Building v/s Exploring Models: Comparing Learning of Evolutionary Processes through Agent-based Modeling.

摘要

Two strands of work motivate the three studies in this dissertation. Evolutionary change can be viewed as a computational complex system in which a small set of rules operating at the individual level result in different population level outcomes under different conditions. Extensive research has documented students' difficulties with learning about evolutionary change (Rosengren et al., 2012), particularly in terms of levels slippage (Wilensky & Resnick, 1999). Second, though building and using computational models is becoming increasingly common in K-12 science education, we know little about how these two modalities compare. This dissertation adopts agent-based modeling as a representational system to compare these modalities in the conceptual context of micro-evolutionary processes. Drawing on interviews, Study 1 examines middle-school students' productive ways of reasoning about micro-evolutionary processes to find that the specific framing of traits plays a key role in whether slippage explanations are cued. Study 2, which was conducted in 2 schools with about 150 students, forms the crux of the dissertation. It compares learning processes and outcomes when students build their own models or explore a pre-built model. Analysis of Camtasia videos of student pairs reveals that builders' and explorers' ways of accessing rules, and sense-making of observed trends are of a different character. Builders notice rules through available blocks-based primitives, often bypassing their enactment while explorers attend to rules primarily through the enactment. Moreover, builders' sense-making of observed trends is more rule-driven while explorers' is more enactment-driven. Pre and posttests reveal that builders manifest a greater facility with accessing rules, providing explanations manifesting targeted assembly. Explorers use rules to construct explanations manifesting non-targeted assembly. Interviews reveal varying degrees of shifts away from slippage in both modalities, with students who built models not incorporating slippage explanations in responses. Study 3 compares these modalities with a control using traditional activities. Pre and posttests reveal that the two modalities manifested greater facility with accessing and assembling rules than the control. The dissertation offers implications for the design of learning environments for evolutionary change, design of the two modalities based on their strengths and weaknesses, and teacher training for the same.