From agents to continuous change via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Volumn 17, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 23-42

  Sengupta, Pratim ^a   Voss Farris, Amy ^a   Wright, Mason ^a  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Agent based modeling; Computational thinking; Learning sciences; Mechanics; Multi agent based modeling; NetLogo; Physics education; ViMAP; Visual programming

Indexed keywords

AUTONOMOUS AGENTS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; KINEMATICS; MECHANICS; MODELING LANGUAGES; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; SIMULATION PLATFORM; VISUAL LANGUAGES;

AGENT-BASED MODEL; COMPUTATIONAL THINKINGS; LEARNING SCIENCE; MULTI-AGENT BASED MODELING; NETLOGO; PHYSICS EDUCATION; VIMAP; VISUAL PROGRAMMING;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84876062481     PISSN: 22111662     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10758-012-9190-9     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abelson, H., & diSessa, A. (1981). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human Computer Interaction, 1, 1-47.
3. diSessa, A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29, 859-868.
4. diSessa, A. A., Abelson, H., & Ploger, D. (1991a). An overview of boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.
5. diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991b). Inventing graphing: Children's metarepresentational expertise. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117-160.
6. Dyskra, D. I., Jr, & Sweet, D. R. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle school students. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 468-476.
7. Eisenberg, M., & Buechley, L. (2008). Pervasive fabrication: Making construction ubiquitous in education. Journal of Software, 3(4), 62-68.
8. Elby, A. (2000). What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481-502.
9. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1).
10. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1056.
11. Hestenes, D. (1993). MODELING is the name of the game. A presentation at the NSF Modeling Conference.
12. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64(8), 759-771.
14. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.
15. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55, 505-513.
17. Miller, A. I. (1978). Visualization lost and regained: The genesis of the quantum theory in the period 1913-27. In J. Wechsler (Ed.), On aesthetics in science (pp. 73-102). Cambridge: MIT Press.
18. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-45). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
19. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20. Piaget, J. (1957). Logic and psychology. New York: Basic Books.
21. Sengupta, P., & Hubbell, W. (in review). Integrating computational thinking and modeling with high school physics using agent-based visual programming.
22. Sengupta, P. (2011). Design principles for a visual programming language to integrate agent-based modeling in K-12 science. In Sayama, H., Minai, A. A., Braha, D., & Bar-Yam, Y. (Eds.), Unifying themes in complex systems volume VIII: proceedings of the eighth international conference on complex systems (ICCS 2011) (pp 1636-1638). New England Complex Systems Institute Series on Complexity (NECSI Knowledge Press,) . ISBN 978-0-9656328-4-3.
23. Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning kinematics in elementary grades using agent-based computational modeling: A visual programming based approach. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design & children.
24. Sengupta, P., & Wright, M. (2010). ViMAP [Computer software]. Mind, Matter & Media Lab, Vanderbilt University, USA.
25. Sherin, B. L. (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 399-441.
26. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91-118.
27. Tanimoto, S. L. (1990). VIVA: A visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1, 127-139.
28. Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. In Proceedings of the international conference on complex systems, Boston, May 16-21.
29. Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, LLC.
30. Wechsler, J. (Ed.). (1978). On aesthetics and science. Boston: Birkhäuse.
31. Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstract meditations on the concrete and concrete implications for mathematics education. In Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
32. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.