The computer simulation classes in the Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering Department at the University of Florida emphasize a skill set focusing on dynamic system model construction, syntax, and execution. Simulation models are treated as types of formal languages, resulting in instruction that concentrates on key facets of language such as syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. For the past 12 years, the class was predicated on learning a collection of model types and their applications. In the Fall of 2004 and 2005, we modified the class to emphasize student creativity in model construction, allowing students to design their own model representations for a fixed model structure. This experiment resulted in significant positive student feedback, and has the potential to suggest visual language exploration in other computer science classes as a means of comprehending the relevant topical material.
Szczerbicka, H., J. Banks, R.V. Rogers, T. I.Ören, H. S. Sarjoughian, and B. P.Zeigler. 2000. Conceptions of curriculum for simulation education. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, pp. 1635–1644.
2.
Gardner, H. E.1984 Art, Mind, and Brain: A Cognitive Approach to Creativity. New York: Basic Books.
3.
Fishwick, P. A., ed. 2006. Aesthetic Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Purchase, H. C.2002. Metrics for graph drawing aesthetics. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing13(5):501–516.
5.
Di Battista, G., P. Eades, R. Tamassia, and I. G. Tollis. 1999. Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6.
Kelly, M., ed. 1998. Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Volumes 1–4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Lieberman, H.1991.A three-dimensional representation for program execution. In Visual Programming Environments: Applications and Issues, E. P. Glinert, ed. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
8.
Najork, M.1996. Programming in three dimensions. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing7(2):219–242.
Tractinsky, N., A. Shoval-Katz, and D. Ikar. 2000. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers13:127–145.
11.
Norman, D. A.2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
12.
Tractinsky, N. 2004. Toward the study of aesthetics in information technology. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems, Washington, DC. pp. 771–780.
13.
Bolter, J. D., and D. Gromala. 2003. Windows and Mirrors: Interaction Design, Digital Art, and The Myth of Transparency. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Lavie, T., and N. Tractinsky. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies60:269–298.
15.
Baumgarten,A. G.1750. Aesthetica. Hildesheim: Olms. (Translated in 1968 by G. Olms.)
16.
Kant,I.1790. The Critique of Judgement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(Translated in 1952 by J. C. Meredith.)
17.
Arnheim, R.1966. Toward a Psychology of Art: Collected Essays. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
18.
Arnheim, R.1954. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19.
Fishwick, P. A.1995. Simulation Model Design and Execution: Building Digital Worlds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
Zeigler, B. P., H. Praehofer, and T. G. Kim. 2000. Theory of Modeling and Simulation. New York: Academic Press.
21.
Banks, J., J. S. Carson, B. L. Nelson, and D. Nicol. 2004. Discrete Event System Simulation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
Law,A. M., and W. D. Kelton. 2000. Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 3rd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Fishwick, P. A. 1992. Simpack: Getting started with simulation programming in C and C++. In Proceedings of the 1992 Winter Simulation Conference, Arlington, VA, pp. 154–162.
24.
Fishwick, P. A.2006. The Languages of Dynamic Systems Modeling. In Handbook on Dynamic Systems Modeling, P. A. Fishwick, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
25.
Overstreet, C. M., and R. E. Nance. 1985. A specification language to assist in analysis of discrete event simulation models. Communications of the ACM28(2):190–201.
26.
Nance, R. E. 1995. Simulation programming languages:An abridged history. In Proceedings of the 1995 Winter Simulation Conference, Washington, DC, pp. 1307–13.
27.
Schruben, L.W.1983. Simulation modeling with event graphs. Communications of the ACM26(11):957–63.
28.
Buss, A. H., and Sanchez, P. J. 2002. Modeling very large scale systems: Building complex models with LEGOs (Listener Event Graph Objects). In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, San Diego, CA, pp. 732–732.
29.
Brown, M. H., and J. Hershberger. 1998. Program auralization. In Software Visualization: Programming as a Multimedia Experience, J. Stasko, J. Domingue, M. H. Brown, and B. A. Price, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 137–43.
30.
Vickers, P., and J. L. Alty. 2006. The well-tempered compiler?The aesthetics of program auralization. In Aesthetic Computing,P.A.Fishwick, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 335–53.
31.
Borning,A., and R. Duisberg. 1986. Constraint-based tools for building user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics5(4):345–74.
32.
Minsky, M.1988. Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
