EDU236X Beyond Bits and Atoms
Reflection Paper 03 : Wilensky & Martin
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999) Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World.
“In our view, the very question of “objectness” becomes a question of “levels.” Objects that are viewed as singular at one level are best viewed as plural at another level. The ability to shift levels, viewing the same object as either singular or plural, depending on the situation, is a prerequisite for building deep, scientific understandings of phenomena.”
I think the key concept in this passage is that of shifting levels. I recall how I grew up learning science, how science is taught in the classroom even today – concepts have usually been taught EITHER at the level of the individual OR at the systemic level. For example, students are taught in Biochemistry about the basic building blocks of life – carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. Later in the biology curriculum, they are introduced to entire systems – the circulatory system, the endocrine system, the nervous system. As teachers, sometimes we assume that students intuitively know how to make the link between the properties of basic building blocks, and the patterns that emerge as a system, but most times they don’t. Science then becomes a series of “topics” taught in silos. Systems are to be learned as they are : the big picture. And building blocks are to be learned as they are : the basics.
What I appreciate about Netlogo (and what I have learned as we were made to do Assignment 4) is that it forces the user to think how behavior of objects as singular, individual units affects behavior of aggregated objects as systems. When the user is made to think about how to write codes and rules governing individual units in order to model systemic behavior, it forces one to consider how individual properties have global impact on phenomena. And the ease by which this impact is visualized then allows the user to construct a deep understanding of scientific phenomena while being able to consider individual objects and systems and the transitions between them.
Martin et al. (2000) To Mindstorms and Beyond: Evolution of a Construction Kit for Magical Machines.
“Construction material and project ideas that appeal to a broad range of interests allow multiple entry points into science, mathematics, engineering, design, art, and music for all types of learners. These materials not only make new knowledge domains accessible, but also provide new ways for children to relate to domains of knowledge to which they have already been exposed.”
What I found interesting here is that the tools that were originally designed to convey and impart scientific ideas and engineering concepts evolved into the realm of art, design and even music. I was amazed by the case studies that follow the paragraph highlighted above – in which students were able to construct things like a nail salon, a gerbil maze and a musical stress meter, from something that was originally designed for science and technology. Once again, it goes to show that if we do not pigeon-hole the educational experience for our students, as most of formal education has sought to do, our students will indeed surprise us with what they can think of, and what they can connect, to add personal relevance to the learning of science. That is the value of constructionism as I see it – not to dictate one particular path of discovery, with a fixed end-point in mind, but to provide the basic building blocks with which students then construct their own path to deep understanding, packed with personal significance and relevance. If a nail salon helps a student learn about mechanics, engineering and circuitry, then by all means, let the student construct a nail salon. She will also end up with cooler nails!
The challenge then for me as an educator would be in instructional design, to bear in mind that the point is NOT the nail salon – the point is to design the learning environment to provide the “gears” with which the nail salons and musical stress meters will emerge. Sometimes I think that this is an obvious statement … but the million dollar question is why we are not seeing more of this in formal education!
“In our view, the very question of “objectness” becomes a question of “levels.” Objects that are viewed as singular at one level are best viewed as plural at another level. The ability to shift levels, viewing the same object as either singular or plural, depending on the situation, is a prerequisite for building deep, scientific understandings of phenomena.”
I think the key concept in this passage is that of shifting levels. I recall how I grew up learning science, how science is taught in the classroom even today – concepts have usually been taught EITHER at the level of the individual OR at the systemic level. For example, students are taught in Biochemistry about the basic building blocks of life – carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. Later in the biology curriculum, they are introduced to entire systems – the circulatory system, the endocrine system, the nervous system. As teachers, sometimes we assume that students intuitively know how to make the link between the properties of basic building blocks, and the patterns that emerge as a system, but most times they don’t. Science then becomes a series of “topics” taught in silos. Systems are to be learned as they are : the big picture. And building blocks are to be learned as they are : the basics.
What I appreciate about Netlogo (and what I have learned as we were made to do Assignment 4) is that it forces the user to think how behavior of objects as singular, individual units affects behavior of aggregated objects as systems. When the user is made to think about how to write codes and rules governing individual units in order to model systemic behavior, it forces one to consider how individual properties have global impact on phenomena. And the ease by which this impact is visualized then allows the user to construct a deep understanding of scientific phenomena while being able to consider individual objects and systems and the transitions between them.
Martin et al. (2000) To Mindstorms and Beyond: Evolution of a Construction Kit for Magical Machines.
“Construction material and project ideas that appeal to a broad range of interests allow multiple entry points into science, mathematics, engineering, design, art, and music for all types of learners. These materials not only make new knowledge domains accessible, but also provide new ways for children to relate to domains of knowledge to which they have already been exposed.”
What I found interesting here is that the tools that were originally designed to convey and impart scientific ideas and engineering concepts evolved into the realm of art, design and even music. I was amazed by the case studies that follow the paragraph highlighted above – in which students were able to construct things like a nail salon, a gerbil maze and a musical stress meter, from something that was originally designed for science and technology. Once again, it goes to show that if we do not pigeon-hole the educational experience for our students, as most of formal education has sought to do, our students will indeed surprise us with what they can think of, and what they can connect, to add personal relevance to the learning of science. That is the value of constructionism as I see it – not to dictate one particular path of discovery, with a fixed end-point in mind, but to provide the basic building blocks with which students then construct their own path to deep understanding, packed with personal significance and relevance. If a nail salon helps a student learn about mechanics, engineering and circuitry, then by all means, let the student construct a nail salon. She will also end up with cooler nails!
The challenge then for me as an educator would be in instructional design, to bear in mind that the point is NOT the nail salon – the point is to design the learning environment to provide the “gears” with which the nail salons and musical stress meters will emerge. Sometimes I think that this is an obvious statement … but the million dollar question is why we are not seeing more of this in formal education!