MaterialSim: A constructionist agent-based modeling approach to engineering education

Designs for Learning Environments of the Future: International Perspectives from the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 17-60

  Blikstein, Paulo ^a   Wilensky, Uri ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Northwestern University   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent based modeling; Complexity theory; Constructionism; Engineering education; Keywords; Multiagent modeling; NetLogo; Project based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870187984     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (83)

1. 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 Fourth Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, San Feliu de Guixols, Spain
2. American Society for Engineering Education. (2007). ASEE profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/publications/profiles/upload/2007 ProfileEng.pdf
3. 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.
4. Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2004, April 12-16). Virtual robotics in a collaborative constructionist learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educationalt Research Association, San Diego, CA
5. Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2005, April 11-15). Complex play systems - Results from a classroom implementation of VBOT. In W. Stroup, U. Wilensky (Chairs), & C. D. Lee (Discussant).
6. Patterns in group learning with next-generation network technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada
7. 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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
8. Blikstein, P., & Tschiptschin, A. P. (1999). Monte Carlo simulation of grain growth. Materials Research, 2(3), 133-137.
9. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2004a). MaterialSim: an agent-based simulation toolkit for learning materials science. In M. Hoit & T. Anderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, Gainesville, Florida, USA
10. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2005a). Less is more: Agent-based simulation as a powerful learning tool in materials science. Proceedings of the IV International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, Holland.
11. 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
12. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2006b). 'Hybrid modeling': Advanced scientific investigation linking computer models and real-world sensing. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, USA.
13. Blikstein, P. & Wilensky, U. (2007). Bifocal modeling: a framework for combining computer modeling, robotics and real-world sensing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago, USA.
14. 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 (ICLS) (Vol. 3, pp. 266-267). Utrecht, The Netherlands
15. Blikstein, P. & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using multi-agent modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81-119.
16. 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.
17. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
18. Brown, G. S. (1961). Today's dilemma in engineering education. IRE Transactions on Education, E4(2), 48.
19. 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.
20. Centola, D., Wilensky, U., & McKenzie, E. (2000, June 14-17). 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 Fourth Annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
21. Colgate, J. E., McKenna, A., & Ankenman, B. (2004). IDEA: Implementing Blikstein & Wilensky design throughout the curriculum at northwestern. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 405-411. (Pubitemid 38838005)
22. Collier, N., & Sallach, D. (2001). Repast. Chicago: University of Chicago. Retrived from http:// repast.sourceforge.net.
23. 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.
24. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
25. Dym, C. L. (1999). Learning engineering: Design, languages, and experiences. Journal of Engineering Education, 88, 145-148.
26. 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.
27. Edwards, L. (1995). Microworlds as representations. Proceedings of the 2nd International NATO Symposium on Advanced Technology and Education.
28. Einstein, H. H. (2002). Engineering change at MIT. Civil Engineering, 72(10), 62-69. (Pubitemid 35213046)
29. Gobert, J., Horwitz, P., Tinker, B., Buckley, B., Wilensky, U., Levy, S., et al. (2004, July 31-August 2). 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, Boston, MA.
30. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer through complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 35-43.
31. Haghighi, K. (2005). Systematic and sustainable reform in engineering education. Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE, 131(4), 501-502. (Pubitemid 40427335)
32. Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (2003). Commentary: Reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 26-29. (Pubitemid 38065310)
33. 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
34. Hurst, K. D. (1995). A new paradigm for engineering education. Paper presented at the 25th Annual ASEE/IEEE Conference: Frontiers in Education '95, Atlanta, GA
35. Jerath, S. (1983). Engineering-education in perspective. Mechanical Engineering, 105(2), 92-93.
36. 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 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
37. Krause, S. J., & Tasooji, A. (2007). Diagnosing students' misconceptions on solubility and saturation for understanding of phase diagrams. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Portland, USA
38. 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.
39. Lamley, R. A. (1996). A model for an engineering education. Marine Technology and Sname News, 33(2), 119-121.
40. Levy, S. T., Kim, H., & Wilensky, U. (2004, April 12-16). 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
41. 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
42. 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 Associates Inc.
43. MIT Center for Policy Alternatives. (1975). Future directions in engineering-education - system response to a changing world - report by center for policy alternatives for MIT School of Engineering. Engineering Education, 65(5), 382-382.
44. Minsky, M. (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
45. 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, MO: ASEE.
46. 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.
47. Pagels, H. R. (1988). The dreams of reason: The computer and the rise of the sciences of complexity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
48. Panel on Undergraduate Engineering Education. (1986). Engineering undergraduate education. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
49. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
50. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. 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.
52. Porter, D. A., & Easterling, K. E. (1992). Phase transformations in metals and alloys (2nd ed.). London; New York: Chapman & Hall
53. Roco, M. C. (2002). Nanotechnology - A frontier for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(5), 488-497.
54. 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. (Pubitemid 40430128)
55. 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
56. 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. (Pubitemid 32517506)
57. Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive development. American Psychologist, 46(6), 606-620.
58. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36-48.
59. Srolovitz, D. J., Anderson, M. P., Grest, G. S., & Sahni, P. S. (1984). Computer simulation of grain growth - II. Grain size distribution, topology and local dynamics. Acta Metallurgica, 32, 793-801.
60. Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.
61. 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.
62. Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004, May 16-21). NetLogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS 2004), Boston, MA
63. Tryggvason, G., & Apelian, D. (2006). Re-engineering engineering education for the challenges of the 21 st century. JOM, 58(10), 14-17. (Pubitemid 44605206)
64. Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65. Wilensky, U. (1993). Connected mathematics: Building concrete relationships with mathematical knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA
66. Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming and learning probability. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 231-280.
67. Wilensky, U. (1999a). 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 Verlag.
68. 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.
69. Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems and restructuration of scientific disciplines: Implications for learning, analysis of social systems, and educational policy. In J. Kolodner (Chair), C. Bereiter (Discussant), & J.D. Bransford (Discussant), Complex systems, learning, and education: Conceptual principles, methodologies, and implications for educational research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA
70. Wilensky, U., Hazzard, E., & Longenecker, S. (2000, October 11-13). 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
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2009). An introduction to agent-based modeling: Modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. 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. (Pubitemid 43864473)
75. 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.
76. 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
77. 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.
78. Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.
79. Yamins, D. (2005). Towards a theory of "local to global" in distributed multi-agent systems (I). Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
80. Blikstein, P. & Wilensky, U. (2005b). NetLogo MaterialSim Grain Growth model. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/ MaterialSimGrainGrowth.
81. Wilensky, U. (1999b). NetLogo [Computer software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/ netlogo.
82. Wilensky, U., & Shargel, B. (2002). Behavior Space [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning and Computer Based Modeling, Northwestern University.
83. 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.