Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Atom is Known by the Company it Keeps: A Constructionist Learning Environment for Materials Science Using Agent-Based Modeling

  • Published:
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reports on “MaterialSim”, an undergraduate-level computational materials science set of constructionist activities which we have developed and tested in classrooms. We investigate: (a) the cognition of students engaging in scientific inquiry through interacting with simulations; (b) the effects of students programming simulations as opposed to only interacting with ready-made simulations; (c) the characteristics, advantages, and trajectories of scientific content knowledge that is articulated in epistemic forms and representational infrastructures unique to computational materials science, and (d) the principles which govern the design of computational agent-based learning environments in general and for materials science in particular. Data sources for the evaluation of these studies include classroom observations, interviews with students, videotaped sessions of model-building, questionnaires, and analysis of artifacts. Results suggest that by becoming ‘model builders,’ students develop deeper understanding of core concepts in materials science, and learn how to better identify unifying principles and behaviors within the content matter.

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
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
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more on design for learning versus design for use see, for example, Soloway et al. (1994).

  2. Although the rigorous term would be “free energy,” for simplicity we will use “energy”.

  3. The NetLogo screen in divided into a grid of patches. The size of the patches can be defined by the user.

  4. All names were changed for anonymity.

  5. On a more advanced level, similar research was undertaken and published by researchers, such as Ono et al. (1999).

  6. On a more advanced level, similar research was undertook and published by many researchers, such as Gao et al. (1997) and Hassold and Srolovitz (1995).

  7. For elaboration on the idea of organizing layers, see “Papert’s principle” in Minsky’s Society of Mind (1986).

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Wilensky, U. (2005). ProbLab goes to school: Design, teaching, and learning of probability with multi-agent interactive computer models. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education.

  • American Society for Engineering Education. (2007). ASEE profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges. From http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2007ProfileEng.pdf.

  • Anderson, M. P., Srolovitz, D. J., Grest, G. S., & Sahni, P. S. (1984). Computer simulation of grain growth: I. Kinetics. Acta Metallurgica (32), 783–792. doi:10.1016/0001-6160(84)90151-2.

  • Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2004). Virtual robotics in a collaborative constructionist learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 12–16.

  • Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2005). Complex play systems—Results from a classroom implementation of Vbot. In W. Stroup & U. Wilensky (Chairs) & C. D. Lee (Discussant), Patterns in group learning with next-generation network technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11–15.

  • Blikstein, P. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: Content, representation and pedagogy within the epistemic revolution of the complexity sciences. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

  • Blikstein, P., & Tschiptschin, A. P. (1999). Monte Carlo simulation of grain growth. Materials Research, 2(3), 133–137. doi:10.1590/S1516-14391999000300004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2004a). MaterialSim: An agent-based simulation toolkit for learning materials science. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, Gainesville, FL.

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2004b). MaterialSim curriculum. Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/curriculum/materialsim.

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2005). Less is more: Agent-based simulation as a powerful learning tool in materials science. 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005). Utrecht, Holland.

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006a). From inert to generative modeling: Two case studies of multiagent-based simulation in undergraduate engineering education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006b). ‘Hybrid modeling’: Advanced scientific investigation linking computer models and real-world sensing. 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Bloomington, USA.

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Implementing multi-agent modeling in the classroom: Lessons from empirical studies in undergraduate engineering education. In M. Jacobson (Chair) & R. Noss (Discussant), Complex Systems & Learning: Empirical Research, Issues & ‘Seeing’ Scientific Knowledge With New Eyes. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merri’nboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 266–267) (ICLS).

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. S. (1961). Today’s dilemma in engineering education. Ire Transactions on Education. E (Norwalk, Conn.), 4(2), 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, J. E. (1949). Some factors affecting the rate of grain growth in metals. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers (180), 73–91.

  • Centola, D., Wilensky, U., & McKenzie, E. (2000). A hands-on modeling approach to evolution: Learning about the evolution of cooperation and altruism through multi-agent modeling—the EACH project. Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI, June 14–17.

  • Colgate, J. E., McKenna, A., & Ankenman, B. (2004). IDEA: Implementing design throughout the curriculum at northwestern. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 405–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, N., & Sallach, D. (2001). Repast. University of Chicago. http://repast.sourceforge.net.

  • Committee on the Education and Utilization of the Engineering. (1985). Engineering education and practice in the United States: Foundations of our techno-economic future. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. (1999). Learning engineering: Design, languages, and experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 145–148.

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, L. (1995). Microworlds as Representations. Proceedings of the 2nd International NATO Symposium on Advanced Technology and Education.

  • Einstein, H. H. (2002). Engineering change at MIT. Civil Engineering, 72(10), 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., Thompson, R. G., & Patterson, B. R. (1997). Computer simulation of grain growth with second phase particle pinning. Acta Materialia, 45(9), 3653–3658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J., Horwitz, P., Tinker, B., Buckley, B., Wilensky, U., Levy, S., et al. (2004). Modeling across the curriculum: Scaling up modeling using technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. July 31–August 2, Boston, MA.

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi, K. (2005). Systematic and sustainable reform in engineering education. Journal of Environmental Engineering—ASCE, 131(4), 501–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassold, G. N., & Srolovitz, D. J. (1995). Computer simulation of grain growth with mobile particles. Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia, 32(10), 1541–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, P., Gobert, J., Wilensky, U., & Dede, C. (2003). MAC: A longitudinal study of modeling technology in science classrooms. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC), Seattle, WA.

  • Hurst, K. D. (1995). A new paradigm for engineering education. Paper presented at the ASEE Frontiers in Education, Atlanta, GA.

  • Jerath, S. (1983). Engineering-education in perspective. Mechanical Engineering, 105(2), 92–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katehi, L., Banks, K., Diefes-Dux, H., Follman, D., Gaunt, J., Haghighi, K., et al. (2004). A new framework for academic reform in engineering education. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.

  • Krause, S. J., & Tasooji, A. (2007). Diagnosing students’ misconceptions on solubility and saturation for understanding of phase diagrams. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Portland, USA.

  • Kulov, N. N., & Slin’ko, M. G. (2004). The state of the art in chemical engineering science and education. Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering, 38(2), 105–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamley, R. A. (1996). A model for an engineering education. Marine Technology and Sname News, 33(2), 119–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., Kim, H., & Wilensky, U. (2004). Connected chemistry—A study of secondary students using agent-based models to learn chemistry. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 12–16.

  • Levy, S. T., Novak, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Students’ foraging through the complexities of the particulate world: Scaffolding for independent inquiry in the connected chemistry (MAC) curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Martin, F. (1996). Ideal and real systems: A study of notions of control in undergraduates who design robots. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice (pp. 297–332). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • MIT Center for Policy Alternatives. (1975). Future directions in engineering-education—System response to a changing world—a report. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, M. (2000). Design learning as conceptual change: A framework for developing a science of design learning. Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education. St. Louis, MS: ASEE.

  • Ono, N., Kimura, K., & Watanabe, T. (1999). Monte Carlo simulation of grain growth with the full spectra of grain orientation and grain boundary energy. Acta Materialia, 47(3), 1007–1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panel on Undergraduate Engineering Education. (1986). Engineering undergraduate education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parunak, H. V. D., Savit, R., & Riolo, R. L. (1998). Agent-based modeling vs equation-based modeling: A case study and users’ guide. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1534, 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, D. A., & Easterling, K. E. (1992). Phase transformations in metals and alloys (2nd ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M. C. (2002). Nanotechnology—A frontier for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(5), 488–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. S., & Stouffer, W. B. (2005). Survey of the national civil engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131(2), 118–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2008). On the learnability of electricity as a complex system. In M. Jacobson (Chair) & R. Noss (Discussant), Complex Systems & Learning: Empirical Research, Issues & ‘‘Seeing” Scientific Knowledge With New Eyes. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merri’nboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 3. pp. 267–268). Utrecht, The Netherlands.

  • Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srolovitz, D. J., Anderson, M. P., Sahni, P. S., & Grest, G. S. (1984). Computer simulation of grain growth—II. Grain size distribution, topology and local dynamics. Acta Metallurgica, 32(5), 793–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, K., & Asta, M. (2005). Current status and outlook of computational materials science education in the US. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering, 13(2), R53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS 2004). Boston, MA, May 16–21.

  • Tryggvason, G., & Apelian, D. (2006). Re-engineering engineering education for the challenges of the 21st century. JOM, 58(10), 14–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1993). Connected mathematics: Building concrete relationships with mathematical knowledge. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming and learning probability. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 231–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999a). NetLogo. [computer software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (2003). 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems and reformulating scientific disciplines: Implications for learning, analysis of social systems, and educational policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  • Wilensky, U., Hazzard, E., & Longenecker, S. (2000). A bale of turtles: A case study of a middle school science class studying complexity using StarLogoT. Paper presented at the meeting of the Spencer Foundation. New York, NY, October 11–13.

  • Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (in preparation). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. Working paper. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Northwestern University.

  • Wilensky, U., Papert, S., Sherin, B., diSessa, A., Kay, A., & Turkle, S. (2005). Center for Learning and Computation-Based Knowledge (CLiCK). Proposal to the National Science Foundation Science of Learning Centers.

  • Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2009). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Shargel, B. (2002). Behavior Space [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Complementarity in equational and agent-based models: A pedagogical perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Education Association, San Diego, CA.

  • Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamins, D. (2005). Towards a theory of “local to global” in distributed multi-agent systems (I). Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. The Netherlands.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Tschiptschin (Engineering School of the University of São Paulo, Brazil), Prof. Srolovitz (Yeshiva University), the members of the Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling at Northwestern University, in particular, Spiro Maroulis and Michelle Wilkerson-Jerde, and Prof. Dor Abrahamson (UC Berkeley) for valuable comments on drafts of this paper. We also thank Ann McKenna from the McCormick School of Engineering at Northwestern University. This work was funded under the umbrella of three NSF grants: NSF grants REC-0126227, HCC-0713619 and NSF EEC-0648316.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences and Technology Design Program, School of Education, and Department of Computer Science, School of Engineering (by courtesy), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Paulo Blikstein

  2. Department of Learning Sciences, School of Education and Social Policy, and Department of Computer Science, McCormick School of Engineering, Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Uri Wilensky

Authors
  1. Paulo Blikstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uri Wilensky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulo Blikstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blikstein, P., Wilensky, U. An Atom is Known by the Company it Keeps: A Constructionist Learning Environment for Materials Science Using Agent-Based Modeling. Int J Comput Math Learning 14, 81–119 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-009-9148-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-009-9148-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation