The GlobalEd 2 Project: Interdisciplinary Simulations Promoting Students’ Socio-scientific Literacy

  • Scott W. BrownEmail author
  • Kimberly A. Lawless
Part of the Smart Computing and Intelligence book series (SMCOMINT)


Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional design approach designed to facilitate student learning in context-rich settings. GlobalEd2 (GE2) is a PBL curriculum intervention that combines face-to-face and online learning environments into a 14-week multi-player (N > 400) simulation of international negotiations among students in the roles of science delegates on global socio-scientific issues. Although GE2 focuses on science and written argumentation, it is implemented within social science classes that can span time zones, geographic and social boundaries while engaging 400+ middle-grade students in an authentically rich and engaging learning environment. This chapter describes the structural components that have made GE2 successful in promoting student learning across middle school grades, high school, college, and professional education. Further, the GE2 provides a multiyear set of data revealing GE2’s impact on students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (KABs). Implications are discussed regarding the instructional framework that has enabled GE2 to successfully evolve over the past 15 years and the future plans for development.


Problem-based learning Simulations Interdisciplinary learning 


  1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. J. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, M. A., Brown, S. W., Butler, M., Florea, N., Hernandez, M., Johnson, P. R. … Lima, C. O. (2004). Educating for global awareness: Implications for governance and generational change. Global Change, Peace & Security, 16(1), 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyer, M. A., Brown, S. W., Butler, M. J., Niv-Solomon, A., Urlacher, B., Hudson, N. F. ... Lima, C. O. (2007). Experimenting with global governance: Understanding the potential for generational change. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(2), 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyer, M. A., Florea, N., Butler, M., Brown, S. W., Meng, L., Johnson, P. R., & Lima, C., (2005). Understanding security through the eyes of the young, in The IPE yearbook published by Lynne Reinner Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. W. (2007, January). The GlobalEd project goes international: The Cyprus Project. Presentation at The Doves Olympic Movement Leadership Conference, Agros, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, S. W., Boyer, M. A., Johnson, P. R., Lima, C. O., Butler, M., Florea, N., & Rich, J. (2004). The GlobalEd Project: Problem-solving and decision making in a web-based PBL. In Conference Proceedings of Edu-Media, June 24, 2004. Lugano, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, S. W., Boyer, M. A., Mayall, H. J., Johnson, P. R., Meng, L., Butler, M. J., ... Reis, S. (2003). The GlobalEd project: Gender differences in a problem-based learning environment of international negotiations. Instructional Science, 31(4–5), 255–276.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, S. W., & Lawless, K. A. (2014). Promoting students’ writing skills in science through an educational simulation: The GlobalEd 2 project. In P. Zaphiris (Ed.) Human-computer interaction, Part I, HCII 2014, LNCS 8523 (pp. 371–379). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., & Boyer, M. A., (2009, October). The GlobalEd 2 Project: Expanding the science and literacy curricular space. In T. Bastiaens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 160–164). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  14. Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., & Boyer, M. A. (2013). Promoting positive academic dispositions using a web-based PBL environment: The GlobalEd 2 Project. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 7(1), 67–90.
  15. Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., & Boyer, M. A. (2015). The GlobalEd 2 simulations: Promoting positive academic dispositions in middle school students in a web-based PBL environment (pp. 147–159). In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., Rhoads, C., Newton, S. D., & Lynn, L. (2016, October). Increasing students’ science writing skills through a PBL simulation. In D. Sampson, J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, & P. Isaias (Eds.), Proceedings of The 13th IADIS International Conference Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA) (pp. 86–94). Mannheim, Germany: International Association for Development of the Information Society.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., Newton, S. D., Lynn, L., Riel, J., Song, S., & Oren, J. (2018, February 9). Increasing students’ engagement with STEM through a PBL simulation. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Clearwater, FL.Google Scholar
  18. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dede, C. (2009). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from
  20. Fadel, C. (2008). 21st century skills: How can you prepare students for the new global economy? Paper presented at the OECD/CERI Conference in Paris, France in May 2008.Google Scholar
  21. Florea, N., Boyer, M. A., Brown, S. W., Butler, M. J., Hernandez, M., Weir, K. ... Lima, C. (2003). Negotiating from Mars to Venus: Some findings on gender’s impact in simulated international negotiations. Simulation and Games, 34(2), 226–248.Google Scholar
  22. Gehlbach, H., Brown, S.W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M.A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., … Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective-taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 894–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodnough, K. C., & Hung, W. (2008). Engaging teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: Adopting a nine-step problem-based learning model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(2), 61–90.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S. (2015, April 26). Preparing for the 21st century: Soft skills matter. Huffington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2018, from
  25. Greening, T. (1998). Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning. Medical Education Online, 3(4), 1–15.Google Scholar
  26. Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy and classroom practice: A review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurd, P. (1998). Science literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D. H. (2009). Assembling and analyzing the building blocks of problem-based learning environments. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, volume one: Instructional design and training delivery. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Koschmann, T. D., Kelson, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1996). Computer-supported problem-based learning: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 83–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (2015). Developing scientific literacy skills through interdisciplinary, technology-based Global simulations: GlobalEd 2. The Curriculum Journal, 1, 1–22. Scholar
  32. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (in press). Promoting global citizenship and STEM literacies with a GlobalEd simulation. In C. Wright-Maley (Ed.), Teaching life itself: Simulations as powerful and purposeful social studies. Information Age Publishing; Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., & Boyer, M. A. (2016). Educating students for STEM literacy: GlobalEd 2. In R. D. Lansiquot (Ed.), Technology, theory and practice in interdisciplinary STEM programs: Connecting STEM and non-STEM approaches (pp. 53–82). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-137-56738-3. Scholar
  34. Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., Rhoads, C., Lynn, L., Newton, S. D., Brodowiska, K. B., … Song, S. (2017). Promoting students’ science literacy skills through a simulation of international negotiations: The GlobalEd 2 project. Computers in Human Behavior. Scholar
  35. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 75–614. Scholar
  36. Mansilla, V. B., Jackson, A., & Jacobs, I. H. (2013). Educating for global competence: Learning redefined for an interconnected world. In Mastering global literacy (pp. 5–27). New York: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  37. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Midgette, E., Haria, P., & MacArthur, C. (2008). 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.Google Scholar
  39. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College, School of Education. Retrieved from
  40. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Retrieved June 15, 2012, from
  43. Newcombe, N. S., Ambady, N., Eccles, J., Gomez, L., Klahr, D., Linn, M., Miller, K., & Mix, K. (2009). Psychology’s role in mathematics and science education. American Psychologist, 64(6), 538–550.Google Scholar
  44. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). Retrieved January 12, 2018, from
  45. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science: In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London: Nuffield Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 56, 543–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Picho, K., & Brown, S. W. (2011). Can stereotype threat be measured? A validation of the social identities and attitudes scale (SIAS). Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 374–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riel, J., Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (2016). Listening to the teachers: Using weekly online teacher logs for ROPD to identify teachers’ persistent challenges when implementing a blended learning curriculum. Journal of Online Learning Research, 2(2), 169–200.Google Scholar
  49. Riel, J., Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (2017). Defining and designing responsive online professional development (ROPD): A framework to support curriculum implementation. In T. Kidd & L.R. Morris, Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (Chapter 10, pp. 104–115). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. ISBN 9781522523994.Google Scholar
  50. Riel, J., Lawless, K., & Brown, S. W. (2018). Timing matters: Approaches for measuring and visualizing behaviours of timing and spacing of work in self-paced online teacher professional development courses. Journal of Learning Analytics, 5(1), 25–40. Scholar
  51. Rose, S. L., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should Great Lakes city build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Savery, J., & Duffy, T. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design educational technology (2nd printing ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Scheiner, S., & Willig, M. R. (2008). A general theory of ecology. Theoretical Ecology, 1(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schrader, P. G., & Lawless, K. A. (2004). The knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors approach: How to evaluate performance and learning in complex environments. Journal of Performance Improvement Quarterly, 43(9), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.Google Scholar
  59. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Published in The Systems Thinker. Retrieved from
  62. Yukhymenko, M. (2011). Students’ interest in social studies and negotiation self-efficacy: A meta-analysis of the GlobalEd project. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 369–392.Google Scholar
  63. Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  64. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationUniversity of IllinoisChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations