Learning Environments Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 163–178 | Cite as

Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of science–technology learning environments

  • Yaron DoppeltEmail author
Original Paper


During recent decades, educational research has dealt with the contribution of the learning environment to the accomplishment of educational goals, such as improvement of academic achievement and motivation. In this research, an intervention program was implemented into the learning environment of science–technology classes at the junior high school level (Grades 7–9, 12–15 years old) in Israel. The intervention included a three-year workshop involving 224 hours each year. The teachers (N = 22) were required to reflect on their experiences using a portfolio that described their actual teaching experiences for relevant discussions at the workshop. Quantitative and qualitative tools were used to examine the teachers’ implementation of new teaching/learning and assessment methods or new subject matter, that were addressed by the workshop in their classes, and to identify learning environment characteristics and learning outcomes according to teachers’ perceptions. Differences were found between teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of the impact of learning environment characteristics on learning outcomes.


Alternative assessment Learning outcomes Science–technology learning environment Teacher training Team projects Thinking skills 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The author wishes to thank the teachers and their pupils who participated in the field research. Special thanks to Mrs Yael Furman Shaharabani and Mr Shaul Sanans, whose collaboration served as a model for implementing the science–technology new curriculum.


  1. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) program for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 139–151.Google Scholar
  2. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.Google Scholar
  3. Barak, M., & Raz, E. (1998). Hot air balloons: Project centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84, 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barak, M., Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Majoring in technology studies at high school and fostering learning. Learning Environments Research, 3, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. De Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of the PATT-12 Conference (pp. 3–12). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from Scholar
  8. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2001). Is it possible or desirable to change the relationship between science and design and technology in secondary schools? In E. W. L. Norman & P. H. Roberts (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development IDATER 2001 (pp. 17–22). Leicestershire, UK: Loughborough University. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from idater2001.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, D. J., Brown, L. A., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on issues and research in education policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from Scholar
  11. De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  12. De Vries, M. J. (1997). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doppelt, Y. (2004). Characteristics’ impact of science-technology learning environment on learning outcomes: Pupils’ perceptions and gender differences. Learning Environments Research, 7, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics’ context. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 7–24.Google Scholar
  16. Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
  17. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, D. C. (2005, April). A close-knit collaboration between researchers and teachers for developing and implementing a design-based science module. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  18. Dori, I., & Barnea, N. (1997). In-service chemistry teachers’ training: The impact of introducing computer technology on teachers’ attitudes and classroom implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 577–592.Google Scholar
  19. Eylon, B.-S. (2000a). Designing powerful learning environments and practical theories: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 885–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eylon, B.-S. (2000b, August). Reflections on long-term professional development of physics teachers in Israel. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinates. In B.␣J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271–290). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences/the theory to practice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Harari, H. (1992). A report of the Committee for Science and Technology Education (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, M. M. (1999, November). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. NISE Brief, 3(2), 1–7. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Science Education.Google Scholar
  26. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning Styles Inventory. Boston: McBer and Company.Google Scholar
  27. Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird J. H. (1994). Learning in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Science Education Standards. (1996). Standards for professional development for teachers of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE).Google Scholar
  29. Perkins, N. D. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & H. D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 45–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1989). A rationale for and the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education, 73, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sternberg, J. R. (1998). Teaching and assessing for successful intelligence. The School Administrator, 55(1), 26–31.Google Scholar
  33. Tal, R., Dori, I., Keiny S., & Zoller, U. (2001). Assessing conceptual change of teachers involved in STES education and curriculum development—The STEMS project approach. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waks, S. (1994). Science-technology dimensions in physics education: Prospects and impacts. Physics Education, 29, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg, Germany: Tempus Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2002, August). A system perspective on evaluating a science-technology in-service teachers’ training. Paper presented at the International Conference in Educational Assessment, Northumbria University, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/technology/society: As reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  38. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students—Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.SegevIsrael

Personalised recommendations