Impact of a Creativity Support Tool on Student Learning about Scientific Discovery Process
Inhaltsverzeichnis
Reference
Ashok K. Goel and David A. Joyner: Impact of a Creativity Support Tool on Student Learning about Scientific Discovery Process. In: Computational Creativity 2015 ICCC 2015, 284-291.
DOI
Abstract
Science education nowadays emphasizes authentic science practices mimicking the creative discovery processes of real scientists. How, then, can we build creativity support tools for student learning about scientific discovery processes? We summarize several epistemic views of ideation in scientific discovery and find that the ideation techniques provide few guarantees of correctness of scientific hypotheses, indicating the need for supporting hypothesis evaluation. We describe an interactive tool called MILA−S that enables students to elaborate hypotheses about ecological phenomena into conceptual models and evaluate conceptual models through agent-based simulations. We report on a pilot experiment with 50 middle school students who used MILA−S to discover causal explanations for an ecological phenomenon. Preliminary results from the study indicate that use of MILA–S had a significant impact both on the creative process of model construction and the nature of the constructed models. We posit that the computational support for model construction, evaluation and revision embodied in MILA–S fosters student creativity in learning about scientific discovery processes.
Extended Abstract
Bibtex
@inproceedings{
author = {Goel, Ashok K. and Joyner, David A.},
title = {Impact of a Creativity Support Tool on Student Learning about Scientific Discovery Process},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computational Creativity},
series = {ICCC2015},
year = {2015},
month = {Jun},
location = {Park City, Utah, USA},
pages = {284-291},
url = {http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/13_3Goel.pdf http://de.evo-art.org/index.php?title=Impact_of_a_Creativity_Support_Tool_on_Student_Learning_about_Scientific_Discovery_Process },
publisher = {International Association for Computational Creativity},
keywords = {computational, creativity},
}
Used References
Bishop, C. (2007) Pattern recognition and Machine Learning. Springer.
Bridewell, W., Sanchez, J., Langley, P., & Billman, D. (2006) An Interactive Environment for Modeling and Discovery of Scientific Knowledge. IJHMS 64(11): 1099-1114.
Bylander, T., Allemang, D., Tanner, M., & Josephson, J. (1991) The Computational Complexity of Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 49: 25-60.
Bylander, T., Johnson, T., & Goel, A. (1991) Structured Matching: A Task-Specific Technique for Making Decisions. Knowledge Acquisition 3(1):1-20.
Carruthers, P., Stitch, S., & Siegal, M. (editors, 2002) The Cognitive Basis of Science, Cambridge University Press.
Chandrasekaran, B., & Goel, A. (1988) From Numbers to Symbols to Knowledge Structures: Artificial Intelligence Perspectives on the Classification Task. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 18(3): 415-424.
Charniak, E., & McDermott, D. (1985) Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley. Chen, C., Chen, Y,, Horowitz, M., Hou, H., Liu, Z., & Pellegrino, D. (2009) Towards an Explanatory and Computational Theory of Scientific Discovery, Infometrics 3(3): 191-209.
Clement, J. (1988) Observed Methods of Generating Analogies in Scientific Problem Solving. Cognitive Science 12: 563-586.
Clement, J. (2008). Creative Model Construction in Scientists and Students: The Role of Imagery, Analogy, and Mental Simulation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Darden, L. (1998). Anomaly-driven theory redesign: computational philosophy of science experiments. In T. W. Bynum, & J. Moor (Eds.), The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy (pp. 62–78). Oxford: Blackwell.
Davies, J., Goel, A., & Yaner, P. (2008) Proteus: A Theory of Visual Analogies in Problem Solving. Knowledge-Based Systems 21(7): 636-654.
Davies, J., Nersessian, N., & Goel, A. (2005) Visual Models in Analogical Problem Solving. Foundations of Science 10(1): 133-152.
Davis, E. (1990) Representations of Commonsense Knowledge. Morgan Kauffman.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201.
