Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 306–321 | Cite as

Building Systems from Scratch: an Exploratory Study of Students Learning About Climate Change

Article

Abstract

Science and computational practices such as modeling and abstraction are critical to understanding the complex systems that are integral to climate science. Given the demonstrated affordances of game design in supporting such practices, we implemented a free 4-day intensive workshop for middle school girls that focused on using the visual programming environment, Scratch, to design games to teach others about climate change. The experience was carefully constructed so that girls of widely differing levels of experience were able to engage in a cycle of game design. This qualitative study aimed to explore the representational choices the girls made as they took up aspects of climate change systems and modeled them in their games. Evidence points to the ways in which designing games about climate science fostered emergent systems thinking and engagement in modeling practices as learners chose what to represent in their games, grappled with the realism of their respective representations, and modeled interactions among systems components. Given the girls’ levels of programming skill, parts of systems were more tractable to create than others. The educational purpose of the games was important to the girls’ overall design experience, since it influenced their choice of topic, and challenged their emergent understanding of climate change as a systems problem.

Keywords

Computer game design Informal learning Climate change systems Modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to TERC and the National Science Foundation (grant #1542954) for supporting this work and to Marian Grogan for her backup technical support during the workshop. This work grew out of an exploration of ideas with Teon Edwards and Lis Sylvan, to whom the first author is indebted.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Adams, J. & Webster, A. (2012). What do students learn about programming from game, music and storytelling projects? Proceedings of the 43 rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, C., Eger, E., & Friend, M. (2012). Girls in it: the facts. Report of the National Center for Women and Technology, Boulder CO, Retrieved November 30 2014, from https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/.../girlsinit_thefacts_fullreport2012.pdf .
  3. Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics education: a paradigm shift from “computer assisted instruction” towards “student programming.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 4, NP.Google Scholar
  4. Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. & Repenning, A. (2010). Using scalable game design to teach computer science from middle school to graduate school. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 224–228.Google Scholar
  6. Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britner, S. L. (2003). Environmental ethics in middle school students: analysis of the moral orientation of student responses to environment dilemmas. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 26(1). Retrieved October 2015, from http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx.
  8. Bruckman, A., Jensen, C., & DeBonte, A. (2002). Gender and programming achievement in a CSCL environment. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, CSCL, 119–127.Google Scholar
  9. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carbonero, M., Szafron, D., Cutumisu, M., & Schaeffer, J. (2010). Computer-game construction: a gender-neutral attractor to computer science. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1098–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041–1053.  https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Model based learning and instruction in science. New York: Springer Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6494-4.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Denner, J. (2007). The girls creating games program: an innovative approach to integrating technology into middle school. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 10(1). http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/win2007/girlgaming/index.htm.
  16. Denner, J. (2011). What predicts middle school girls’ interest in computing? International Journal of Gender in Science, Engineering, and Technology, 3(1).Google Scholar
  17. Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2010). Computer games created by middle school girls: can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers and Education, 58(1), 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DiSessa, A. D. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dresang, E. T., Gross, M., & Holt, L. (2007). New perspectives: an analysis of gender, net-generation children, and computers. Library Trends, 56(2), 360–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. In J. Green, A. Luke, & G. Kelly (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 32). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  21. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Educational potential of computer games. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.) The handbook of research on teaching, Third Edition (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Girls RISE Network. (2013). Girls, equity and STEM in informal learning settings: a review of literature. http://girlsrisenet.org/sites/default/files/SAVI%20Lit%20Review%20Sept%202013.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2014.
  24. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.Google Scholar
  25. Glasslab. (2014). Psychometric considerations in game-based assessment. 160 pp. instituteofplay.org. Accessed October 21 2014.
  26. Goh, S., Yoon, S., Wang, J., Yang, Z. & Klopfer, E. (2012). Investigating the relative difficulty of complex systems ideas in biology. 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Future of Learning, Sydney, Australia, July, 2012. www.isls.org/icls2012/downloads/ICLS2012%20Program.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2014.
  27. Gooding, D. C. (2004). Visualizing scientific inference. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2010). Reasoning and down a food chain: using an assessment framework to investigate students’ middle knowledge.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20368.
  29. Greeno, J., & Hall, R. P. (1998). Practicing with representations: learning with and about representational forms. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.Google Scholar
  30. Grotzer, T. (2003). Learning to understand the forms of causality implicit in scientific explanations. Studies in Science Education, 39(1), 1–74.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260308560195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grotzer, T., & Lincoln, R. (2007). Educating for “intelligent environmental action” in an age of global warming. In S. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change (pp. 266–280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535871.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hayes, E. (2008). Girls, gaming and trajectories of IT expertise. In Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, & J. Y. Sun (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming (pp. 217–230). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Helms, M., Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2010). The effect of functional modeling on understanding complex biological systems. Proceedings of the America Society of Mechanical Engineers 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.Google Scholar
