Learning Environments Research

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 173–185 | Cite as

Evaluating students’ perceptions and attitudes toward computer-mediated project-based learning environment: A case study

Original paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

This research investigated 68 secondary school students’ perceptions of their computer-mediated project-based learning environment and their attitudes towards Project Work (PW) using two instruments—Project Work Classroom Learning Environment Questionnaire (PWCLEQ) and Project Work Related Attitudes Instrument (PWRAI). In this project-based learning environment, students experienced a face-to-face classroom setting and e-learning by using a synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) tool called ‘iCollaborate’ for online communication and project collaboration with peers from other countries. The PWCLEQ and PWRAI instruments were used to evaluate the computer-mediated project-based learning environment using students’ perceptions of the learning environment and to further investigate how their perceptions might affect their attitudes towards PW lessons. Students perceived the computer-mediated project-based learning environment favourably but they preferred to experience more Material Environment and more Open-Endedness and Social Presence. Simple correlation analysis revealed that all environment dimensions were significantly and positively related to the students’ attitudes towards PW, while multiple regression analysis indicated that two scales, Instructor Support and Social Presence, were the strongest predictors of attitudes towards PW lessons.

Keywords

Attitudes Computer-mediated communication Project-based learning Secondary education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Asghar, M., & Fraser, B. (1995). Classroom environment and attitudes to science in Brunei Darussalam. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 18(2), 41–47.Google Scholar
  2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, V., & Fisher, D. (2003). The validation and application of a new learning environment instrument to evaluate online learning in higher education. In M. S. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective (pp. 1–18). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  4. Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deemer, S. A. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school classrooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom environments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Derntl, M., & Motschnig-Pitrik, R. (2005). The role of structure, patterns and people in blended learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(2), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorman, J. P. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 4, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorman, J. P., Adams, J. E., & Ferguson, J. M. (2003). A cross-national investigation of students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom environment and academic efficacy in secondary schools. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved November 1, 2009, from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/dormanj.pdf.
  9. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended Learning. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 2004(7). Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0407.pdf.
  10. Dziuban, C. D., Moskal, P. D., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities (pp. 85–100). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J., & Lee, S. S. U. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Korean high schools. Learning Environments Research, 12, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology (pp. 79–84). New Orleans, LA: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 1, 199–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109–119.Google Scholar
  16. Jamaludin, A., & Quek, C. L. (2006). Using asynchronous online discussions in primary school project work. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 64–87.Google Scholar
  17. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Khine, M. S., & Goh, S. C. (2001, December). Investigation of tertiary classroom learning environment in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, H., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972). Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 449–496.Google Scholar
  23. Koistinen, K. (2002, April). Towards virtual academy—Teacher’s changing role. Paper presented at the FIG Congress 2002, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Kwok, L. Y., & Tan, Y. G. (2004, May–June). Scaffolding supports in project-based learning through Knowledge Community: Collaborative learning strategies and pedagogical facilitation. Paper presented at the 8th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education (GCCCE2004), Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, S. S. U., & Fraser, B. J. (2000, June–July). The constructivist learning environment of science classrooms in Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Fremantle, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim, C. P., & Tay, L. Y. (2004). Engagement in higher order thinking mediated by ICT tools. In C. P. Lim (Ed.), Integrating ICT in education (pp. 102–126). Singapore: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  28. Majeed, A., Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2002). Learning environment and its associations with student satisfaction among mathematics students in Brunei Darussalam. Learning Environments Research, 5, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  30. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  31. Merrill, D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45–53.Google Scholar
  32. Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  33. Picciano, A. G. (2006). Blended Learning: Implications for growth and access. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(3), 95–102.Google Scholar
  34. Postholm, M. B., Pettersson, T., Flem, A., & Gudmundsdottir, S. (2002, June). The teacher’s role when pupils use ICT during project work. Paper presented at the ISCAR Conference, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  35. Quek, C. L. (2009). Designing a computer-supported project-based learning environment for high school students: A case study. Journal for Computing Teachers, Spring 2009. Retrieved October 7, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Membership/SIGs/SIGCS_Computer_Science_/JCTJournalforComputingTeachers/PastIssues/2009/Spring/lang_designing.pdf.
  36. Quek, C. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W. C., Peer, J., Williams, M. D., Wong, A. F. L., et al. (Eds.). (2005a). Engaging in project work. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).Google Scholar
  37. Quek, C. L., Peer, J., Divaharan, S., Williams, M. D., Wong, A. F. L., & Jamaludin, A. (2005b). Computer mediated communication as a collaborative tool for facilitating student-centered learning in project-based classrooms. Educational Technology, 45(4), 48–51.Google Scholar
  38. Quek, C. L., & Wong, A. F. L. (2002). Is my project work classroom environment conducive for student collaboration? Teaching and Learning, 23(2), 107–118.Google Scholar
  39. Quek, C.-L., Wong, A. F. L., Divaharan, S., Liu, W.-C., Peer, J., & Williams, M. D. (2007). Secondary school students’ perceptions of teacher–student interaction and students’ attitudes towards project work. Learning Environments Research, 10(3), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quek, R., Hui, T., & Masuath, M. (2005c, November–December). Use of scaffolds in an ICT project work. Paper presented at the Educational Research Association Conference, Singapore.Google Scholar
  41. So, H.-J. (2009). When groups decide to use asynchronous online discussions: Collaborative learning and social presence under a voluntary participation structure. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23, 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tam, M. (2009). Constructivism, instructional design and technology. In J. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist instructional design: Foundations, models and examples (pp. 61–80). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. Tan, C., & Kwok, P. (2005, November–December). Knowledge building in inter-school learning communities: Reflections from a case on project learning in Hong Kong. Paper presented at the International Conference in Computers in Education 2005, Singapore.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1930, 1933 and 1935).Google Scholar
  46. Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang, Q. (2009). Designing a web-based constructivist learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B. Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children’s learning in the “zone of proximal development” (pp. 7–18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education, 14, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yeo, T. M., & Quek, C. L. (2008). Investigating design and technology students’ participation and learning in a technology mediated learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 540–555.Google Scholar
  51. Young, T. (1998). Student Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Science (STATS). Evaluation and Research in Education, 12(2), 96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations