Right but wrong: How students' mechanistic reasoning and conceptual understandings shift when designing agent‐based models using data.
Saved in:
| Title: | Right but wrong: How students' mechanistic reasoning and conceptual understandings shift when designing agent‐based models using data. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Fuhrmann, Tamar1 (AUTHOR) tf2464@tc.columbia.edu, Rosenbaum, Leah1 (AUTHOR), Wagh, Aditi2 (AUTHOR), Eloy, Adelmo1 (AUTHOR), Wolf, Jacob3 (AUTHOR), Blikstein, Paulo1 (AUTHOR), Wilkerson, Michelle4 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Science Education. Jan2025, Vol. 109 Issue 1, p3-26. 24p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Sixth grade (Education), *Simulation methods in education, *Science education, *Computer simulation, Hot water |
| Abstract: | When learning about scientific phenomena, students are expected to mechanistically explain how underlying interactions produce the observable phenomenon and conceptually connect the observed phenomenon to canonical scientific knowledge. This paper investigates how the integration of the complementary processes of designing and refining computational models using real‐world data can support students in developing mechanistic and canonically accurate explanations of diffusion. Specifically, we examine two types of shifts in how students explain diffusion as they create and refine computational models using real‐world data: a shift towards mechanistic reasoning and a shift from noncanonical to canonical explanations. We present descriptive statistics for the whole class as well as three student work examples to illustrate these two shifts as 6th grade students engage in an 8‐day unit on the diffusion of ink in hot and cold water. Our findings show that (1) students develop mechanistic explanations as they build agent‐based models, (2) students' mechanistic reasoning can co‐exist with noncanonical explanations, and (3) students shift their thinking toward canonical explanations after comparing their models against data. These findings could inform the design of modeling tools that support learners in both expressing a diverse range of mechanistic explanations of scientific phenomena and aligning those explanations with canonical science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Science Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | When learning about scientific phenomena, students are expected to mechanistically explain how underlying interactions produce the observable phenomenon and conceptually connect the observed phenomenon to canonical scientific knowledge. This paper investigates how the integration of the complementary processes of designing and refining computational models using real‐world data can support students in developing mechanistic and canonically accurate explanations of diffusion. Specifically, we examine two types of shifts in how students explain diffusion as they create and refine computational models using real‐world data: a shift towards mechanistic reasoning and a shift from noncanonical to canonical explanations. We present descriptive statistics for the whole class as well as three student work examples to illustrate these two shifts as 6th grade students engage in an 8‐day unit on the diffusion of ink in hot and cold water. Our findings show that (1) students develop mechanistic explanations as they build agent‐based models, (2) students' mechanistic reasoning can co‐exist with noncanonical explanations, and (3) students shift their thinking toward canonical explanations after comparing their models against data. These findings could inform the design of modeling tools that support learners in both expressing a diverse range of mechanistic explanations of scientific phenomena and aligning those explanations with canonical science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00368326 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/sce.21890 |
