Model construction as a learning activity: a design space and review

VanLehn, Kurt

doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.803125

Cited by 46 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the literature about modeling is based on pre-and postintervention questionnaires, assessments, and interviews, providing little insight into how students' learning processes occur and how best to support them (Louca & Zacharia, 2012). Therefore, identifying such practices and supports is an important area for research (Berland et al, 2015;Schwarz & White, 2005;Schwarz et al, 2009;Sengupta, Kinnebrew, Basu, Biswas, & Clark, 2013;VanLehn, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning progressions in context: Tensions and insights from a semester‐long middle school modeling curriculum

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schwarz and colleagues have proposed and refined a learning progression for modeling that provides a valuable template for envisioning increasingly sophisticated levels of modeling practice at an aggregate level (Fortus, Shwartz, & Rosenfeld, ; Schwarz et al., ; Schwarz, Reiser, Archer, Kenyon, & Fortus, ). Thinking about learning progressions for modeling, however, involves challenges in coordinating between aggregate arcs in the curriculum and individual student learning trajectories. First, individual student performance is often dependent on students’ epistemic aims and the nature of the conceptual and representational context. Second, approaches for longitudinally supporting students in modeling is a relatively nascent endeavor, although notable exemplars have been developed (e.g., IQWST). Third, research on the highest levels of the proposed progression is often hypothetical, because few students demonstrate high‐level modeling practices in typical classrooms. In response to these challenges, we conducted a semester‐long design‐based study of eighth graders engaging in diagrammatic, physical, and computational modeling. In this paper, we explore conceptual and representational contexts designed to support sophisticated modeling practices and beliefs, analyze the nature of high‐level performances achieved through these contexts, and suggest revisions to the articulation of the Schwarz and colleagues learning progression to increase its utility and generalizability when viewed through a resource‐related lens.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning progressions in context: Tensions and insights from a semester‐long middle school modeling curriculum

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We recognize that the systems dynamic modeling approaches described here ( Figure 1) do not represent the only form of system modeling (e.g., decontextualized-generic or specific-mechanistic modeling) or other broad categories of complexity modeling (e.g., spatially-explicit, process and agent-based) that may be useful in sustainability visioning settings [42]. The use (and hybridity) of different modeling approaches may emphasize different visioning quality criteria (e.g., systems modeling for developing systemic and coherent visions; spatially-explicit models for spatial tangibility; process models for operational nuance and specificity; and agent-based modeling for actor-oriented relevance).…”

Section: Discussion and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying, Teaching and Applying Sustainability Visions Using Systems Modeling

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The objective of articulating sustainability visions through modeling is to enhance the outcomes and process of visioning in order to successfully move the system toward a desired state. Models emphasize approaches to develop visions that are viable and resilient and are crafted to adhere to sustainability principles. This approach is largely assembled from visioning processes (resulting in descriptions of desirable future states generated from stakeholder values and preferences) and participatory modeling processes (resulting in systems-based representations of future states co-produced by experts and stakeholders). Vision modeling is distinct from normative scenarios and backcasting processes in that the structure and function of the future desirable state is explicitly articulated as a systems model. Crafting, representing and evaluating the future desirable state as a systems model in participatory settings is intended to support compliance with sustainability visioning quality criteria (visionary, sustainable, systemic, coherent, plausible, tangible, relevant, nuanced, motivational and shared) in order to develop rigorous and operationalizable visions. We provide two empirical examples to demonstrate the incorporation of vision modeling in research practice and education settings. In both settings, vision modeling was used to develop, represent, simulate and evaluate future desirable states. This allowed participants to better identify, explore and scrutinize sustainability solutions. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2014, 6 4453

show abstract

“…Constructionist programming environments support conceptual growth in science by encouraging students to explore, represent, and test science concepts (Pierson, Clark, & Sherard, ; Sengupta, Kinnebrew, Basu, Biswas, & Clark, ; VanLehn, ; Wilensky & Reisman, ; Wilensky & Resnick, ; Wilkerson‐Jerde, ). Constructionism posits that learning occurs when students build relationships between old and new knowledge while creating socially relevant artifacts (Kafai, ; Papert & Harel, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engaging students in computational modeling: The role of an external audience in shaping conceptual learning, model quality, and classroom discourse

Pierson

Clark

2018

Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests that designing for an external audience may support conceptual understanding by offering students increased opportunities to reframe perspectival thinking in ways that support domain‐specific reasoning. While this argument is theoretically compelling, to our knowledge, it has not been empirically tested in terms of comparing the conceptual growth of students designing computational models for an external audience to the conceptual growth of students designing computational models for a classroom audience of their teacher and peers. In a constructionist agent‐based computational modeling environment, we compare the conceptual understanding, artifact quality, and discourse of 6th grade students designing models of tides primarily for an external audience of younger students (i.e., designing for 5th graders) to the conceptual understanding of 6th grade students designing models for a classroom audience. We found that students who designed for an external audience of younger children displayed greater conceptual growth about the mechanisms that cause tidal bulges as evidenced by students’ pre–post assessments, models, and user guides/reports. Our analysis of classroom discourse suggests that designing for an audience of younger children may have facilitated domain‐specific reasoning in whole‐class discussions by creating opportunities for shifts between students’ own perspectives and the perspectives of their anticipated audience.

show abstract

Model construction as a learning activity: a design space and review

Cited by 46 publications

References 85 publications

Learning progressions in context: Tensions and insights from a semester‐long middle school modeling curriculum

Learning progressions in context: Tensions and insights from a semester‐long middle school modeling curriculum

Studying, Teaching and Applying Sustainability Visions Using Systems Modeling

Engaging students in computational modeling: The role of an external audience in shaping conceptual learning, model quality, and classroom discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About