Ylva Fernaeus & Jakob Tholander
A number of issues were raised concerning the EcoLiteracy activity sequence. During the second year we have addressed these issues through two iterations of testing the activity sequence. This document summarises how we – based on the outcomes of experiences from working hands on with children and by thoroughly considering the feedback provided at last years evaluation – have refined the EcoLiteracy activity sequence.
The first change indicates the nature of a major revision: The name of the activity sequence has been changed to EcoModelling in order to better mirror the revision.
In the review report a general criticism was raised against all knowledge domains that stated that “ it was not clear how this learning context could facilitate the acquisition of abstracting skills” (p. 5). EcoLiteracy in particular was criticised for being unclear regarding the relation between the domain knowledge and the models that the children would be constructing:
“For example, with ecoliteracy, addressing complexity of systems, it is not necessary
[for the children] to construct a 20 or 30 levels system; it is sufficient to work with a limited number of levels, and emphasise how a multimedia approach can facilitate the construction of formal cognitive processes and structures, and formal knowledge about complex systems.” (p. 8)
Initially, the EcoLiteracy knowledge domain had a particular focus on concepts from ecological systems and complex systems theory. This was based upon arguments put forward by for instance Resnick and Wilensky (1998) that there is a need to bring in complex systems theory styles of thinking and reasoning (ecological thinking, thinking in levels, systemic thinking, decentralized thinking) into the earlier stages of the school curriculum. In a globalized world, both socially and environmentally, new ways to learn about systemic effects, such as the greenhouse effect and stock market behaviours, will become increasingly important. The styles of thinking involved in understanding such phenomena are rarely introduced in today’s schooling before fairly advanced college levels. One obvious reason for this is that until recently the study of these domains has required understanding of mathematics and computer science that simply has been too difficult for the lower age groups to grasp. Another argument for bringing in complex systems thinking into earlier stages of schooling is that it is a highly cross-disciplinary area and can therefore help to bridge traditional curriculum boundaries.
The knowledge domain was described to consist of three different areas:
 knowledge about food chains, food webs, and food pyramids and how computational modelling can provide alternative conceptualisations of these issues
 knowledge about concepts from complex systems theory such as emergence and dynamics

 knowledge about computational modelling construction of computational systems including interaction between objects, representation of real world phenomena in computational form, and implementation, testing, and debugging.
By providing tools that let children make their own dynamic representations of real world ecological systems, the children would – we hoped – be able to control some of the expressive properties of a computation and at the same time get insights into how complex phenomena in the real world can be expressed through computer modelling.
Moreover, the domain in general was thought to hold some properties of particular value for the purpose and goals of the Weblabs project.
Firstly, the modelling, construction, exchange, and modification of dynamic systems provide new means for children to communicate with each other, even though they are not able to understand each others’ spoken and written languages . One challenge that has emerged during the second year of the project has been that of achieving the kind of collaboration between children across sites that fosters the knowledge building processes that the project has set as one of as its central goals. Simply finding technical solutions for how to manage translation of children’s webreports will not be sufficient in reaching this goal. Especially since the project has set out to also provide children with other than pure language based means of communicating their knowledge. When developing the activity sequence we presupposed that animals, nature and environmental issues would be topics that many children at this age are interested in, and also that the geographical differences between the sites in the project would make it particularly interesting for students to exchange models were such issues were central aspects.
Secondly, another goal of the Weblabs project is to explore how transparent modules of programming code or more generally, computational processes, could be used for modelling and programming activities in order to express and communicate ideas within particular knowledge domains. Behaviours of – and relations between – organisms are aspects that we find to be very well suited for the exploration of such programming structures while also being interesting and engaging for the targeted age group.
In our work with children, these two properties have proven to be the most successful in terms of children’s engagement and potential for interesting learning. In the revision of the activity sequence we have therefore taken these two properties as starting points when reconsidering the goals of the activity sequence.
Our experience from letting children work with modelling of complex systems proves that they find that this is an interesting domain for modelling on the computer and that they have had a number of learning experiences that are in line with the aims of the activity sequence, as well as with aims of the project as a whole. The groups of children that we have worked with have all engaged with modelling of phenomena related to food webs and endangered species. This is a sub-domain of complex systems that children of this age are already familiar with and which is also a part of their current curriculum. Food webs and endangered species has also proved

interesting in that it provides for descriptions of relations and interactions that are interesting in terms of computational modelling and representation.
However, our work with the children has developed in a direction where the focus has been on the actual modelling activities, i.e. on the modelling and construction of dynamic systems of behaviours of interacting organisms rather than on food web and complex system concepts per se. The primary reason for this is that these activities have turned out to be the most successful in terms of learning and engagement from the children, and also from their teachers. Only parts of the activities have concerned the actual domain content of food webs and concepts from complex systems theory.
The modelling activities have brought up several important skills that are crucial to modelling of any phenomena – such as techniques for representation and testing, debugging and refinement of models – and not just for modelling of food web systems.
Throughout the iterations of the activity sequence, the children have been engaged with several different kinds of tools for modelling and construction of computational models: ToonTalk simulations, Lego robot representations, and tangible artefacts for collaborative role playing. All the different tools that have been used in our activities have played important roles for the children’s learning of modelling of computational systems. Initially, the work with tangible Lego materials and role playing activities were designed to support the learning of modelling in ToonTalk. However, our experiences from this year’s work have led us to reconsider the role of these different tools. We now view the activities where these tools are used as a centrally important focus for the learning of modelling. The different tools and activities thereby provide different perspectives on phenomena under study.
The conclusions drawn from the experiences discussed above have led us to revise the aims of the activity sequence in a way so that we now have shifted our focus from viewing the modelling activities as mainly having the purpose of enhancing students abilities to reason about complex systems and ecology, as was the case during the first year’s development of the activity sequence. Instead, we now view the learning of concepts and techniques of modelling, and learning to construct models of dynamic systems on the computer as the core learning aims of this activity sequence. We hope that this will make the connection between the children’s activities and the learning aims clearer and more direct. Of course, we would like to emphasise that ecological and complex systems still play an important role in the activity sequence since these serve an important role in providing domains with properties that are interesting to construct computational models of. They also provide means of fostering collaboration between children in different sites.
We would also like to emphasise that modelling of dynamic systems as a knowledge domain is fuzzier in its definition than some of the other knowledge domains addressed in project. Therefore we will not be able provide a number of concepts and abstract definitions as providing the specific learning aims of this activity sequence.
However, we still view the learning of modelling as equally important to the targeted age group.

Learning to model dynamic systems is now the central learning aim of the sequence


Ecology and complex systems provide domains with interesting properties for learning to model

ToonTalk, Lego-tangibles, and role-playing artifacts are tools in the realization of the activity sequence on which we will put equal focus compared to previously where Lego-tangibles, and role-playing artifacts were viewed as support for learning to use ToonTalk

To reflect these changes and to avoid the risk of misunderstanding the aims of the activity sequence we have renamed it to EcoModelling .