As I have been working on my model in Netlogo recently, the recurring thought on my mind has been how the modeling experience is balanced with the other NGSS practices we discussed in the beginning of the semester. I don't have much experience with coding, and I've often found myself stuck in the middle of writing my code, unsure of how to proceed. Using the model to generate evidence and explanations goes out the window at that point - I'm sure K12 students would probably fall into this trap too.
I really liked that the researchers from both articles integrated all of the NGSS practices into cohesive curricular units and that they were invested in doing so to improve students' abilities to reason and argue within the scientific domains. From a design perspective, I was really impressed with BGuILE's embedded discourse supports within the inquiry software. The ExplanationConstructor, for instance, definitely speaks to the concern I started this blog with; this tool helps keeps students on task by organizing the explanation structure into manageable and clearly-defined pieces. I also liked that BGuILE lets students choose what data to plot when looking for patterns, and how the researchers demonstrated that the software helped students retain the distinction between evidence and theory.
Netlogo seems to diverge from BGuILE in light of these design features, especially when students use Netlogo to build their own models. With the programs in the Model Library of Netlogo, the program acts as a simulation: the student manipulates the initial conditions, and the program responds. The data that is visible from this response was pre-decided by the program's author. So, these models (to me at least) seem pretty superficial in their exploratory use; it's only when students start manipulating the code that this expands. On the other hand, building code from scratch in Netlogo is a daunting task, and the student can only seek the teacher or peers for immediate guidance, and must turn to experts (via scientific papers) for support for initial assumptions and modifications. In BGuILE, embedded tools mediate the entire inquiry experience in a process that is a complete reversal from Netlogo. BGuILE presents huge data sets to the students, which they sift through in search of meaningful patterns, which they then use to construct explanations and models, while in Netlogo, the model building is the primary process and meaningful patterns can be substantiated later.
What tools would Netlogo need to provide an experience that is more like BGuILE? What affordances and constraints does each have? Which would you prefer to use in your classroom, and why?
I think that Netlogo would benefit from a greater emphasis on actual data and observations. Because of the emphasis on coding your model, Netlogo focuses students on pure hypothesis of mechanism, based on how you think a system might work or the factors that may influence it. While this is a valuable process, there also needs to be a more conscious effort to check models against real historic data before assuming it would be a good predictive model. For example, in our Fire Ecology model, we only recently researched actual burn patterns, which would be able to show us if we were even heading in a good direction.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura, the main takeaways from NetLogo that students are supposed to get are to see how different variables can effect a system and to perhaps learn about those mechanisms from manipulating the code. I think checking the model against historic data is crucial because even though we know "all models are lies" we still need to try our best to replicate (or model) the phenomena in question. I think this is why there are some models in the NetLogo library that are "unverified" but even the verified ones I think can be manipulated in a way that would never reflect real life or an authentic experience. Yet, i think that is also an affordance to NetLogo, that we can go to extremes to really see how the variables interact with each other or what can happen if we turn off a variable.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote on Kim’s memo, I think the staging activities are critical for the overall computer modeling experience. Since it is a new way of learning within classrooms, students are very unfamiliar with computer programs and how to interpret data. Thus, the staging activities and the slow introduction is vital for student understanding. While this may not necessarily involve changing/modifying Netlogo and just incorporating physical models into the lessons, changes can be made to the program to include small exercises to make the program more familiar and make the students feel more comfortable. I think the affordances are clear from Reiser’s article as students will develop analytical skills, foster inquiry and enrich their critical thinking. Additionally, they will be familiar with computer programs and (hopefully) not be scared away by coding. However, this is an ideal picture, which is where the realistic constraints come into play. With this big incorporation of technology in the classroom and the staging activities that Reiser does emphasize, there is little time for flexibility, which based on teachers’ experiences is critical. Additionally, is it realistic/reasonable for teachers to be able to come up with all these activities for each lessons? Thus, would it be beneficial to have a separate class where students familiarize themselves with computer programs so less time can be spent on it inside the classroom.
ReplyDelete