Balancing Curricular and Pedagogical Needs in Computational Construction Kits: Lessons From the DeltaTick Project

Science Education

Volumn 99, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 465-499

  Wilkerson Jerde, Michelle ^a   Wagh, Aditi ^b   Wilensky, Uri ^b,c  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Northwestern University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927701014     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21157     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Ackermann, E. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world (pp. 25-37). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Retrieved October 2011 from http://learning.media.mit.edu/publications.html.
3. Bailey, D. H., & Borwein, J. M. (2011). Exploratory experimentation and computation. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(10), 1410-1419.
4. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83-104). Westport, CT: Ablex.
5. Bamberger, J. (1996). Turning music theory on its ear do we hear what we see; do we see what we say? International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 33-55.
6. Basawapatna, A., Repenning, A., & Lewis, C. (2013). The simulation creation toolkit: An initial exploration into making programming accessible while preserving computational thinking. Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 501-506), March 6-9, Denver, CO.
7. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Students' framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 73-93). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
9. Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49-70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
10. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using multi-agent simulation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 81-119.
11. Bollen, L., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2013). SimSketch: Multi-agent simulations based on learner-created sketches for early science education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(3), 208-216.
12. Bravo, C., Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving intelligent advice. Simulation, 82(11), 769-784.
13. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
14. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C.-P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
15. Clark, D., Nelson, B., Sengupta, P., & D'Angelo, C. (2009). Rethinking science learning through digital games and simulations: Genres, examples, and evidence. Invited Topic Paper in the Proceedings of the National Academies Board on Science Education Workshop on Learning Science: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education, Washington, DC.
16. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., Disessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9.
17. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
18. Conway, M. J., & Pausch, R. (1997). Alice: Easy to learn interactive 3D graphics. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 31(3), 58-59.
19. Council of Chief State School Office (CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved July 2013 from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_MathStandards.pdf.
20. De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
21. Derry, S., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, R., Goldman, R., et al. (2010) Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3-53.
22. Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry (Ed.), The relation of theory to practice in the education of teachers (Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, Part I). Bloomington, IL: Public School.
23. diSessa, A. A. (1997). Open toolsets: New ends and new means in learning mathematics and science with computers. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 47-62). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki.
24. diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859-868.
26. Doerr, H. M. (1996). Stella ten years later: A review of the literature. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(2), 201-224.
27. Doerr, H. M. (2007). What knowledge do teachers need for teaching mathematics through applications and modelling?. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education (pp. 69-78). New York: Springer.
28. Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674.
29. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
30. Frederiksen, J. R. & White, B. Y. (2002). Conceptualizing and constructing linked models: Creating coherence in complex knowledge systems. In P. Brna, M. Baker, K. Stenning, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), The role of communication in learning to model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Fretz, E. B., Wu, H.-K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An investigation of software scaffolds supporting modeling practices. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 567-589.
32. Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children's questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
33. Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S. B., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for technology-enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.
34. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
35. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 465-516.
36. Grimm, V., Revilla, E., Berger, U., Jeltsch, F., Mooij, W. M., et al. (2005). Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: Lessons from ecology. Science, 310(5750), 987-991.
37. Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 485-529.
38. Hansen, J. A., Barnett, M., MaKinster, J. G., & Keating, T. (2004a). The impact of three-dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomical concepts: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1365-1378.
39. Hansen, J. A., Barnett, M., MaKinster, J. G., & Keating, T. (2004b). The impact of three-dimensional computational modeling on student understanding of astronomy concepts: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1555-1575.
40. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. Westport, CT: Ablex.
41. Harvey, B., & Mönig, J. (2010). Bringing "no ceiling" to scratch: Can one language serve kids and computer scientists? Proceedings of Constructionism, 2010, 1-10.
42. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61.
43. Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students' systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319-345.
44. Horn, M. S., & Jacob, R. J. (2007, April). Tangible programming in the classroom with tern. In CHI'07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1965-1970). New York: ACM.
45. Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2012). NetTango: A mash-up of NetLogo and Tern. In T. Moher (chair) and N. Pinkard (discussant), When systems collide: Challenges and opportunities in learning technology mash-ups. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, April 13-17.
46. Hoyles, C., & Lagrange, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology: Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI study (Vol. 13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
47. Kafai, Y. (2006). Constructionism. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Kahn, K. (1998). ToonTalk-An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), 197-217.
49. Kahn, K. (2007). Building computer models from small pieces. Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference (pp. 931-936), San Diego, CA.
50. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: A project of the association for educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 145-162). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56-68.
53. Khan, S. (2008). The case in case-based design of educational software: A methodological interrogation. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(4), 423-447.
54. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157-178.
55. Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-baked logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 6(2), 335-359.
56. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 142-154.
57. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., & Savelsbergh, E. R. (2003). The effect of external representation on constructing computer models of complex phenomena. Instructional Science, 31(6), 395-418.
58. Löhner, S., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsvergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2005). Students' reasoning during modeling in an inquiry learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 441-461.
59. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2008). The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modelling tools in early science education: The cases of textual and graphical program languages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 287-323.
60. Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4), 471-492.
61. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). In quest of productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 919-951.
62. Louca, L. T., Zacharia, Z. C., Michael, M., & Constantinou, C. P. (2011). Objects, entities, behaviors, and interactions: A typology of student-constructed computer-based models of physical phenomena. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 173-201.
63. Metz, K. E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental research and children's science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151-163.
64. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
65. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
66. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
67. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
68. Noss, R., Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (1997). The construction of mathematical meanings: Connecting the visual with the symbolic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33(2), 203-233.
69. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
70. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
71. Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251-280.
72. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.
73. Pinkney, J. (2000). Aesop's fables. New York: Seastar Books.
74. Pratt, D. (1998). The co-ordination of meanings for randomness. For the Learning of Mathematics, 18(3), 2-11.
75. Repenning, A., & Sumner, T. (1995). Agentsheets: A medium for creating domain-oriented visual languages. Computer, 28(3), 17-25.
76. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
77. Rodger, S. H., Hayes, J., Lezin, G., Qin, H., Nelson, D., Tucker, R., et al. (2009). Engaging middle school teachers and students with alice in a diverse set of subjects. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 271-275.
78. Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
79. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5.
80. Schwartz, J. L. (2007). Models, simulations, and exploratory environments: A tentative taxonomy. In R. A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education (pp. 161-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
81. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380.
82. 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.
83. Sherin, B., diSessa, A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91-118.
84. Sherin, M., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491.
85. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145.
86. Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by example: Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75-81.
87. Stonedahl, F., Wilkerson-Jerde, M., & Wilensky, U. (2011). MAgICS: Toward a multi-agent introduction to computer science. In M. Beer, M. Fasli, and D. Richards (Eds.), Multi-agent systems for education and interactive entertainment: Design, use and experience (pp.1-25). Hershey, NY: IGI Global.
88. TechSmith Corporation. (2010). Camtasia [Computer Software].
89. Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004). NetLogo: Design and implementation of a multi-agent modeling environment. In D. Sallach and C. Macal (Eds.), Proceedings of the Agent 2004 conference on social dynamics: interaction, reflexivity and emergence (pp. 161-184). Chicago, IL: Argonne National Laboratory and University of Chicago.
90. VanLehn, K. (2013). Model construction as a learning activity: A design space and review. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 371-413.
91. Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2012). Evolution in blocks: Building models of evolution using blocks. In C. Kygnios, J. Clayson, & N. Yiannoutsou (Eds.), Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference (pp. 549-554), Athens, Greece.
92. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2013). RoboBuilder: A Computational Thinking Game. In T. Camp, P. Tymann, J. D. Dougherty, & K. Nagel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013) (pp. 736-736). Denver, CO: ACM.
93. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2005). A theoretical framework and approach for fostering metacognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 211-223.
94. Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming and learning probability. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253-280.
95. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo Models Library [Computer Software]. Center for connected learning and computer-based modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Available from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/.
96. Wilensky, U. (2003). Statistical mechanics for secondary school: The GasLab modeling toolkit. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(1), 1-41.
97. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-An embodied modeling approach. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
98. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
99. Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Gravel, B., & Macrander, C. (2013). SiMSAM: An integrated toolkit to bridge student, scientific, and mathematical ideas using computational media. Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2013) (Vol. 2, pp. 379-381), International Society of the Learning Sciences.
100. Wilkerson-Jerde, M., & Wilensky, U. (2010). Restructuring change, interpreting changes: The DeltaTick modeling and analysis toolkit. In J. Clayson & I. Kalaš (Eds.), Proceedings of the Constructionism 2010 Conference, Paris, France, p. 97.
101. Williams, M., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE inquiry in fifth grade biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 415-436.
102. Windschitl, M. (2000). Supporting the development of science inquiry skills with special classes of software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 81-95.
103. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
104. Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2010). The use of an agent-based programmable modeling tool in 8th grade students' model-based inquiry. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(2), 130-147.
105. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
106. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120-132.