Abstract
This study of first year high-school students in South Australia focussed on the effectiveness of using an innovative project-based mathematics strategy to improve the classroom learning environment and the student outcomes of enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement. As well, we investigated the differential effectiveness of project-based mathematics for male and female students. A sample of 284 students from a co-educational private secondary school provided quantitative data about classroom learning environment as assessed with seven scales from the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC), together with data about the three student outcomes assessed with one scale each. Our study also included a mixed-method design involving qualitative information collected through classroom observations and interviews with 20 students and 3 teachers to explain patterns emerging from the analysis of quantitative data.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Within current education circles and amongst policy makers, there is increasing concern about engaging students meaningfully in mathematics learning in light of falling mathematics enrolments in the senior years of schooling. Research suggests that students’ choices are influenced by their attitudes towards and performance in mathematics, which are shaped by their school mathematics experiences (Hine, 2018; Nardi & Steward, 2003; Norton, 2017). It is argued that classroom environments in secondary school settings, particularly during the transition from primary to secondary school, generally are perceived less favourably by students because of changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment strategies, social interactions and student relationships (Attard, 2010, 2013, 2014). Changes in the learning environment during transition from primary to secondary school, the role of the teacher and the relative size of the school all influence student perceptions of their teachers and school experience (Ferguson & Fraser, 1998). A study of changes in learning environment during the transition from year 7 (primary school) to year 8 (secondary school) mathematics among 541 students in South Australia revealed a significant decline in involvement (Deieso & Fraser, 2019).
Thomson et al. (2019) have highlighted that the 2018 PISA studies show that Australian students performed below the international average in mathematics and that achievement stagnated over the previous 16 years. PISA data indicate that a high percentage of problems in mathematics classes are close repetitions of previous problems in primary school, which generally have low procedural complexity. Aditomo and Klieme (2020) argue that, after 30 years of research, rote learning and procedural mathematics, rather than problem-based activities, continue to hamper student progress in higher-order thinking tasks.
Research suggests that project-based mathematics can provide students with an opportunity to be active participants in their own learning process and to make meaningful connections between the content and the problem (Ahmad Tarmizi & Bayat, 2012; Chen & Kalyuga, 2020). Self-regulated learning relies on learners mastering the cognitive and motivational processes needed to steer their own learning outcomes (Velayutham et al., 2011). In higher education, the positive effects of project-based learning as a strategy have been well documented in various studies (Albanese & Mitchell, 1993; Calder, 2013; Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; Coliver, 2000; Gijbels et al., 2005; Mergendollar et al., 2006; Skilling et al., 2016), but research into the effectiveness of project-based learning in the high school context has been more limited and less conclusive (Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; De Witte & Rogge, 2012; Maxwell et al., 2001, 2005; Mergendollar et al., 2000).
The main purpose of the study reported in this article was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of project-based and traditional mathematics instruction among students in their first year of high school. A secondary aim was to investigate whether project-based and traditional mathematics instruction were differentially effective for male and female students (Rijken, 2017).
As a backdrop to our investigation, the following sections provide a literature review in four important areas: the field of learning environments; the three student outcomes used in our study (enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement); gender differences and the differential effectiveness of instructional methods for different genders; and project-based learning.
Literature review
Field of learning environments
The influence of the learning environment on the cognitive and affective outcomes of students in schools is well documented (Fraser, 2012, 2019, 2023a, 2023b). With most countries focusing heavily on academic testing to measure educational outcomes against international benchmarks, this focus on academic achievement needs to be complemented with attention to the classroom learning environment, teacher effectiveness and other aspects of student progress (Fraser, 2014; OECD, 2017). Classroom learning environment research was pioneered by Herbert Walberg who developed the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) to provide criteria of effectiveness in evaluating Harvard Project Physics in terms of students’ perceptions of their classroom environments (Walberg & Anderson, 1968; Welch & Walberg, 1972). Walberg built on Lewin’s (1936) seminal work on field theory, which recognises both the environment and its interaction with characteristics of the individual as powerful determinants of human behaviour.
Walberg’s LEI proved to be the catalyst for the development and use of specific-purpose questionnaires for measuring the learning environment through the lens of participants’ perceptions. Examples include the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI, Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie, 1995; Fraser & Lee, 2009; Lee et al., 2020) for science laboratory classes, the Constructivist Learning Environment Inventory (CLES) for constructivist-oriented settings (Tadesse et al., 2022; Taylor et al., 1997), the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI, Sivan & Cohen, 2023; Wubbels & Brekelmans, 2005; Wubbels & Levy, 1993) for assessing perceptions of student–teacher interactions in the classroom, and the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI, Aldridge & Fraser, 2008) for outcomes-focused settings.
The What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC), which is the questionnaire that we chose for use in our study, currently is the most frequently-used learning environment instrument. The WIHIC has 56 items in 7 scales (Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity) and was validated among 1081 Australian and 1879 Taiwanese students at the junior high-school level (Aldridge et al., 1999). Extensive use of the WIHIC in many other countries (e.g. USA, Singapore, Korea, China, UAE, South Africa, Indonesia, India, Greece and Canada) supported its strong factorial validity and internal consistency reliability, as well as proving useful in a wide variety of research and practical applications (Fraser, 2019, 2023a, 2023b; Koul & Fisher, 2005; MacLeod & Fraser, 2010; Zandvliet & Fraser, 2004).
Significant research has focused on modifying the WIHIC for new contexts and languages. A version of the WIHIC for use among primary-school students in the Greek language (the G-EWIHIC) was developed and rigorously validated by Charalampous and Kokkinos (2017). In China, Cai and colleagues (2022) developed the New What Is Happening In this Class? (NWIHIC) by adding the two new scales of Differentiated Instruction and Ongoing Assessment and validated it with 2280 grade 5–9 students.
Walberg’s pioneering use of learning environment criteria in evaluating Harvard Project Physics was the catalyst for many researchers around the world to include learning environment instruments in their evaluations of a wide variety of educational innovations and programs. For example, in the USA, classroom environment was included among the dependent variables in evaluating teacher professional development (Pickett & Fraser, 2009), a science field study setting (Zaragoza & Fraser, 2017) and the use of anthropometric activities (Lightburn & Fraser, 2007). The classroom environment was a major focus in the evaluation of outcomes-based education in both Australia (Aldridge & Fraser, 2008) and South Africa (Aldridge et al., 2006). When learning environment criteria have been used in evaluating flipped instruction among university students in the USA (Strayer, 2012) and Turkey (Polat & Karabatak, 2021), a more-positive learning environment was perceived in flipped classrooms.
As the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated widespread changes to online learning, researchers began to monitor the effects of these changes on students’ learning environments. Long and colleagues (2020) monitored changes to online learning among 230 preservice teacher education students in Texas, whereas McLure et al. (2022) compared students’ learning environment perceptions among Australian university students before and after lockdown. Both studies identified that the change to online learning was associated with a deterioration in the learning environment.
Learning environment constructs have been used as dependent variables in cross-national comparisons. In a comparison involving 1309 grade 7 and 8 mathematics students in the USA and HK, American students perceived their mathematics classes as having significantly more teacher support (0.56 SDs), cooperation (0.75 SDs) and equity (1.12 SDs) (Hanke & Fraser, 2022). However, Hong Kong students enjoyed their mathematics classes more than their American counterparts (0.38 SDs). A comparison of 1081 Australian with 1879 Taiwanese junior high-school science students revealed a similar pattern in which Australian students perceived a more favourable learning environment in terms of involvement and equity, but Taiwanese students enjoyed their science classes more (Aldridge et al., 1999).
Rogers and Fraser (2022) evaluated the effectiveness of different frequencies of science practical work (namely, at least once a week, once every 2 weeks, or once every 3 weeks or more) in terms of the learning environment perceptions of 431 middle-school students. Although more-frequent practical work was more effective than less-frequent practical work in terms of integration, open-endedness and material environment, further increasing the frequency beyond twice a week to at least once a week was associated with diminishing returns. Furthermore, increasing the frequency of practical work was not differentially effective for males and females.
Student outcomes: Enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement
The three student outcomes in our evaluation were enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement. Attitudes have been a central concept in social psychology for almost a century, with Allport (1935) noting that “this concept is probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology” (p. 43). The measurement and investigation of students’ attitudes have a long history and continue to be of contemporary interest internationally in both mathematics education (Aiken, 2002; Fennema & Sherman, 1976, 1978; McLeod, 1992; Tapia & Marsh, 2004) and science education (Khine, 2015; Saleh & Khine, 2011; Tytler & Osborne, 2012). McLeod (1992) defined attitude to mathematics as a construct representing an individual’s degree of affect, and Aiken (2002) noted that attitude towards mathematics is an emotional disposition that includes students’ likes and dislikes and their enjoyment during mathematics lessons.
In our study, we measured attitude to mathematics using the Enjoyment of Mathematics Lessons which is a modified version of a scale from the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA, Fraser, 1977, 1981). The wording of items was modified to measure mathematics attitudes instead of science attitudes. For example, “Science lessons are fun” is changed to “Mathematics lessons are fun”. The five frequency response alternatives range from Almost Never to Almost Always. Studies that successfully used the Enjoyment of Mathematics Lessons scale include Hanke and Fraser (2022) and Robinson and Aldridge (2022).
Our study included academic efficacy as another student attitudinal outcome. Social theorists suggest that self-efficacy or belief and confidence in completing a task is important and can influence behaviours towards learning. High levels of self-efficacy can contribute to greater academic success (Bandura, 1977, 1997).
The Morgan-Jinks Student Efficacy Scale (MJSES) assesses students’ belief in their academic success (Morgan & Jinks, 1999), whereas the SALES questionnaire (Students’ Adaptive Learning Engagement in Science) assesses students’ self-efficacy as one of its four scales (Robinson & Aldridge, 2022; Velayutham et al., 2011). In our study, we used the 8-item Academic Efficacy scale found in Aldridge and Fraser (2008). This scale also has the same five frequency response alternatives ranging from Almost Never to Almost Always.
To assess mathematics Achievement, we used a 38-item multiple-choice test of knowledge and skills associated with number, space, measurement, chance and algebra based on the Australian national standards for mathematics for year 8 students and guided by tests designed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER, 2005) (Fogarty, 2007; Lindsay & Stephanou, 2013).
Gender differences and differential instructional effectiveness for different genders
Although current research suggests that gender-related differences in mathematics achievement are not as prevalent as in the past, girls still express less confidence than boys in their ability to succeed at mathematics (Cheryan et al., 2017; Reilly et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2012). Other negative attitudinal influences include girls judging mathematics as being less useful and girls’ attitudes as perceived by their teachers and parents (Fennema & Sherman, 1978). These findings are reinforced by Ma and Cartwright (2003) and McLure et al. (2022) who also argue that girls develop their attitudes towards mathematics and its utility independently of the school environment, context or climate.
For many decades, educational researchers have shown considerable interest in gender differences in students’ performance and attitudes in the subject areas of mathematics (Fennema & Sherman, 1978; Gallagher & Kaufman, 2005; Ma & Cartright, 2003), mathematics and science (Reilly et al., 2019); science (Danielsson, Auraamidou & Gonsalves, 2023; Weinburgh, 1995; Welch et al., 2014) and STEM (Cheryan et al, 2017; Koul et al., 2021; Masters & Meltzoff, 2020; McLure et al., 2022; Pelch, 2018; Su et al., 2009).
In our present evaluation of project-based mathematics, our interest was less in gender differences per se because it was considered more important to ascertain whether project-based and traditional mathematics were differentially effective for male and female students. Koul et al. (2018) provide a useful example of how they not only evaluated engineering and technology learning activities in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement, but also how they investigated the differential effectiveness of these materials for girls and boys. For a sample of 1095 grade 4–7 students, this study revealed that boys benefitted somewhat more than girls from the engineering and technology activities in terms of the learning environment scale of cooperation, but girls benefitted somewhat more than males in terms of understanding.
Project-based learning
Project-based learning is a strategy which is quite different from traditional classroom teaching, but its benefits have not been clearly established in secondary mathematics education. Relative to primary schools, classroom environments in secondary-school settings are generally perceived less favourably by students because of many changes in relationships, curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment (Attard, 2010; Fraser & Aldridge, 2017).
Explicit teaching of mathematical concepts using a procedural strategy, in isolation from problem solving and reasoning, is common in traditional secondary mathematics curricula (Stockard et al., 2018; Reigle-Crumb et al., 2019). Research also indicates that low-level procedural mathematics during transition can lead to a negative learning experience because students have generally achieved more-sophisticated levels of mathematics in primary school because of an integrated learning approach, leading to a loss of students’ confidence in mathematics, an attitude of disengagement and a regression in academic progress (Attard, 2010; Eppley et al., 2019; Oladayo & Oladayo, 2012).
Stacey (2010) states that research continues to show trends which are characterised by a ‘shallow teaching syndrome’ and an absence of reasoning as a proficiency in grade 8 mathematics. A high percentage of problems in mathematics classes are close repetitions of previous primary-school problems with low procedural complexity. Lithner (2007) argues that, after 20 years of research, rote learning and procedural mathematics, rather than problem-based or project-based activities, continue to hamper student progress in higher-order thinking tasks. Self-regulated learning relies on learners mastering the cognitive and motivational processes needed to steer their own learning outcomes (Velayutham et al., 2011, 2012) and is critical in the success of project-based oriented learning.
A project-based mathematics learning strategy is defined as research-based, open-ended, student-centred, student-driven and teacher-facilitated (Bell, 2010; Calder, 2013; Carrabba & Farmer, 2018). This instructional strategy can be effective for increasing learners’ motivation and retention of information as they engage in higher-order thinking skills to achieve their tasks (Schwartz et al., 2001). An evaluation of project-based learning in science among 2371 students in 46 Michigan schools revealed higher levels of collaboration, self-reflection and achievement among students receiving the intervention (Krajcik et al., 2003).
Project-based mathematics is characterised as group-based activity during which mathematical concepts are integrated into a project which is inquiry-based and requires students to examine numerous problems, utilise mathematics and present recommendations or solutions. An example of a project-based activity is students examining the development of a new suburb and utilising statistics to justify the inclusion of a range of services such as retail, health, education, leisure and transport. Students utilise census data and examine the viability of their inquiry and demonstrate their learning through presentations which utilise graphs and statistical tools.
Aims
The two aims of our study were to (1) evaluate the relative effectiveness of project-based and traditional mathematics in terms of seven learning environment scales and the three student outcomes of enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement and (2) investigate the differential effectiveness of project-based and traditional mathematics for male and female students.
Research methods
This study utilised a mixed-method approach which combined quantitative data from learning environment and student outcome (enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement) measures with classroom observations and student and teacher interviews. Creswell (2008) refers to the benefit of both quantitative and qualitative data working together to provide a better understanding of a research problem. Tobin and Fraser (1998, p. 639) “cannot envision why learning environment researchers would opt for either qualitative or quantitative data, and advocate the use of both in an effort to obtain credible and authentic outcomes”.
Some noteworthy learning environment studies have successfully combined quantitative and qualitative methods include Cho et al. (2023) who used a sequential explanatory mixed-method approach to investigate how autonomy-supportive learning environments improved the academic adjustment of 356 Asian international students. Aldridge et al. (1999) combined the use of the WIHIC with qualitative data-gathering methods to illuminate differences between Taiwan and Australia in the learning environments of 2950 junior-high science students. Numerous action research studies aimed at classroom improvement used a learning environment questionnaire in combination with qualitative interviews, observations and case studies (e.g. Aldridge & Bianchet, 2022; Bell & Aldridge, 2014; Aldridge & Fraser, 2008).
Assessment of learning environment
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the project-based mathematics strategy in terms of the classroom learning environment, we chose the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire, described above, which has been extensively validated and used in studies for different subject areas, age levels and numerous countries (Fraser, 2023a, 2023b). The 56-item seven-scale WIHIC assesses Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity (Aldridge et al., 1999). For our sample of 284 students, the Cronbach alpha reliability for the seven different WIHIC scales was high and ranged from 0.83 to 0.97.
Assessment of student outcomes
As noted above, to assess attitudes, we drew on the Enjoyment scale from the Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA, Fraser, 1981) and modified items by replacing the term ‘science’ with ‘mathematics’. For the assessment of Academic Efficacy, we drew on research by Jinks and Morgan (1999) and adopted the 8-item efficacy scale used by Aldridge and Fraser (2008). We assessed mathematics performance with a multiple-choice progressive achievement test of knowledge and skills in number, space, measurement, chance and algebra based on ACER (2005). For our sample of 284 students, the Cronbach alpha reliability was 0.97 for Enjoyment, 0.93 for Academic Efficacy and 0.85 for Achievement.
Qualitative data collection
In this mixed-methods study, quantitative data were collected first and then, in order to support or refute patterns from the analysis of surveys, qualitative research methods (Lichtman, 2023; Merriam, 2009) were employed with project participants towards the end of the trial period. We attempted to understand the ‘lived experience’ (Sweetman et al., 2022) of participants as well as to identify ‘themes’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006) which can be defined as “abstract and subtle expressions/patterns/processes that explain a phenomenon (Mishra & Dey, 2022, p. 187). This mixed-methods approach also enabled ‘triangulation’ of quantitative and qualitative data and the embellishment and explanation of findings from questionnaires using qualitative information (Houtz, 1995).
Observations of three randomly-chosen project-based classes were undertaken and, towards the end of our study, interviews were conducted with a random sample of 28 project students (14 male and 14 female) from the seven project-based classes, as well and three teachers of project classes. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted with the three teachers, whereas students participated in focus-group interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) in seven group of four students each (two male and two female). In collecting and analysing interview data, the work of Erickson (2012) was used as a guide.
Data sources
Over a period of 6 months, numerous projects were embedded into units of mathematics learning/teaching. Seven project-based classes followed the redeveloped project-based approach and assessment methods described previously. During the same period, the three comparison classes were taught the traditional mathematics curriculum, used a textbook and completed common tests and assignments. The teaching of the traditional approach followed the year 8 national curriculum framework for several topics (e.g. algebra, measurement, number, statistics and geometry). Different skills were taught individually and sequentially and assessed to ensure mastery (in contrast to the integrated project-based approach). With the traditional approach, mathematical rules and solving mathematical problems were emphasised.
The sample for the quantitative component of the study consisted of a total of 284 students in their first year of high school at a school in South Australia in their first year of high school. The project-based group consisted of 192 students (91 males and 101 females) in seven classes, whereas a comparison group of non-project-based learning consisted of three classes with 92 students (47 males and 45 females). Students’ ages ranged from 13 to 14 years.
All aspects of our study were approved by the relevant university human ethics research committee.
Data analysis
Given that the WIHIC questionnaire has had limited use previously in South Australia, we undertook a preliminary check of its validity with this population in terms of factorial validity and scale internal consistency reliability (alpha reliability coefficient).
We used MANOVA to test simultaneously our two main research questions concerning (1) the relative effectiveness of the two instructional methods (project versus traditional) and (2) the differential effectiveness of the instructional methods for males and females. The two independent variables were instructional method and gender, whereas the 10 dependent variables were the seven WIHIC learning environment scales and the three student outcomes (Enjoyment, Academic Efficacy and Achievement). We detected the presence of differential effectiveness for different genders by examining the statistical significance of the interaction between instructional method and gender for each dependent variable.
Results
Preliminary validation of WIHIC and attitude scales
To provide a preliminary check of the structure of the 7-scale 56-item WIHIC learning environment questionnaire, principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation and Kaiser normalization was conducted. However, prior to factor analysis, we conducted the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Because the KMO test yielded a value greater than the cut-off of 0.5 recommended by Carny and Kaiser (1977) and the Bartlett test revealed a nonsignificant \({\upchi^{2}}\) value (Tobias & Carlson, 2010), the suitability of our data for factor analysis was established.
Table 4 in the Appendix shows the factor loadings for all items of the WIHIC. The criteria for the retention of any item were that it must have a factor loading of at least 0.40 with its own scale and less than 0.40 with every other scale in the WIHIC questionnaire. The application of these criteria led to the removal of one item from Student Cohesiveness and two items from Involvement. After removal of these three items, the a priori seven-scale structure of the WIHIC was replicated perfectly. The total proportion of variance accounted for by the seven WIHIC scales was 71.58%. Eigenvalues ranged from 1.43 to 21.55 for different scales, which satisfies Kaiser’s (1960) minimum criterion of 1 for meaningfulness. Overall, Table 4 supports the strong factorial validity of the final 53-item, 7-scale version of the WIHIC when used with first-year high school students in South Australia.
The internal consistency reliability of each WIHIC was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Alpha coefficients, which are recorded at the bottom of Table 4 for the seven WIHIC scales, ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 for different scales.
Instructional method and gender as determinants of learning environment and outcomes
Instructional method and student gender were investigated simultaneously by conducting a two-way MANOVA for the whole sample of 284 students with the seven WIHIC learning environment scales and three student outcomes scales as the set of 10 dependent variables. Instructional method and student gender were the two independent variables. The presence or absence of a statistically-significant interaction between instructional method and gender was used to signify whether instructional-method differences were different or similar for males and females. Initially conducting MANOVA for the entire set of 10 dependent variables reduced the Type I error rate associated with conducting separate univariate tests for individual dependent variables.
Prior to conducting MANOVA, the suitability of data analysis was checked using Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances to confirm that the error variance for each of the 10 dependent variables (classroom environment, Enjoyment, Academic Efficacy and Achievement) was equal across groups (instructional methods and genders). The F value from Levene’s test for each of the 10 dependent variables was statistically nonsignificant (p < 0.05), indicating that error variances were across the comparison groups for all scales and therefore that the data were suitable for analysis via MANOVA. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices also was conducted separately for the set of 10 dependent variables to check whether the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables were equal across the comparison groups. Statistically-nonsignificant results (p < 0.05) for the 10 scales suggest that, according to Huberty and Petoskey (2000), our data’s covariance matrices were adequate for conducting MANOVA.
For our sample of 284 students, the multivariate test using Wilks’ lambda criterion yielded a statistically-significant overall difference, F(10, 273) = 9.22, p < 0.01, with significant results for instructional method (F = 2.46, p < 0.01), gender (F = 2.16, p < 0.05) and the instruction–by–gender interaction (F = 2.10, p < 0.05). Therefore, we were justified in interpreting the two-way ANOVA results separately for each of the 10 dependent variables.
Table 1 provides the ANOVA results for instructional method, gender and the instruction–by–gender interaction separately for each learning environment and student outcome scale. The F value is provided for each dependent variable, in addition to the eta2 statistic (which represents the proportion of variance accounted for).
Table 1 shows that statistically-significant results emerged for: instructional method for one learning environment scale (Equity) and for Achievement; and for gender for one learning environment scale (Cooperation) and for Enjoyment of Mathematics. The instruction–by–gender interaction was statistically significant for one learning environment scale (Teacher Support) and for both attitude scales of Enjoyment of Mathematics and Academic Efficacy.
Instructional-method differences in learning environment and outcomes
Table 2 provides for each learning environment, attitude and achievement scale the average item mean, the average item standard deviation, and the ANOVA results repeated from Table 1. The average item mean is simply the scale mean divided by the number of items in a scale. It is useful for comparing the means of scales containing different numbers of items.
As well, Table 2 provides an effect size for the instructional-methods difference for each scale. Cohen’s d is the difference between the means for the two instructional methods divided by the pooled standard deviation for each learning environment, Enjoyment, Efficacy and Achievement scale. The effect size conveniently expresses a difference between two groups in standard deviation units. According to Cohen (1988), effect sizes range from small (0.2) to medium (0.5) to large (0.8).
Table 2 shows that, for the 10 scales, mean scores were somewhat less favourable for the project group for five of the seven learning environment scales, more favourable for the project group for both Enjoyment and Efficacy and less favourable for the project group for Achievement. However, for most scales, these differences between project and non-project students were both small and statistically nonsignificant.
Relative to non-project students, project students perceived a significantly less positive classroom environment for Equity and had significantly lower achievement scores. For these two scales, effect sizes were 0.26 and 0.44 standard deviations, respectively, which are in the small to medium range according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria.
Gender differences and instruction–by–gender interactions
Table 1 provides ANOVA results for gender differences in the 10 learning environment and three student outcome scales. These gender differences were statistically significant only for one learning environment scale (Cooperation) and for Enjoyment of Mathematics. For these two scales, effect sizes were 0.37 and 0.15 standard deviations, respectively, which would be classified as relatively small according to Cohen’s (1988) criteria. Interestingly, for the two scales for which gender differences were statistically significant, females held somewhat more favourable perceptions and attitudes than males.
Table 1 shows that the instruction–by–gender interaction was statistically significant for one learning environment scale (Teacher Support) and for the two outcomes Enjoyment and Academic Efficacy. Table 3 provides the mean and standard deviation for each scale for four subsamples: project-based males, project-based females, non-project-based males and non-project-based females. Also, for each scale, the effect size (number of standard deviations) is shown for gender differences in scores separately for the project and non-project groups.
The last column of Table 3 shows an interesting pattern in the sign/direction of gender differences for the project group relative to the non-project group. For most scales, males scored somewhat more highly than females in the project group, but females scored somewhat more highly than males in the non-project group. Although these differences typically were small in magnitude and the instruction–by–gender interaction was nonsignificant, still the pattern of results in Table 3 suggests that the project method was differentially effective for males and females, with males benefitting more from the project approach and females benefitting more from traditional (non-project) methods.
In order to interpret the statistically-significant instruction–by–gender interactions for Teacher Support, Enjoyment and Academic Efficacy, graphs are shown in Fig. 1. The interpretation of all three significant interactions is similar: the project method was differentially effective for male and female students, with males benefitting more from the project method and females benefitting more from the traditional non-project method.
By simultaneously considering Table 1 and Fig. 1, the following interpretations emerge from the three scales (Teacher Support, Enjoyment and Academic Efficacy) for which a significant instruction–by–gender interaction was found:
-
Although overall Teacher Support scores were not significantly different either for different instructional methods or for different genders, males benefitted more from the project approach whereas females benefitted more from traditional methods.
-
Overall, Enjoyment scores were not significantly different for different instructional methods, but females overall reported significantly-higher Enjoyment than males. Nevertheless, females enjoyed mathematics more under the traditional non-project method, whereas males’ enjoyment of mathematics was similar under either instructional method.
-
Although overall Academic Efficacy scores were not significantly different either for different instructional methods or for different genders, males benefitted more from the project approach whereas females benefitted more from traditional methods.
Qualitative analysis
Following quantitative data collection, qualitative data were gathered to provide further insights into student perceptions and a deeper understanding of the effect of project-based activities on student outcomes. Perhaps the most noteworthy finding based on quantitative data was that project-based mathematics was considered more enjoyable than traditional approaches to mathematics. Although Academic Efficacy also was somewhat higher in project-based classes, Achievement in non-project-based classes was higher in than project-based classes. In addition, for three scales (Teacher Support, Enjoyment of Mathematics and Academic Efficacy), males benefitted more from the project-based approach whereas females benefitted more from the traditional approach. In explaining these findings, we analysed student and teacher interviews.
Our analyses focussed on the following questions: (a) What factors contribute to females enjoying the traditional approach more whereas males enjoyed the project-based approach more? and (b) How might these differences in Enjoyment explain why project-based mathematics was differentially effective for males and females in terms of Teacher Support and Academic Efficacy?
Qualitative analyses included focus-group interviews with a sample of 4 students (2 males and 2 females) randomly selected from each of the project-based classes (total of 28 students), as well as individual interviews with 3 randomly-selected teachers who taught the project-based curriculum. The interviews were semi-structured and explored the complete experience of project-based activities and student perceptions and opinions. The process was guided by open-ended questions (e.g. Can you describe an example of the project-based activity? Did you enjoy the activity and why? What was most challenging in this activity? Do you feel you have made progress in mathematics?). The interviewer solicited more-detailed explanations and perspectives about the learning environment and project-based learning.
After gathering the qualitative data, three important themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) emerged: the nature of the learning environment in first-year high school; project-based mathematics as a strategy for successful learning; and student perceptions of the strategy and their experience.
Interviews and observations confirmed that the traditional learning environment in most classes at this high school was regulated, with students waiting outside their classroom before the teacher arrived and students moving into a space where desks were traditionally in rows. Students waited for the teacher to greet them before getting ready for the lesson. Class rules were enforced and there was a degree of formality. Students had access to their own personal laptop computers and utilised school software to access resources, communicate and collaborate securely online. Traditional classrooms were teacher directed and the structure of the lessons followed a template with a balance of teacher input, group work and individual work.
However, this regular routine was changed to accommodate the new strategy of project-based group work. Tables were re-arranged and the classroom became more dynamic and noisier. Groups were established using student choice based on friendship and all classes were primarily single sex. Students had access to a broad range of resources and equipment. Whilst students engaged with mathematics during five 45-min lessons each week, online collaboration meant that many students accessed the teacher outside formal class time. Because students were more at ease and familiar with teacher-directed projects, some students struggled with student-directed projects.
Interviews with three teachers from the seven project-based classes revealed that, whilst they were enthusiastic about and had high aspirations for this strategy, initially they struggled with the detailed preparation required and needed support with integrating projects with the requirements of the curriculum. Teachers felt that the use of technology-rich environments engaged and motivated students and provided collaboration and reflection on the learning process. Teachers had to scaffold project-based activities initially, but were able to allow more student freedom later. The biggest challenge for teachers was to ensure that activities were well differentiated for different ability groups. In the background and throughout the trial, teachers felt the need to be successful with the project strategy, but felt additional pressure from the school, students and parents to ensure that students were successful overall in their mathematics classes. Teachers felt additional pressure to meet the requirements of the curriculum because of the limited time allocation for completing project-based tasks. Teachers reported that some topics could not be covered. In terms of the final products from students, teachers were surprised by the quality of work produced by both male and female students. Many projects were highly innovative and showed evidence of higher-order learning.
In general, during the interviews, students reported general satisfaction with the project-based strategy. Many reported that it was a welcome change from the highly-regulated learning that they were encountering for most subjects in their first year of high school. In primary school, they had enjoyed the informal nature of their classrooms, the smaller class size, and lower emphasis on homework and academic success. The project strategy provided an opportunity for students to work with friends and choose a topic. They reported a range of positive and negative issues in terms of the success or otherwise of their project. Issues were commonly identified around productivity, equity and work quality. Higher-achieving groups were heavily involved, highly focussed and enjoyed the tasks; however, students who usually struggle with mathematics struggled even more with project-based tasks. Students reported favourably that their teachers supported them and were interested in their work. They felt that the teacher was able to listen and valued out-of-class collaboration using technology.
More-detailed analysis of the student interviews revealed that female students reported higher expectations than males about their mathematics: they valued organisation and perfection. Females struggled with the open-ended nature of the projects and found them difficult to connect to the application of mathematics. They sought meaning and tended to over-analyse problems. Most importantly, females voiced concern about their final grade and achievement. A number of female students perceived that they had not progressed in mathematics; in fact, one student felt that she had gone backwards. Boys, on the other hand, generally relished the freedom and opportunities to work with their friends. They enjoyed the connection to real-world mathematics and enjoyed the purpose. Boys reported issues with quality, effort and equity during group work, but they were able to overcome these issues. They were not overly concerned about their final grade, but the process and opportunity to do something different was highly valued.
Conclusion and significance
Within the field of learning environment, this mixed-methods study is unique because past research into the effectiveness of project-based learning in mathematics in the first year of high school in terms of learning environment, enjoyment, academic efficacy and achievement has been quite limited. Therefore, this research potentially could contribute both to the field of learning environments and to our understanding about project-based mathematics. Furthermore, our investigation of the differential effectiveness of project-based mathematics for boys and girls is novel and noteworthy and hopefully could provide new insights into effective pedagogy in mathematics for both boys and girls.
The main finding from the quantitative component of the study involving 284 students was that, relative to traditional mathematics classes, project students perceived a significantly less-positive learning environment for the Equity scale and had significantly lower Achievement. However, project-based mathematics proved to be differentially effective for male and female students, with males benefitting more from the project method and females benefitting more from the traditional approach for the learning environment scale of Teacher Support and for the student outcomes of Enjoyment and Academic Efficacy.
Qualitative methods revealed that students had difficulty with the unstructured and open-ended nature of project-based activities, but they enjoyed the change in activity from more-traditional procedural mathematics and textbook learning. Because project-based mathematics was new to students, working in groups provided significant challenges for many students. Qualitative data generally supported the quantitative findings based on quantitative data. Regarding the differential effectiveness of project-based mathematics for boys and girls, many girls questioned the purpose of project-based learning, found it confusing and difficult to make mathematical connections, and perceived it to be detrimental to their high expectations for academic progress. On the other hand, girls enjoyed this approach as a break from their traditional learning approach. Boys often reported that project-based learning was beneficial and enjoyable and provided involvement, challenge and choice of activity. Boys enjoyed the practical tasks and connections to new learning, and they were less concerned about academic progress.
Our study had some limitations that lead to suggestions for future research. In the light of challenges in gaining access to schools, our sample was limited to 284 students in 10 classes in the first year at one private school. Also the qualitative component involved only 28 students and three teachers. In future studies, a larger sample would enhance the statistical power of analyses and a broader composition (different schools, grade levels and socioeconomic situations) would improve the generalizability of results. Because the teachers involved had limited prior experience with project-based instruction, somewhat different findings might emerge in future research with teachers who are more experienced with project methods. In future studies of project-based methods, a greater variety of student outcomes (in addition to Enjoyment, Efficacy and Achievement as in our study) could broaden understanding of the impact of project-based mathematics. Because our study revealed noteworthy differences in the effectiveness of project-based mathematics for male and females, we encourage the future investigation of the differential effect of educational programs on the learning environment of students of different genders as in our study or of different ethnicities as in Long, Sinclair and Fraser’s (2020) study of alternative science sequences.
References
ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research). (2005). Progressive Achievement Tests in Mathematics (PAT-Maths). ACER.
Aditomo, A., & Klieme, E. (2020). Forms of inquiry-based science instruction and their relations with learning outcomes: Evidence from high and low-performing education systems. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 504–525.
Ahmad Tarmizi, R., & Bayat, S. (2012). Collaborative problem-based learning in mathematics: A cognitive load perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 344–350.
Aiken, L. R. (2002). Attitudes and related psychosocial constructs. Sage.
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. M. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine, 68, 52–81.
Aldridge, J. M., & Bianchet, S. (2022). Using feedback about the learning environment as a starting point for co-construction. Learning Environments Research, 25, 939–955.
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focussed learning environments: Determinants and effects (Advances in Learning Environments Research series). Sense.
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48–62.
Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, R. C., Seopa, M. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument to monitor the implementation of outcomes-based learning environments in science classrooms in South Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 45–70.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Clark University Press.
Attard, C. (2010, July). Students’ experiences of mathematics during the transition from primary to secondary school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved 24 May 2012, from http://www.merga.net.au/documents/MERGA33_Attard.pdf
Attard, C. (2014). “I don’t like it, I don’t love it, but I do it and I don’t mind”: Introducing a framework for engagement with mathematics. Curriculum Perspectives, 1–14.
Attard, C. (2013). “If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths”: Foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(4), 569–587.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the twenty first century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39–43.
Bell, L. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (2014). Student voice, teacher action research and classroom improvement. Sense Publishers.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cai, J., Wen, Q., Lombaerts, K., Jaime, I., & Cai, L. (2022). Assessing students’ perceptions about classroom learning environments: The New What Is Happening In This Class (NWIHIC) instrument. Learning Environments Research, 25, 601–618.
Calder, N. (2013). Mathematics in student-centred inquiry learning: Student engagement. Teachers and Curriculum, 13, 75–82.
Carrabba, C., & Farmer, A. (2018). The impact of project-based learning and direct instruction on the motivation and engagement of middle school students. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 1(2), 163–174.
Cerny, C. A., & Kaiser, H. J. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy in factor-analytic correlations matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.
Chen, O., & Kalyuga, S. (2020). Exploring factors influencing the effectiveness of explicit instruction first and problem-solving first approaches. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(3), 607–624.
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., & Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul00000521
Cho, H. J., Levesque-Bristol, C., & Yough, M. (2023). How autonomy-supportive learning environments promote Asian international students’ academic adjustment: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning Environments Research, 26, 51–76.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research and theory. Academic Medicine, 74, 259–266.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Danielsson, A., Avraamidou, C., & Gonsalves, A. (2023). Gender matters: Building on the past, recognising the present, and looking toward the future. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. III, pp. 263–290). Routledge.
De Witte, K., & Rogge, N. (2012). Problem-based learning in secondary education: Evaluation by a randomized experiment. HUB Research papers 2012/11.
Deieso, D., & Fraser, B. J. (2019). Learning environment, attitudes and anxiety across the transition from primary to secondary school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 22, 13–152.
Eppley, K., & Dudley-Marling, C. (2019). Does direct instruction work?: A critical assessment of direct instruction research and its theoretical perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 16(1), 35–54.
Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1451–1469). Springer.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by males and females. Catalogy of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 31.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement and related factors: A further study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 9, 189–220.
Ferguson, P. D., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Changes in learning environment during the transition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environments Research, 1, 369–383.
Fogarty, G. J. (2007). Research on the Progressive Achievement Tests and academic achievement in secondary schools. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J. (1977). Selection and validation of attitude scales for curriculum evaluation. Science Education, 61(3), 317–329.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes. Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399–422.
Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). Springer.
Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 104–119). Routledge.
Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2017). Improving classrooms through through assessments of learning environments. Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement strategies. In J. P. Bakken (Ed.), Classrooms (Vol. 1, pp. 91–107). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Fraser, B. J. (2019). Milestones in the evolution of the learning environments field over the past three decades. In D. B. Zandvliet & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Thirty years of learning environments: Looking back and looking forward (pp. 1–19). Leiden: Brill Sense.
Fraser, B. J. (2023a). Learning environments. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 193–217). Routledge.
Fraser, B. J. (2023b). The evolution of the field of learning environments research. Education Sciences, 13(3), 275.
Fraser, B. J., & Lee, S. S. U. (2009). Science laboratory classroom environments in Korean high schools. Learning Environments Research, 12, 67–84.
Gallagher, A. M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach. Cambridge.
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61.
Hanke, C. Y., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). A cross-national study of students’ affective outcomes among middle-school mathematics students in the USA and Hong Kong. In W. S. Rolph (Ed.), Students’ attitudes: Towards learning in education (pp. 45–73). Nova.
Hine, G. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions on declining student enrolments in Australian senior secondary mathematics courses. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 635–654.
Houtz, L. E. (1995). Instructional strategy change and the attitude and achievement of seventh- and eighth-grade science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(6), 629–648.
Huberty, C. J., & Petroskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. In H. Tinsley & S. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modelling. Academic Press.
Jinks, J. L., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children’s perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. Clearing House, 72, 224–230.
Kaiser, H. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Khine, M. S. (Ed.). (2015). Attitude measurement in science education: Classic and contemporary approaches. Information Age Publishing.
Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). Cultural background and students’ perceptions of science classroom learning environment and teacher interpersonal behaviour in Jammu, India. Learning Environments Research, 8, 195–211.
Koul, R. B., Fraser, B. J., Maynard, N., & Tade, M. (2018). Evaluation of engineering and technology activities in primary schools in terms of learning environment, attitudes and understanding. Learning Environments Research, 21, 285–300.
Koul, R. B., McLure, F. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2021). Gender differences in classroom emotional climate and attitudes among students undertaking integrated STEM projects: A Rasch analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1981852
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage.
Lee, H.-H., et al. (2020). High school students’ perceptions of science laboratory learning, perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment, and academic self-efficacy in science learning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 1–18.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles topological psychology. McGraw.
Lightburn, M. E., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom environment and student outcomes among students using anthropometry activities in high school science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25, 153–166.
Lindsey, J., & Stephanou, A. (2013). PATMaths: Progressive achievement tests in mathematics. ACER Press.
Litchtman, M. (2023). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (4th ed.). Routledge.
Lithner, J. (2007). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67, 255–276.
Long, C. S., Fraser, B. J., & Sinclair, B. (2020). Differential effectiveness of alternative middle-school science sequences for students of different ethnicities. Learning Environments Research, 23, 87–99.
Ma, X., & Cartwright, F. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of gender differences in affective outcomes in mathematics during middle and high school. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 14, 413–439.
MacLeod, C., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Development, validation and application of a modified Arabic translation of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 13, 105–125.
Masters, A. S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2020). Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 12(1), 151–198.
Maxwell, N. L., Bellisimo, Y., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2001). Problem-based learning: Modifying the medical school model for teaching high school economics. The Social Studies, 92(2), 73–78.
Maxwell, N. L., Mergendoller, J. R., & Bellisimo, Y. (2005). Problem-based learning and high school macroeconomics: A comparative study of instructional methods. The Journal of Economic Education, 36, 315–239.
McLeod, D. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on the psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 575–596). Macmillan.
McLure, F. I., Koul, R. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). Gender differences among students undertaking iSTEM projects in multidisciplinary versus unidisciplinary STEM classrooms in government vs non-government schools: Classroom emotional climate and attitudes. Learning Environments Research, 25, 917–937.
Mergendollar, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional method and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem Based Learning, 1, 49–69.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2000). Comparing problem-based learning and traditional instruction in high school economics. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 374–382.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, S., & Dey, A. K. (2022). Understanding and identifying ‘themes’ in qualitative case study research. South East Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 11(3), 187–192.
Nardi, E., & Steward, S. (2003). Is mathematics T.I.R.E.D.? A profile of quiet disaffection in the secondary mathematics classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 29, 345–367.
Norton, S. (2017). Mathematics engagement in an Australian lower secondary school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(2), 169–190.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD.
Oladayo, O. T., & Oladayo, C. E. (2012). Effects of direct and indirect instructional strategies on students’ achievement in mathematics. African Research Review, 6(4), 349–361.
Pelch, M. (2018). Gendered differences in academic emotions and their implications for student success in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 33.
Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring program for beginning teachers in terms of the learning environment and student outcomes in participants’ school classrooms. In A. Selkirk & M. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy, practice and research (pp. 1–15). Nova Science Publishers.
Polat, H., & Karabatak, S. (2021). Effect of flipped classroom model on academic achievement, academic satisfaction and general belongingness. Learning Environments Research, 25, 159–182.
Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Investigating gender differences in mathematics and science: Results from the 2011 trends in mathematics and science survey. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 25–50.
Riegle-Crumb, C., Morton, K., Nguyen, U., & Dasgupta, N. (2019). Inquiry-based instruction in science and mathematics in middle school classrooms: Examining its association with students’ attitudes by gender and race/ethnicity. AERA Open, 5(3), 2332858419867653.
Rijken, P. E. (2017). The effectiveness of project-based mathematics in the first year of high school in terms of learning environment, attitudes, academic efficacy and achievement. Unpublished PhD thesis, Curtin University.
Robinson, J. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (2022). Environment–attitude relationships: Girls in inquiry-based mathematics classes in the United Arab Emirates. Learning Environments Research, 25(3), 619–640.
Rogers, J. R., & Fraser, B. J. (2022). Sex and frequency of practical work as determinants of middle-school students’ learning environment perceptions and attitudes. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09426-w
Saleh, I. M., & Khine, M. S. (Eds.). (2011). Attitude research in science education: Classic and contempoary measurements. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Schwartz, P., Mennin, S., & Webb, G. (Eds.). (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. Kogan Page.
Sivan, A., & Cohen, A. (2023). The structure of teacher interpersonal behaviour in Hong Kong. Learning Environments Research, 26, 19–30.
Skilling, K., Bobis, J., Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., & Way, J. (2016). What secondary teachers think and do about student engagement in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(4), 545–566.
Stacey, K. (2010). Teaching and learning to reach beyond the basics. Retrieved 6 Oct 2010, from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=research_conference
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.
Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15, 171–193.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884.
Sweetman, M. M. (2022). The lived experiences of health science graduate students with anxiety and depression. Learning Environments Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09448-4
Tadesse, T., et al. (2022). Constructivist learning environments and forms of learning in Ethiopean public universities. Learning Environments Research, 25, 75–95.
Tapia, M., & Marsh, G. E. (2004). An instrument to measure mathematics attitudes. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 16–21.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.
Thompson, S., Hillman, K., & Wernert, N. (2012). Monitoring Australian year 8 student achievement internationally: TIMMS 2011. Australian Council of Educational Research.
Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., Underwood, C., & Schmid, M. (2019). PISA 2018: Reporting Australia’s results. Volume I student performance.
Tobias, S., & Carlson, J. E. (2010). Brief report: Bartlett’s test of sphericity and chance findings in factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 4(3), 375–377.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Kluwer.
Tytler, R., & Osborne, J. (2012). Student attitudes and aspirations towards science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 597–625). Springer.
Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2159–2179.
Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A multi-group structural equation modelling analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1347–1368.
Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387–398.
Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 373–383.
Welch, A. G., Cakir, M., Peterson, C. M., & Ray, C. M. (2014). The relationship between gender and classroom environment in Turkish science classrooms. Educational Research and Reviews, 9(20), 893–903.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher-student relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 6–24.
Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like: Interpersonal relationships in education. Falmer Press.
Zandvliet, D. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Learning environments in information and communications technology classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13, 97–123.
Zaragoza, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2017). Field-study classrooms as positive and enjoyable learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 1–20.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Rijken, P.E., Fraser, B.J. Effectiveness of project-based mathematics in first-year high school in terms of learning environment and student outcomes. Learning Environ Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09477-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-023-09477-7