I've stayed out of this discusion so far, because I didn't want to toot my own horn, but here goes anyway. I agree that canned models _can_ interfere with understanding underlying processes. That can be avoided, but it takes considerable effort on the teacher's part. But another approach is to have students build the models. Then (one hopes, at least) they not only learn how the particular models work, and the assumptions that went into them, but also something about the process of modeling in general and its values and limitations. Therese Donovan and I wrote a couple of books showing how to build a variety of ecological models from scratch in Excel. You could do the same in any spreadsheet, or in Matlab, as Roughgarden does, or in a variety of other programming environments. The point is to get the students to think through the process, rather than handing them the finished product. I have had the greatest success when I don't give students explicit, step-by-step instructions, but general guidance and let them really struggle with the problem. I find I must exercise great patience and forbearance to let them make mistakes and correct themselves. They get frustrated, I have to stop myself from fixing their mistakes, and everything takes far, far longer than it would if I would just give them the models (or tell them how to make them). I console myself with the thought that maybe, just maybe, they've really learned something when it's all over. Why do I think that? Only because I know that as an undergraduate never really understood models, and only began to understand them to the limited degree I now do when I began to try to teach them, and had to struggle through them on my own so I could explain them to my students. Doubtless understanding comes differently, and more easily, to those of you who are not so mathematically challenged as I am, but on the other hand perhaps I am closer to understanding the mindset of many of our students. Finally, I assure you I am not trying to sell books (check them out of a library), but just in case anyone is interested, here are the references: Roughgarden, J. 1998. Primer of Ecological Theory. Prentice Hall. Donovan, T. and Welden, C. 2002. Spreasheet Exercises in Conservation Biology and Landscape Ecology. Sinauer Assoc. Donovan, T. and Welden, C. 2002. Spreasheet Exercises in Ecology and Evolution. Sinauer Assoc. Charles
Charles W. Welden Department of Biology Southern Oregon University [EMAIL PROTECTED] (541) 552-6868 (voice) (541) 552-6415 (fax) >>> Dan Fiscus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/20/06 12:40 PM >>> John, I don't have specific references you seek, and am not really against computer modeling, but I have myself been questioning the role of computers in education in general. I think there are studies related to the negative effects of certain kinds of computer learning, likely for younger kids like elementary through high school. My brother teaches elementary and uses computers a lot and sometimes he says kids that can do well on the computers can't do well in other arenas. This suggests to me that the context of learning is important and that if the computer does too much to make the context rare, special, glitzy, "inter-active" in bad ways (providing graphics and multiple choice, walking kids through by the hand, spoon feeding, like TV almost, taking away the creative and struggle and internal work parts) - then the learning may be dependent on that specialized computer context and may not be transferable or "embodied" via true mastery. Most of this would be moot in a typical undergrad class where computers and/or computer modeling are only one part, since the other parts would create a more general and rich context. But I thought I would mention it. Beyond that I think it important to examine that computers themselves are not sustainable. Thus I am reluctant to invest lots of blood, sweat and tears into them for any purpose, as I don't think they will be here, in this same form, in 100 or 1000 years. Without an open-ended evolutionary future they seem a dead-end to me, and I want to contribute to aspects of science and culture and education that can "live long and prosper". This is a highly biased view and also minority view. I think it interesting to imagine modeling systems that *are* sustainable over the very long term (i.e., run on renewable energy and recycling materials, like all life systems). Such self-examination could perhaps add a neat, complex, self-reflexive element to computer modeling - could we model our own modeling process? Where would computer ecological modeling fit in to an ecosystem model of a town or university in terms of energy, materials, information stocks and fluxes and transformations? Can computer modeling pay its way, justify its own existence, more than compensate for what it consumes and degrades? Some thoughts... Dan Fiscus John Petersen wrote: >Back in September of '05 I sent out an announcement about a conference >at Oberlin College that would focus on the role of computation and >modeling in the undergraduate curriculum. I was very interested when >several colleagues responded on this list-serve expressing a rather >negative view regarding the value of teaching modeling to >undergraduates. To summarize, the arguments seemed to focus on the >notion that the development of specialized and technical computer skills >involved in modeling represents a counterproductive distraction. Has >anyone seen this argument made anywhere in any literature? I would >greatly appreciate references to papers or book chapters that adopt this >view or otherwise criticize the value of modeling education for >undergraduates. Beyond that I would appreciate suggestions for >literature that takes any position on the pedagogical role of modeling >in the undergraduate curriculum. > >Thanks! >John Petersen >Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology >Oberlin College > > > >
