A major theme I’ve noticed is about investigating
how complex phenomena can arise from simple components and simple interactions. Most of the time, there is a lot more behind
phenomena than we might think or initially observe, and one will only figure
that out after deeper investigation into trying to explain the processes behind
them. Investigations are, of course, key
processes to scientific inquiry, and what teachers should expect their students
to learn to do naturally.
I am very excited to work with StarLogo because
the possibilities for modeling different phenomena open up so much. In our last class, I had really wanted to see
how two turtle agents could be programmed to interact with each other with
regards to planets’ motions within our solar system. There are so many other uses I can think of
now too. However I did appreciate the
introduction to Logo programming with NetLogo, where we could only manipulate
one turtle agent. This allowed me to get
a sense of what the programming itself does without worrying about levels, and I
think if I were to use Logo in the classroom, I would introduce my students to
it in a similar fashion. Asking my
students to think of modeling a concept/phenomena with only one agent will
allow them to realize on their own how powerful manipulating multiple agents
could be.
I think that the GasLab shows how crucial
programming can be for experimental labs that are not easily reproducible
outside of the computer-modeling environment.
This also corresponds with their statement, “the StarLogo modeling language
enables much younger and less mathematically knowledgeable students to have
access to explanations that connect the micro- and macro-levels of phenomena.”
This definitely supports diSessa’s discourse we read last week and is probably
Wilensky and Reisman’s basis for their Thinking Like a Wolf paper where they
seek to remove the barriers of formal mathematical requirements so that
students can experience meaningful engagement.
Wilensky and Resiman would also agree with diSessa’s discussion about
tool-rich cultures, “the way that we see the world is greatly influenced
by the tools that we have at our disposal.” Which leads to my question: How do
we address the major challenge of developing a better understanding of when to
use which approach and why?
Modeling
Problem:
How
many people does it take to initiate a “human wave” at a game? I’ve noticed that it sometimes takes a few
tries to get started, so can one model the influences of this? There are probably different levels
contributing to this, such as how exciting the game is and other crowd
participation that might be encouraged throughout the game.
Kim, I think the key, as with most methods in teaching, is having a familiarity with a variety of approaches. The more you know about the strengths and weaknesses of an approach, as a teacher, the more easily you will be able to determine which to implement. Just as importantly, the better you know you students, the more easily you will be able to determine which to implement. I don’t think it would be possible to just have a standard “prescription” to put into action given the variety in student bodies and educational settings we encounter.
ReplyDeleteDan, I agree, with increasing familiarity of these approaches, teachers will be able to figure out what methods are best for their students and lesson topics. However, I think there can be an established "knowing" that computer modeling would work great with showing students motion and kinetics but that to show the life cycle of a plant, it would be best to actually grow plants in the classroom. I think there can be basic assumptions about what methods will be most authentic to students. Yet, teachers should still always be aware of what works best for particular classes or students.
ReplyDelete