Duda, R., Hart, P., & D. Stork. (2001) Pattern Classification. 2nd Edition. John Wiley.
Dunbar, K. (1997) How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In Ward, Smith, & Vaid (Editors), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence discovery and change (pp. 461–493). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Edelson, D., Gordin, D., & Pea, R. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 391-450.
Falkenhainer, B., Forbus, K., & Gentner, D. (1989) The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithms and Examples. Artificial Intelligence 41(1): 1-63.
Fischer, O., Goel, A., Svirbely, J., & Smith, J. (1991) The Role of Essential Explanations in Abduction. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 3: 181-191.
Glasgow, J., Narayanan, N.H., Chandrasekaran, B. (Editors, 1995) Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, MIT Press.
Goel, A., & Bhatta, S. (2004) Use of Design Patterns in Analogy-Based Design. Advanced Engineering Informatics 18(2):85-94.
Goel, A., Josephson, J., Fischer, O., & Sadayappan, P. (1995) Practical Abduction: Characterization, Decomposition and Distribution. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 7: 429-450.
Goel, A., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, Behavior & Function of Complex Systems: The SBF Modeling Language. AI for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 23: 23-35.
Goel, A., Soundararajan, N., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1987) Complexity in Classificatory Reasoning. In Proc. Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), Seattle, July 1987, 421-425.
Goel, A., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., & Helms, M. (2012) Cognitive, Collaborative, Conceptual and Creative - Four Characteristics of the Next Generation of Knowledge-Based CAD Systems: A Study in Biologically Inspired Design. Computer-Aided Design, 44(10): 879-900.
Golub, T., Slonim, D., Tamayo, P. et al. (1999) Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring. Science 289(5439): 531-537.
Griffith, T., Nersessian, N., & Goel, A. (2000) Functionfollows- Form: Generative Modeling in Scientific Reasoning. In Proc. Twenty Second Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, pp. 196-201.
Hofstadter, D (Editor, 1996) Fluid concepts and creative analogies: Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought, Basic Books, New York.
Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000) Model-It: A Design Retrospective. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (editors), Innovations in Science and Mathematics Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning (pp. 77- 115). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Josephson, J., & Josephson, S. (editors, 1996) Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology. Cambridge University Press.
Joyner, D., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., & Jordan, R. (2011). Evolution of an Integrated Technology for Supporting Learning about Complex Systems. In Proc. 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Athens, GA.
Joyner, D., Goel, A., & Papin, N. (2014). MILA–S: Generation of Agent-Based Simulations from Conceptual Models of Complex Systems. In Procs. 19th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Haifa, Israel.
Langley, P. (2000) The Computational Support of Scientific Discovery. IJHMS 53(3): 393-410.
Langley, P., Simon, H., Bradshaw, G., & Zytkow, J. (Editors, 1987) Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
Lenat, D. (1995) CYC: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure. Communications of ACM 58(11): 32-38. Lindsay, R., Buchanan, B., Feigenbaum, E., & Lederberg, J. (Editors, 1980) Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Organic Chemistry: The DENDRAL Project. McGraw-Hill. Magnini, L., Nersessian, N., & Thagard, P. (editors, 1999) Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery. Kluwer. Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Novak, J. (2010) Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. New York: Routledge.
Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.
Stefik, M. (1995) Knowledge Systems. Morgan Kauffman. Thagard, P., Holyoak, K. J., Nelson, G., & Gochfeld, D. (1990). Analog retrieval by constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 259-310.
VanLehn, K. (2013). Model construction as a learning activity: a design space and review. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 371-413.
Vattam, S., Goel, A., Rugaber, S., Hmelo–Silver, C., Jordan, R., Gray, S, & Sinha, S. (2011) Understanding Complex Natural Systems by Articulating Structure- Behavior- Function Models. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1): 66-81.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking Like a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Firefly: Learning Biology Through Constructing and Testing Computational Theories-An Embodied Modeling Approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3-19.
Links
Full Text
http://computationalcreativity.net/iccc2015/proceedings/13_3Goel.pdf
