Interpreting and creating computational systems models is an important goal of science education. One aspect of computational systems modeling that is supported by modeling, systems thinking, and computational thinking literature is “testing, evaluating, and debugging models.” Through testing and debugging, students can identify aspects of their models that either do not match external data or conflict with their conceptual understandings of a phenomenon. This disconnect encourages students to make model revisions, which in turn deepens their conceptual understanding of a phenomenon. Given that many students find testing and debugging challenging, we set out to investigate the various testing and debugging behaviors and behavioral patterns that students use when building and revising computational system models in a supportive learning environment. We designed and implemented a 6-week unit where students constructed and revised a computational systems model of evaporative cooling using SageModeler software. Our results suggest that despite being in a common classroom, the three groups of students in this study all utilized different testing and debugging behavioral patterns. Group 1 focused on using external peer feedback to identify flaws in their model, group 2 used verbal and written discourse to critique their model’s structure and suggest structural changes, and groupmore »
- Award ID(s):
- Publication Date:
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Journal Name:
- Page Range or eLocation-ID:
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
The purpose of this study was to investigate how computational modeling promotes systems thinking for English Learners (ELs) in fifth-grade science instruction. Individual student interviews were conducted with nine ELs about computational models of landfill bottle systems they had developed as part of a physical science unit. We found evidence of student engagement in four systems thinking practices. Students used data produced by their models to investigate the landfill bottle system as a whole (Practice 1). Students identified agents and their relationships in the system (Practice 2). Students thought in levels, shuttling between the agent and aggregate levels (Practice 3). However, while students could think in levels to develop their models, they struggled to engage in this practice when presented with novel scenarios (e.g., open vs. closed system). Finally, students communicated information about the system using multiple modalities and less-than-perfect English (Practice 4). Overall, these findings suggest that integrating computational modeling into standards-aligned science instruction can provide a rich context for fostering systems thinking among linguistically diverse elementary students.
Chinn, C. ; Tan, E. ; Chan, C. ; Kali, Y. (Ed.)We developed the Systems Thinking (ST) and Computational Thinking (CT) Identification Tool (ID Tool) to identify student involvement in ST and CT as they construct and revise computational models. Our ID Tool builds off the ST and CT Through Modeling Framework, emphasizing the synergistic relationship between ST and CT and demonstrating how both can be supported through computational modeling. This paper describes the process of designing and validating the ID Tool with special emphasis on the observable indicators of testing and debugging computational models. We collected 75 hours of students’ interactions with a computational modeling tool and analyzed them using the ID Tool to characterize students’ use of ST and CT when involved in modeling. The results suggest that the ID Tool has the potential to allow researchers and practitioners to identify student involvement in various aspects of ST and CT as they construct and revise computational models.
We face complex global issues such as climate change that challenge our ability as humans to manage them. Models have been used as a pivotal science and engineering tool to investigate, represent, explain, and predict phenomena or solve problems that involve multi-faceted systems across many fields. To fully explain complex phenomena or solve problems using models requires both systems thinking (ST) and computational thinking (CT). This study proposes a theoretical framework that uses modeling as a way to integrate ST and CT. We developed a framework to guide the complex process of developing curriculum, learning tools, support strategies, and assessments for engaging learners in ST and CT in the context of modeling. The framework includes essential aspects of ST and CT based on selected literature, and illustrates how each modeling practice draws upon aspects of both ST and CT to support explaining phenomena and solving problems. We use computational models to show how these ST and CT aspects are manifested in modeling.
This paper discusses the potential of two computational modeling approaches in moving students from simple linear causal reasoning to applying more complex aspects of systems thinking (ST) in explanations of scientific phenomena. While linear causal reasoning can help students understand some natural phenomena, it may not be sufficient for understanding more complex issues such as global warming and pandemics, which involve feedback, cyclic patterns, and equilibrium. In contrast, ST has shown promise as an approach for making sense of complex problems. To facilitate ST, computational modeling tools have been developed, but it is not clear to what extent different approaches promote specific aspects of ST and whether scaffolding such thinking should start with supporting students first in linear causal reasoning before moving to more complex causal dimensions. This study compares two computational modeling approaches, static equilibrium and system dynamics modeling, and their potential to engage students in applying ST aspects in their explanations of the evaporative cooling phenomenon. To make such a comparison we analyzed 10th grade chemistry students’ explanations of the phenomenon as they constructed and used both modeling approaches. The findings suggest that using a system dynamics approach prompts more complex reasoning aligning with ST aspects. However, somemore »