Learning Environments Research

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 195–209 | Cite as

Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment

  • Yaron Doppelt
  • Christian D. Schunn
Original Paper


Across several decades, educational researchers have investigated the contribution of the learning environment to the attainment of educational goals, such as improving academic achievement and motivation to learn. The term learning environment not only includes physical activities in the classroom (e.g. experiments kits, computers), but also includes teaching methods, the type of learning in which pupils are engaged, and assessment methods. In this research, we refined an approach to measuring the impact of a variety of classroom features on many different learning outcomes through the lens of students’ perception. A new instrument, the Design-Based Learning Environment Questionnaire (DBLEQ), was field-tested in an eighth-grade USA science classroom setting. This study examined pre-post changes for two different curricula, one emphasising design-based learning (n = 464) and another emphasising scripted inquiry (n = 248). The value of the instrument and ways of analysing its data are illustrated through the range of differences that were found between conditions over time.


Classroom features Design-based learning Learning environment Learning outcomes Science and technology 


  1. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) programme for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(2), 139–151. doi: 10.1080/0263514990170202.CrossRefGoogle 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., Eisenberg, E., & Harel, O. (1995). ‘What’s in the calculator?’ An introductory project for technology studies. Research in Science & Technological Education, 12, 147–154. doi: 10.1080/0263514950130204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barak, M., & Raz, E. (1998). Hot air balloons: Project centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84, 27–42. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<27::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-8.Google Scholar
  5. Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects. Proceedings PATT-12 Conference (pp. 3–12). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology. Available from:
  7. De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “Technology is applied Science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  8. Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255–272. doi: 10.1023/A:1026125427344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doppelt, Y. (2004). Impact of science-technology learning environment characteristics on learning outcomes: Pupils’ perceptions and gender differences. Learning Environments Research, 7, 271–293. doi: 10.1007/s10984-004-3297-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doppelt, Y. (2006). Science-technology learning environment: Teachers and pupils’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 9, 163–178. doi: 10.1007/s10984-006-9005-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doppelt, Y. (in press). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from (OnlineFirst).
  12. 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
  13. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M.M., & Schunn, C.D. (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
  14. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, D. C., & Silk, E. (2004). Alarm system—Design, construction and reflection: Teacher guide, student module and embedded assessment. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC), University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  15. Doppelt, Y., Silk, E., Mehalik, M.M., Schunn, D.C., Reynolds, B., & Ward, E. (2006, April). Evaluating the impact of a facilitated learning community approach to professional development on student achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  16. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd vers.). Perth, Australia: Western Australian Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. 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, 399–422. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660320408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B. Fraser & H. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271–292). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, R. (1993). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. In R. McCormick, P. Murphy & M. Harrison (Eds.), Teaching and learning technology (pp. 91–111). Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. Henderson, D., Fisher, D., & Fraser, B. (2000). Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learning environments and student outcomes in senior biology classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 26–43. doi :10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200001)37:1<26::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-I.Google Scholar
  23. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, D. C. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
  25. Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nicaise, M., Gibney, T., & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: Student perceptions of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79–94. doi: 10.1023/A:1009477008671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 Norwood.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg, Germany: Tempus Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Wong, F. L. A., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14, 91–102. doi: 10.1080/0263514960140107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). Incorporating critical thinking within a regular high school biology curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC)University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.SegevIsrael

Personalised recommendations