  35. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Pfeffer, M. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structure, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 1, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hmelo-Silver, C., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodari, A. K., Ko, L., Ong, M., & Smith, J. M. (2016). Enacting agency: the strategies of women in color in computing. Computing in Science and Engineering, 18(3), 58–68.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2016.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ingham, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1991). The use of analogue models by students of chemistry at higher education level. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 193–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069910130206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoover, A.K., Barnes, K., Fatehi, B., Moreno-Leon, J., Puttick, G., Tucker-Raymond, E. & Harteveld, C. (2016). Assessing computational thinking in students’ game designs. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY. The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI).Google Scholar
  40. Kafai, Y., Franke, M., Ching, C., & Shih, J. (1998). Game design as an interactive learning environment for fostering students’ and teachers’ mathematical inquiry. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 149–184.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009777905226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. (2015). Exploring ecosystems from the inside: how immersive multi-user virtual environments can support development of epistemologically grounded modeling practices in ecosystem science instruction. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 148–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9531-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Khalili, N., Sheridan, K., Williams, A., Clark, K., & Stegman, M. (2011). Students designing video games about immunology: insights for science learning. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 228–240.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.594988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, J., Husman, J., Scott, K. A., & Eggum-Wilkens, N. D. (2015). COMPUGIRLS: stepping stone to future computer-based technology pathways. Journal of Educational Computing Research., 52(2), 199–223.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115571304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, I. E. Sigel, & I.E. (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Cognitive Processes (pp. 153–196). Hoboken NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2011). Global warming’s 6 Americas May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.Google Scholar
  48. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4).Google Scholar
  49. McNeill, K., Libarkin, J., Ledley, T., Bardar, E., Haddad, N., Ellins, K., & Dutta, S. (2014). The role of research in online curriculum development: the case of EarthLabs climate change and Earth systems modules. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(4), 560–577.  https://doi.org/10.5408/13-060.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Reasoned Participation: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.Google Scholar
  51. Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded source book. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
  54. Orion, N., & Ault Jr., C. R. (2006). Learning earth sciences. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), The Handbook of Research on Science Teaching. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  56. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1–11.Google Scholar
  57. Penner, D. A. (2000). Explaining systems investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784–806.Google Scholar
  58. Puttick, G., Bernstein, D. & Edwards, T. (2017). Design based research study of a girl scout program focused on energy conservation. Educational Researcher (to appear).Google Scholar
  59. Puttick, G., Tucker-Raymond, E. & Barnes, J. (2016). Environmental attitudes in youth-created computer games about climate change. Proceedings of the Games+Learning+Society 12 conference, August 2016, Madison WI.Google Scholar
  60. Puttick, G., Strawhacker, A., Bernstein, D., & Sylvan, E. (2014). Its not as bad as using the toaster all the time. Trade offs in a Scratch game about energy use. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences 2014, 3, 1485–1486.Google Scholar
  61. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st Association for Computing Machinery’s Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 265–269.Google Scholar
  62. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60–67.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779.
  63. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902769946.
  64. Robinson, A., Perez-Quinones, M., & Scales, G. (2016). African-American middle school girls: influences on attitudes toward computer science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18(3), 14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2016.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacies: a game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322.Google Scholar
  67. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play. In Game design fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Schoenberg, J., Salmond, K., & Fleshman, P. (2008). Change It Up! What girls say about redefining leadership. New York. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.girlscouts.org/research.
  69. Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Lincoln & Y. L. Guba (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Sjoberg, S. & Schreiner, C. (2010). The ROSE project: an overview and key findings. http://www.roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf. Accessed March 14 2014.
  71. Songer, N., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sterelny, K. (2005). Externalism, epistemic artifacts and the extended mind. In R. Schantz (Ed.), The Externalist Challenge. New Studies on Cognition and Intentionality (pp. 239–254). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  73. Tucker-Raymond, E., Torres-Petrovich, D., Dumbleton, K., & Damlich, E. (2012). Reconceptualizing together: Exploring participatory and productive media literacies in a collaborative teacher research group. In D. Alvermann & K. Hinchman (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 224–243). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Tutwiler, M. S., & Grotzer, T. (2013). Why immersive, interactive simulation belongs in the pedagogical toolkit of “next generation” science: facilitating student understanding of complex causal dynamics. In I. Saleh (Ed.), Approaches and Strategies in Next Generation Science Learning (pp. 127–146). Hershey: IGI Global.  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2809-0.ch007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Uitto, A., Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2005). Students’ interest in biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biology Education, 40(3), 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.Google Scholar
  78. Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2014). Learn engineering practices using game design and creation. In L. Annetta & J. Minogue (Eds.), Achieving Science and Technological Literacy Through Engineering Design Practices. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Wilensky, U., & Jacobson, M. (2014). Complex systems and the learning sciences. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 319–338). New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Windschitl, M. (2013). Models and modeling: an introduction. Retrieved November 19, 2016 from ambitiousscienceteaching.org

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TERCCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations