Advertisement

Promoting Students’ Writing Skills in Science through an Educational Simulation: The GlobalEd 2 Project

  • Scott W. Brown
  • Kimberly A. Lawless
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8523)

Abstract

Using a problem-based learning (PBL) approach, GlobalEd 2 (GE2) utilizes an interdisciplinary approach to learning writing, science, and social studies. Leveraging technologies commonly available in most middle grade classrooms (computers with Internet connections), GE2 engages classrooms of students as teams in simulated negotiations of international agreements on issues of global concern such as water resources and climate change. The impact of student interactions within the simulation on the writing self-efficacy and the ability to author evidenced-based arguments in science of 420 7th and 8th grade students across two states is presented. Results indicate that after participation in a GE2 simulation, students not only increased their writing self-efficacy, but also significantly increased the quality of their written scientific arguments.

Keywords

Writing Problem-based Learning (PBL) Simulation Self-Efficacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, R.D.: Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education 13, 1–12 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadler, T.D. (ed.): Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Springer, NY (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chinn, C.A., Malhotra, B.: Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education 86(2), 175–218 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., Simon, S.: Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science. In-service Training Pack, Resource Pack and Video. Nuffield Foundation, London (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schwarz, B.B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., Ilya, M.: Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2), 221–258 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erduran, S., Simon, S., Osborne, J.: TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education 88, 915–933 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiménez, A.M.P., Pereiro-Muńos, C.: Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education 24, 1171–1190 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., Simon, S., Monk, M.: Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review 82(301), 63–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., Scott, P.: Young people’s images of science. Open University Press, Philadelphia (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taber, K.S.: Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science and Education 17(2-3), 179–218 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner, S.: School science and its controversies; or, whatever happened to scientific literacy? Public Understanding of Science 17(1), 55–72 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sadler, T.D., Barab, S., Scott, B.: What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education 37(4), 371–391 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., Allspaw, K.M.: Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43(4), 353–376 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alozie, N., Moje, E.B., Kracik, J.S.: An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion among high school project-based science. Science Education 94, 395–427 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J.F., Ratcliffe, M.: Teaching students ‘Ideas-About-Science’: five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education 88, 655–682 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., Campbell, B.: Systematic review of research in science education: Rigour or rigidity. International Journal of Science Education 27(4), 387–406 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levinson, R., Turner, S. (eds.): The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. Institute of Education, London (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Assembling and analyzing the building blocks of problem-based learning environments. In: Silber, K.H., Foshay, W.R. (eds.) Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Volume One: Instructional Design and Training Delivery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koschmann, T.D., Kelson, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., Barrows, H.S.: Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In: Koschmann, T. (ed.) CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, pp. 83–124. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mergendoller, J.R., Bellisimo, Y., Maxwell, N.L.: Comparing problem-based learning and traditional instruction in high school economics. Journal of Educational Research 93(6), 374–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strobel, J., van Barneveld, A.: When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 3(1), 4 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., Perry, J.D.: Theory into practice: How do we link? In: Duffy, T.M., Jonassen, D.J. (eds.) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brown, S.W., Lawless, K.A., Boyer, M.A.: Expanding the Science and Literacy Curricular Space: The GlobalEd II Project. US Department of Education: The Institute of Education Sciences, IES. # R305A080622 (2008-2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M.: The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hayes, J.R.: A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In: Indrisano, R., Squire, J.R. (eds.) Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory and Practice, pp. 6–44. International Reading Association, Newark (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pajares, F.: Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 56, 543–578 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Midgette, E., Haria, P., MacArthur, C.: The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Reading and Writing 21(1-2), 131–151 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott W. Brown
    • 1
  • Kimberly A. Lawless
    • 2
  1. 1.Educational Psychology DepartmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations