Characteristics of an innovative learning environment according to students’ perceptions: actual versus preferred
- 1.1k Downloads
An innovative learning environment is the current outcome of the constructivist approach, the essence of which is co-construction of knowledge in an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) environment. We examined how Israeli students perceived 10 characteristics of their classroom learning environment—student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, task orientation, investigation, cooperation, equity, differentiation, computer usage and young adult ethos. Particular foci were students’ perceptions of the actual state of their learning environment compared with the preferred state, and which characteristics predicted students’ cooperation. Participants were 1022 students in 33 classes from 12 computerised elementary and middle schools in Israel. Data were collected using the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). Results indicated a gap between the actual and the preferred states for all characteristics, although the scope of these gaps differed between elementary-schools students and middle-school students for certain characteristics. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis indicated that nine characteristics of the innovative environment in both actual and preferred states were related to cooperation, with these relations being primarily direct with the exception of teacher support and differentiation which had an indirect influence. Teacher support was mediated through student cohesiveness, involvement, equity and young adult ethos, whereas differentiation was mediated through investigation. Evaluation of the innovative learning environment might lead to better insights regarding the behaviours and needs of twenty-first century students in Israel’s education system. These insights could advance constructivist processes and teaching methods and bring the students to effective cooperative learning in an innovative learning environment.
KeywordsCooperation Elementary schools ICT Innovative learning environment Middle schools Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI)
This research was supported by The MOFET Institute and the Department of Teacher Education at the Ministry of Education.
- Abu Hussain, J., & Gonen, S. (2013). Responsibility for education and educating for responsibility. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Aldridge, J. M., Afari, E., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Influence of teacher support and personal relevance on academic self-efficacy and enjoyment of mathematics lessons: A Structural Equation Modeling approach. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 614–633.Google Scholar
- Aldridge, J. M., Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Use of multitrait–multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 110–125.Google Scholar
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). AMOS 22.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
- Aristovnik, A. (2012). The impact of ICT on educational performance and its efficiency in selected EU and OECD countries: A non-parametric analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(11), 144–152.Google Scholar
- Bonk, C. J. (2010). For openers: How technology is changing school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 60–65.Google Scholar
- Boy, A. V., & Pine, G. J. (1988). Fostering psychosocial development in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
- Dorman, J. P. (2009). Partitioning the variance in scores on classroom environment instruments. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 9, 18–31.Google Scholar
- Fraillon, J., & Ainley, J. (2010). The IEA International Study of Computer Usage and Information Literacy (ICILS). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Ainley/publication/268297993_The_IEA_International_Study_of_Computer_and_Information_Literacy_ICILS/links/54e.
- Fraser, B. J. (1990). Pupils’ perceptions of their classroom environments. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning (pp. 199–221). Bristol, PA: Falmer.Google Scholar
- Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 104–119). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D., & McRobbie, C. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New York.Google Scholar
- Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf.
- Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in school. Journal of Computer Usage in Teacher Education, 26(2), 16–49.Google Scholar
- Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jarvela, S., Hurme, T. R., & Jarvenoja, H. (2011). Self-regulation and motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 330–345). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York and London: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Ju-Sen, L., & Chaoyun, L. (2014). The perceived influence of learning environment on design pupil imagination. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2(1), 124–136.Google Scholar
- Kaniel, S. (2010). The courage to decide and to act: Individual and group decision-making. Tel Aviv: Ramot (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Kirkland, K., & Sutch, D. (2009). Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation. A literature review. www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/map-of-innovations.
- Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Magen-Nagar, N., & Shachar, N. (2016). The contribution of the quality of teaching and satisfaction with school to the degree of the risk of dropout in experimental and regular schools: Multi-level analysis. Megamot, 50, 224–251 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Magen-Nagar, N., & Steinberger, P. (2014). The contribution of the innovative learning environment on improving pupils’ digital literacy. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1, 59–66.Google Scholar
- McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. (2000). World links for development: accomplishments and challenges. Monitoring and evaluation annual report, 1999–2000. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
- Michalsky, T., & Kramarski, B. (2008). Cultivating self-direction in learning among student teachers in an online environment in connection with the perceptions of teaching and learning. Megamot, 45(4), 765–798 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Ministry of Education, Israel, (2016). The national program—Adapting the education system to the 21st century-vision and rationale. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/MadaTech/ICTInEducation/Odot/ (Hebrew).
- Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). A framework for 21st-century learning. http://www.p21.org/overview.
- Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring program for beginning teachers in terms of the learning environment and pupil outcomes in participants’ school classrooms. In A. Selkirk & M. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy, practice and research (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
- Shachar, H. (2011). Constructivism in education: Teaching, assessment and research. Reches: Even Yehuda (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Shmuel, N. (2015). Transitions, not gaps: Absorbing children of Ethiopian origin into the education system. Gilui Da’at, 8, 137–145 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Slavin, R. E. (2013). An introduction to cooperative learning research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5–16). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and its opposite. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 24–29.Google Scholar
- Tobin, D., & Lis, N. (2013). ‘Threatening but not carrying out’: Practices of control and authority in elementary school. In B. Alpert & S. Shlasky (Eds.), A close up look at the classroom and the school: Ethnographic studies on Education (pp. 272–305). Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute (Hebrew).Google Scholar
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar