Balancing the Environment: Computational Models as Interactive Participants in a STEM Classroom

This paper describes the work done by sixth grade students to achieve and sustain productive and personally meaningful lines of inquiry with computational models. The capacity to frame interactions with tools as dialogic exchanges with co-participants is a productive practice for disciplinary engagement in science and for computational thinking (Chandrasekharan and Nersessian 2015 ; Dennet 1989 ; Latour 1993 ; Pickering 1995 ). We propose that computational models have unique affordances for dialogic interaction because they are probabilistic and iteratively executable, features that provide an entry point for students to adopt stances that treat computational models as participants. Our analysis reveals that existing patterns in students’ social interactions are resources for interacting flexibly with computational tools as participants. In particular, we found that students treated computational models as participants in three ways: (1) as conversational peers, (2) as co-constructors of lines of inquiry, and (3) as projections of students’ agency and identity. Our data also demonstrate that students take on flexible, rather than fixed, stances toward computational participants. These stances parallel scientists’ interactions with non-human entities, which often involve treating tools as agentive participants in inquiry (Latour 1999 ; Pickering 1995 ), affording students a pathway to practices at the intersection of disciplinary engagement and computational thinking.

[1]  Eric Klopfer,et al.  Technologies to support the creation of complex systems models--using StarLogo software with students. , 2003, Bio Systems.

[2]  Guadalupe Valdés Latin@s and the Intergenerational Continuity of Spanish: The Challenges of Curricularizing Language , 2015 .

[3]  Pratim Sengupta,et al.  Toward a Phenomenology of Computational Thinking in STEM Education , 2018 .

[4]  M. Resnick,et al.  Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World , 1999 .

[5]  Firat Soylu,et al.  Sandboxes for Model-Based Inquiry , 2015 .

[6]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Rethinking correspondence: how the process of constructing models leads to discoveries and transfer in the bioengineering sciences , 2017, Synthese.

[7]  Pratim Sengupta,et al.  Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade with Multi-Agent-Based Computational Models , 2012, Research in Science Education.

[8]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Designing Learning by Teaching Agents: The Betty's Brain System , 2008, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ..

[9]  Luis Moreno-Armella,et al.  Technological Supports for Mathematical Thinking and Learning: Co-action and Designing to Democratize Access to Powerful Ideas , 2018 .

[10]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Turtles, termites, and traffic jams - explorations in massively parallel microworlds , 1994 .

[11]  B. Latour Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory , 2005 .

[12]  Rodney H. Jones,et al.  Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis , 2005 .

[13]  Yu Guo,et al.  Frogs to Think with: Improving Students' Computational Thinking and Understanding of Evolution in A Code-First Learning Environment , 2016, IDC.

[14]  J. Salk Anatomy of Reality: Merging of Intuition and Reason , 1983 .

[15]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework , 2013, Education and Information Technologies.

[16]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2009 .

[17]  Pratim Sengupta,et al.  Perspectival Computational Thinking for Learning Physics: A Case Study of Collaborative Agent- Based Modeling , 2014, ICLS.

[18]  U. Wilensky,et al.  Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories—An Embodied Modeling Approach , 2006 .

[19]  Diane Larsen-Freeman,et al.  Language as a Complex Adaptive System , 2009 .

[20]  Daniel Wendel,et al.  Designing Computer-Supported Complex Systems Curricula for the Next Generation Science Standards in High School Science Classrooms , 2016, Syst..

[21]  B Latour Pasteur on lactic acid yeast: a partial semiotic analysis. , 1993, Configurations.

[22]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Learning Progressions in Context: Tensions and Insights from a Semester-Long Middle School Modeling Curriculum. , 2017 .

[23]  Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 2017 .

[24]  Ricardo Nemirovsky,et al.  Body Motion and Graphing , 1998 .

[25]  Mason Wright,et al.  Programming in K-12 science classrooms , 2015, Commun. ACM.

[26]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[27]  Andra A. DiSessa Inventing Graphing: Meta­ Representational Expertise in Children , 1991 .

[28]  Tomoko Kojiri,et al.  Effective Presentation Speech Support System for Representing Emphasis-Intention , 2015, Syst..

[29]  Daniel Wendel,et al.  Teaching about complex systems is no simple matter: building effective professional development for computer-supported complex systems instruction , 2016, Instructional Science.

[30]  James Paul Gee,et al.  话语分析入门 : 理论与方法 = An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method , 1999 .

[31]  Jeannette M. Wing Computational thinking and thinking about computing , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[32]  Brian E. Gravel,et al.  Exploring Shifts in Middle School Learners’ Modeling Activity While Generating Drawings, Animations, and Computational Simulations of Molecular Diffusion , 2014, Journal of Science Education and Technology.

[33]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[34]  Michael S. Horn,et al.  Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms , 2016 .

[35]  Edith Ackermann,et al.  Perspective-Taking and Object Construction: Two Keys to Learning , 2012 .

[36]  Steven L. Lytinen,et al.  Agent-based Simulation Platforms: Review and Development Recommendations , 2006, Simul..

[37]  D. Dennett The Intentional Stance. , 1987 .

[38]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Building Cognition: The Construction of Computational Representations for Scientific Discovery , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Joyce Malyn-Smith,et al.  Computational thinking for youth in practice , 2011, INROADS.

[40]  Dirk T. Tempelaar,et al.  The role of scaffolding and motivation in CSCL , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[41]  A. Pickering The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science , 1997 .

[42]  Matthew Kearney,et al.  Classroom Use of Multimedia-Supported Predict–Observe–Explain Tasks in a Social Constructivist Learning Environment , 2004 .

[43]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  The social turn in K-12 programming: moving from computational thinking to computational participation , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[44]  Christina V. Schwarz,et al.  Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students , 2016 .

[45]  Y. Kafai,et al.  Computational Participation: Understanding Coding as an Extension of Literacy Instruction. , 2016 .

[46]  Michael S. Horn,et al.  Frog pond: a codefirst learning environment on evolution and natural selection , 2014, IDC.

[47]  Pratim Sengupta,et al.  Learning Electricity with NIELS: Thinking with Electrons and Thinking in Levels , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..