
  • Hal Scheintaub
    • 2
  • Wendy Huang
    • 1
  • Daniel Wendel
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.The Governor's AcademyByfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations