Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 333–342 | Cite as

Technology Project Learning Versus Lab Experimentation

  • S. Waks
  • N. Sabag
Article

Abstract

The Project-Based Learning (PBL) approach enables the student to construct knowledge in his/her own way. Piaget, the founder of constructivism, saw the development of intelligence as a process involving the relationship between brain maturity and individual experience. The technology PBL (TPBL) approach confronts the student with a personal problem taken from real life, which he/she has to solve by designing and building an artifact or instrument. It is assumed that by replacing dictated lab experimentation with project learning in an engineering course, the student will show an improvement in learning achievements. This paper describes the last stage (1 year) of a 3-year four-stage research in order to examine the achievements of students using the TPBL approach in comparison to those that carry out lab experiments. A class of 34 students studying “Digital Electronics” toward a degree of a practical engineer was randomly divided into two training groups. During one semester, the experimental group used the TPBL approach and the control group used lab experiments. The groups' achievements were monitored during 1 year. The research findings reveal that the experimental group gained higher scores.

Project-Based Learning technology education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barak, M. (2002). Learning good electronics or coping with chal-lenging tasks: The priorities of excellent students. Journal of Technology Education 14: 20-34.Google Scholar
  2. Barlex, D. (1994). Organizing project work. In Banks, F. (Ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, D. T. (2002). Themes in technology education research. Project 2061: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Technology Education Research Conference. Retrieved from http://www. project2061.org/meeting/technology/Bennett/Bennett.htmGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., and Harisson, G. (1994). Technological capability. In Banks, F. (Ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  5. Campble, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, D. (1978). Design Develop and Implementation of Curriculum Unit 7, The Open University of Israel, Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
  7. De Vries, M. J., and Tamir, A. (1997). Shaping concepts of technology: What concepts and how to shape them. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 3-10. Retrieved from http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0957-7572/Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  9. ERIC. (2000). Using Real-World Projects to Help Students Meet High Standards in Education and the Workplace. Site Development Guide #11. High Schools That Work. (ERIC ISSUE: RIESEP2001). Southern Regional Education Board (ERIC NO: ED451420).Google Scholar
  10. Feuerstein, R. (2000). Piaget and Feuerstein-Points of Diverse and Agreement. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.il/ preschool/nekudot1.htm.Google Scholar
  11. Fosnot, C. T. (1995). “Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning.” In Fosnot, C. T. (ed), Constructivism Theory, Perspective and Practice. (pp. 8-33). Teacher College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  12. Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., and Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  13. Grill, R. (2002). Remedies for Crisis in Electronics Industry/ Education. South Australian Microprocessor Group Incorporated. Retrieved from http://samg.yi.org/meeting.php? meetingIndex =19.Google Scholar
  14. Harel, I. (1991). Children Designers, Ablex Publishing Corporation New Jersey, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, C. E. (1999). Signs of distress in technology education pro-grams. The Technology Teacher. International Technology Education Association, Reston, pp. 21-26.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, D. S. (1997). Learning technological concepts and devel-oping intellectual skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7: 161-180.Google Scholar
  17. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., and Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal 94: 483-497.Google Scholar
  18. Perkins, D., and Swartz, R. (1992). The nine basics of teaching thinking. In Csta, A. L., Bellanca, J. L., and Fogarty, R. (Eds.), If Minds Matter: A Forward to Future, Skylight Publishing, Inc. Palatine, Illinoise.Google Scholar
  19. Plants, H. L., Dean, R. K., Sears, J. T., and Venable, W. S. (1980). A taxonomy of problem solving activities and its implication for teaching. In Lubkin, J. L. (Ed.), The Teaching of Elementary Problem Solving in Engineering and Related Fields, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC, pp. 21-34.Google Scholar
  20. Rasinen, A. (2003). An analysis of the technology education curriculum of six countries. Journal of Technology Education 15: 31-47.Google Scholar
  21. Sabag, N. (2002). Characteristics of Project Based Learning in Electronics, Doctoral dissertation (in Hebrew; Abstract in English), Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.Google Scholar
  22. Salomon, G., and Perkins, D. (1996). Learning in wonderland: What do computers really offer education? In Kerr, S. T..(Ed.), Technology and the Future of Schooling (Vol. Ninety-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the study of Educa-tion, Part II), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinoise, pp. 111-130.Google Scholar
  23. Verner, I. M., and Hershko, E. (2003). School graduation project in robot design: A case study of team learning experiences and outcomes. Journal of Technology Education 14(2): 40-54.Google Scholar
  24. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In Steffe, L. P., and Gale, J. (Eds.), Constructivism in Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  25. Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum Design-From an Art Towards A Science, Tempus Publication, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Waks, S. (1997). Lateral thinking and technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 6: 245-255.Google Scholar
  27. Waks, S., and Helps, C. R. G. (2004). Dimensions in electronics education change. The International Journal of Engineering Education 20(1): 83-90.Google Scholar
  28. Waks, S., and Merdler, M. (2003). Identifying creativity factors as-sociated with final project work in technology/engineering education. Research in Science and Technological Education 14: 83-90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Waks
    • 1
  • N. Sabag
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion—Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations