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.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.
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.
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.
Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124–143). London: Routledge.
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: http://www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/PATT/PATT12/PATT12.pdf.
De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “Technology is applied Science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.
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.
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.
Doppelt, Y. (2006). Science-technology learning environment: Teachers and pupils’ perceptions. Learning Environments Research, 9, 163–178. doi:10.1007/s10984-006-9005-9.
Doppelt, Y. (in press). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/102912/?Content+Status=Accepted&sort=p_OnlineDate&sortorder=desc&v=condensed&o=20 (OnlineFirst).
Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.
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.
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.
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.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
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.
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.
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.
Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg, Germany: Tempus Publications.
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.
Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). Incorporating critical thinking within a regular high school biology curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 136–140.
About this article
Cite this article
Doppelt, Y., Schunn, C.D. Identifying students’ perceptions of the important classroom features affecting learning aspects of a design-based learning environment. Learning Environ Res 11, 195–209 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-008-9047-2
- Classroom features
- Design-based learning
- Learning environment
- Learning outcomes
- Science and technology