Promoting Positive Academic Dispositions Using a Web-based PBL Environment: The GlobalEd 2 Project
Main Article Content
Abstract
Problem-based learning (PBL) is an instructional design approach for promoting student learning, understanding and knowledge development in context rich settings. Previous PBL research has primarily focused on face-to-face learning environments, but current technologies afford PBL designers the opportunities to create online, virtual, PBL environments. The GlobalEd 2 Project is an example of a PBL environment that combines the positive characteristics of both face-to-face and online environments in a 14-week simulation of international negotiations of science advisors on global water resource issues. The GlobalEd 2 PBL environment is described examining the impact it has had on middle school students’ interest in future science education experiences, self-efficacy related to writing in science and self-efficacy related to technology use for academic purposes using a pre-test post-test design. Analyses using ANOVAs of gain scores and ANCOVAs of subgroup differences demonstrate a positive impact on the science interest and self-efficacy of 208 middle-grade students from urban and suburban schools.
Article Details
1. Publication and Promotion: In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the non-exclusive right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work orany part of it as Publisher sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work inpublished form and in advertising and promotional materials
2. Copyright: Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
3. Prior Publication and Attribution: Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. Author agrees to cite, by author, title, and publisher, the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication when publishing the Work elsewhere
4. Author Representations: The Author represents and warrants that the Work:
(a) is the Author’s original Work and that Author has full power to enter into this Agreement;
(b) does not infringe the copyright or property of another;
(c) contains no material which is obscene, libelous, defamatory or previously published, in whole or in part.
Author shall indemnify and hold Publisher harmless against loss of expenses arising from breach of any such warranties.
5. Licensing and Reuse: Reuse of the published Work will be governed by a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon the Work non-commercially; although new works must acknowledge the original Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning publication and be non-commercial, they do not have to be licensed on the same terms.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2000). Toward a model of academic development: Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029002028
Alexander, P. A., Jetton, T. L., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 559–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.4.559
Arnot, M., David., M., & Weiner, G. (1999). Closing the gender gap: Postwar education and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10136
Becker, H. J. (1999). Teaching, learning, and computing—1998: A national survey of schools and teachers. Irvine, CA: University of California, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/html/home.html
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy and D. J. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2005). Systematic review of research in science education: Rigour or rigidity. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 387–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323719
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (Eds.). (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, M. S., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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 http://www.editlib.org/p/32449.
Brown, S. W., Lawless, K. A., & Boyer, M. A., (2010, June). Expanding science and literacy curricular space: Results of the GlobalEd 2 simulation on water resources. Poster presented at the Institute for Education Sciences research Conference, Washington, DC.
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001
College Entrance Examination Board (2003). The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges. http://www.vantagelearning.com/docs/myaccess/neglectedr.pdf
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813
Dede, C. (2007). Reinventing the role of information and communications technologies in education. The Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2). https://nsse-chicago.org/Chapter.asp?uid=2817
Dockstader, J. (1999). Teachers of the 21st century know the what, why, and how of technology integration. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 73–74.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Evensen, D. H. & Hmelo, C. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gewertz, C. (2007). Outside interests: Young people typically plug in to new technology far more often on their own time than in school. Education Week, Technology Counts 2007. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/29/30tcstudent.h26.html
Goodnough, K., & Hung, W. (2008). Engaging teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge: Adopting a nine-step problem-based learning model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 2(2), 61–90.
Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 571–581). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greening, T. (1998). Scaffolding for success in problem-based learning. Medical Education Online. 3(4), Article 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/meo.v3i.4297
Grigg, W. S., Daane, M. C., Jin, Y., & Campbell, J. R. (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading 2002 (NCES 2003521). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Trauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliott, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement: Predicting continued interest and per- formance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Trauer, J. M., & Elliott, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562
Hargreaves, A., & Moore, S. (2000). Curriculum integration and classroom relevance: A study of teachers’ practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(2), 89–122.
Hart, H., Allensworth, E., Lauen, D., & Gladden, R. M. (2002). Educational technology: Its availability and use in Chicago’s public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research. http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/educational-technology-its-availability-and-use-chicagos-public-schools
Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry (ERIC Digest EDO-SE-93-4), Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. http://www.ericdigests.org/1993/inquiry.htm
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.
Holliday, W. G., Yore, L. D., & Alvermann, D. E. (1994). The reading-science learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, and promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 877–893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310905
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Science literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G
International Society for Technology in Education [iSTE]. (1998). National educational technology standards for students. Washington, DC: ISTE. http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets_for_students_1998_standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2
International Society for Technology in Education [iSTE]. (2007). National educational technology standards for students (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: ISTE.
Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006999290363
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.
Koschmann, T. D., Myers, A. C., Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1994). Using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 219–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0303_2
Krajcik, J. S., Blumengeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461779
Lawless, K. A. (2005). Meaningful integration of technology into the classroom with Jamestown Reading Navigator. White Paper published as a part of the Jamestown Navigator Reading Series, Houghton Mifflin. http://www.glencoe.com/glencoe_research/Jamestown/meaningful_integration_of_technology_into_the_classroom.pdf
Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W., Mills, R. J., & Mayall. H. J. (2003). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: A look at hypertext processing. Journal of Literacy Research, 35(3), 911–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3503_5
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_Tech_July2005web.pdf
Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (Eds.). (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003444.pdf
McEwen, B. C. (2004). Writing in the discipline: Why and how. Paper presented at the Annual Atlantic Coast Business and Marketing Education Conference. Raleigh, NC.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2000). Comparing problem-based learning and traditional instruction in high school economics. Journal of Educational Research, 93(6), 374–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220670009598732
Minstrell, J. A., & van Zee, E. H. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiring into inquiry: learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Mitani, H. (2007). Computer access at school improves. Education Week. Retrieved October 2, 2007 from http://www.edweek.org/rc/articles/2007/04/12/sow0412.h26.html
Murray, I., & Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Staff development in problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 107–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135625100114993
National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nelson, E. (2010). Elements of problem-based learning: Suggestions for implementation in the asynchronous environment. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(1), 99–114.
Nelson, L. M. (1999).Collaborative problem solving. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory: Vol. 4 (pp. 241–267). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Newman, M. (2003). A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of problem-based learning. ERIC Digests. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from the EDTS.
No Child Left Behind Act, Title II, Part D, §2402. (2001).
Pellegrino, J. W., Goldman, S. G., Bertenthal, M. & Lawless, K. A. (2007). Teacher education and
technology: Initial results from the “what works and why” project. The Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(2), 52–86.
Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theory and practice. In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 361–395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0495-1
Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300203
Ryder, J., Leach, J. & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<201::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-H
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M. & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–37.
Sax, G. (1989). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 3–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0002
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progressive feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1024
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal-setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560308219
Speering, W., & Rennie, L. J. (1996). Students’ perceptions about science: the impact of transition from primary to secondary school. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 283–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02356940
Todt, E. (1978). Das Interesse: Empirische Untersuchungen zu einem Motivationskonzept. Berne: Huber.
Todt, E., & Schreiber, S. (1998). Development of interests. In L. Hoffman, A. Krapp, A. Remminger, and Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning (pp. 25–40). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Wise, K. C., & Okey, J. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5): 419–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200506
Yore, L. D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science education community stay the course for meaningful reform? Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4).
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal 31(4), 845–862. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312031004845