Advertisement

Learning Environments Research

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 307–323 | Cite as

Characteristics of an innovative learning environment according to students’ perceptions: actual versus preferred

  • Noga Magen-NagarEmail author
  • Pnina Steinberger
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Cooperation Elementary schools ICT Innovative learning environment Middle schools Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by The MOFET Institute and the Department of Teacher Education at the Ministry of Education.

References

  1. Abu Hussain, J., & Gonen, S. (2013). Responsibility for education and educating for responsibility. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Pupils’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). AMOS 22.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonk, C. J. (2010). For openers: How technology is changing school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 60–65.Google Scholar
  9. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2010.518811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boy, A. V., & Pine, G. J. (1988). Fostering psychosocial development in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  11. Burić, I. (2015). The role of social factors in shaping pupils’ test emotions: A mediation analysis of cognitive appraisals. Social Psychology of Education, 18(4), 785–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohn, S. T., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Effectiveness of pupil response systems in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement. Learning Environment Research, 19, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait–multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 11, 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roseth, C., & Shin, T. S. (2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(9), 622–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Kaniel, S. (2010). The courage to decide and to act: Individual and group decision-making. Tel Aviv: Ramot (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  31. Kirkland, K., & Sutch, D. (2009). Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation. A literature review. www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/map-of-innovations.
  32. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In J. M. Voogt & G. A. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 425–434). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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).
  39. Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Henriksen, D. (2013). Creativity, self-directed learning, and the architecture of technology rich environments. TechTrends, 57(1), 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). A framework for 21st-century learning. http://www.p21.org/overview.
  41. 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
  42. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller and Clark 2006. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shachar, H. (2011). Constructivism in education: Teaching, assessment and research. Reches: Even Yehuda (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  44. Shmuel, N. (2015). Transitions, not gaps: Absorbing children of Ethiopian origin into the education system. Gilui Da’at, 8, 137–145 (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and its opposite. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 24–29.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  49. Williford, A. P., Vick Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V. E., & Downer, J. T. (2013). Children’s engagement within the preschool classroom and their development of self-regulation. Early Education and Development, 24, 162–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yoshida, H., Tan, S., Uchida, T., Masui, J., & Nakayama, A. (2014). Effects of online cooperative learning on motivation in learning Korean as a foreign language. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(6), 473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gordon College of EducationHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Orot Israel College of EducationElkanaIsrael

Personalised recommendations