Abstract
Science and technology are connected to each other and are mutually inspiring. The science-technology curriculum for junior-high school in Israel suggests that teachers integrate these subjects. In addition, this curriculum calls for infusing thinking competencies into the learning subjects and for implementing alternatives in assessment methods in the classes. The current research included three stages: field research, pilot research and expanded research. In the field research, an intervention program was planned and implemented. The intervention program included a three-year inservice training workshop consisting of 224 hours each year. Quantitative and qualitative tools were used to assess teachers’ implementation of the intervention program. The findings revealed the characteristics of the science-technology learning environment and various learning outcomes. The pilot research enabled the development and validation of a questionnaire called the Science-Technology Learning Environment Questionnaire (STLEQ). The STLEQ was aimed at assessing teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of learning environment. The conclusions from the pilot research showed differences between teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions towards the impact of learning environment characteristics on learning outcomes.
In the expanded research, two cohorts of pupils participated, namely, the 2002 cohort (N = 207) and the 2003 cohort (N = 159). These cohorts had studied science-technology in junior-high school. The findings of the expanded research partly match the findings from the pilot research, leading to insight into the pupils’ perspective of the science-technology learning environment. No gender differences were found in pupils’ scoring of learning outcomes. On the other hand, boys scored higher than girls on Computer Usage. This research enables researchers and teachers to use the questionnaire in order to investigate pupils’ perceptions of their learning environment.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, T.-C. I. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48–62.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the CoRT program for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 139–151.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.
Barak, M., Eisenberg, E., & Harel, O. (1995). ‘What’s in the calculator?’ An introductory project for technology studies. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12(2), 147–154.
Barak, M., & Waks, S. (1997). An Israeli study of longitudinal in-service training of mathematics science and technology teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(2), 179–190.
Barak, M., Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Majoring in technology studies at high school and fostering learning. Learning Environment Research, 3, 135–158.
Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124–143). London: Routledge.
Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & J. M. De Vries (Eds.), Technology Education in the Curriculum: Relationships with Other Subjects. Proceedings, PATT-12 Conference, Columbus, OH, March 2002 (pp. 3–12). Available from http://www.iteawww.org/D4c.html
Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2001, August). Is it possible to change the relationship between science and technology in secondary schools? Paper presented at IDATER 2001 Conference, Loughborough, UK.
De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.
De Vries, M. J. (1997). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 21–32.
Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255–272.
Doppelt, Y. (2004). Science-technology learning environment: Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions. Manuscript in preparation.
Doppelt, Y. (in press). Assessment of project-based learning in a MECHATRONICS context. Journal of Technology Education
Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.
Fraser, B. J. (1998a). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environment Research, 1, 1–5.
Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B. J., Giddings, J. G., & McRobbie, J. C. (1995). Evolution and validation form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 399–422.
Gardner, P. (1997). The roots of technology and science: A philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 13–20.
Harari, H. (1992). A Report of the Committee for Science and Technology Education (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education.
Henderson, D., Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learning environments and student outcomes in senior biology classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 26–43.
Hofstein, A., Cohen, I., & Lazarowitz, R. (1996). The learning environment of high school students in chemistry and biology laboratories. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14(1), 103–116.
Linn, C. M., & Eylon, B.-S. (2000). Knowledge integration and displaced volume. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(4), 287–310.
Novak, J. D., Gowin, D. B., & Johansen, G. T. (1983). The use of concept mapping and knowledge via mapping with junior high-school science students. Science Education, 67(5), 625–645.
Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., & Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text and talk: Students’ perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5), 569–589.
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 141–150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Roth, W. M., & Surry, C. (1999). Student self-evaluations of open-ended projects in a grade 9 science classroom. Research in Science Education, 29(4), 431–443.
Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 746–767.
Waks, S. (1994). Science-technology dimensions in physics education: Prospects and impacts. Physics Education, 29, 64–70.
Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg, Germany: Tempus Publications.
Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2002, August). A system perspective on evaluating an educational programme – Synergy of assessment components. Paper presented at the Northumbria International Research Conference in Assessment, Northumbria University, Longhirst, UK.
Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 125–148.
Wong, F. L. A., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14(1), 91–102.
Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/technology/society: As reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doppelt, Y. Impact of science-technology learning environment characteristics on learning outcomes: pupils’ perceptions and gender differences. Learning Environ Res 7, 271–293 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-004-3297-4
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-004-3297-4