Abstract
Project-based learning (PBL) is a well-known method for imparting thinking competencies and creating flexible learning environments. Advancing low-achieving pupils is an on-going challenge for educational systems. Routing low-achievers into low-learning tracks creates a vicious circle. In order to extract pupils and their teachers from the on-going cycle of failure, and to promote pupils cognitively and emotionally, four steps were taken: defining significant goals for the pupils as well as for the teachers, changing the learning environment, carrying out original projects taking advantage of the pupils' special skills and abilities, and changing assessment methods for project-based learning activities in a computerized environment.
This paper presents a continuous field research that has used qualitative and quantitative tools for exploring pupils' progress in the affective and the cognitive domains. The research tools were: Analysis of pupils' portfolios, observations of class activities, interviews with pupils, teachers and school management, achievements in the matriculation examinations, and assessment of pupils' projects.
The findings indicate that scientific-technological PBL elevated pupils' motivation and self-image at all levels and achieved significant affective learning. The activities over three years are summarized and show an increase in the number of students achieving the college admittance requirements. Most of the low-achieving pupils succeeded with distinction in the same matriculation exams that the high-achievers did in the same school.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Barak, M.: 2002, ‘Learning Good Electronics or Coping with Challenging Tasks: The Priorities of Excellent Students', Journal of Technology Education 14(1), 20–34.
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y.: 2000, ‘Using Portfolios to Enhance Creative Thinking', Journal of Technology Studies 26(2), 16–24.
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y.: 1999, ‘Integrating the CoRT Program for Creative Thinking into a Project-based Technology Curriculum', Research in Science and Technological Education 17(2), 139–151.
Barak, M., Eisenberg, E. & Harel O.: 1995, ‘What's in the Calculator?’ An Introductory Project for Technology Studies', Research in Science & Technological Education 12(2), 147–154.
Barak, M. & Maymon, T.: 1998, ‘Aspects of Teamwork Observed in a Technological Task in Junior High Schools', Journal of Technology Education 9(2), pp. 3–17.
Barak, M., Pearlman-Avnion, S. & Glanz, J.: 1997, ‘Using Developmental Supervision to Improve Science and Technology Instruction in Israel', Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 12(4), 367–382.
Barak, M. & Raz, E.: 1998, ‘Hot Air Balloons: Project Centered Study as a Bridge between Science and Technology Education', Science Education 84, 27–42.
Barak, M., Waks, S. & Doppelt, Y.: 2000, ‘Majoring in Technology Studies at High School and Fostering Learning', Learning Environment Research 3, 135–158.
Barak, M., Yehiav, R. & Mendelson, N.: 1994, ‘Advancement of Low Achievers Within Technology Studies at High School', Research in Science & Technological Education 12(2), 175–186.
Barlex, D.: 1994, ‘Organizing Project Work', in F. Banks (ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London, 124–143.
Barth, R. S.: 1972, ‘Open Education and American School, Shoken Books, NY.
Denton, H.: 1994, ‘The Role of Group/Team Work in Design and Technology: Some Possibilities and Problems', in F. Banks (ed.), Teaching Technology, Routledge, London, 145–151.
Dewey, J.: 1916, Democracy and Education, The Free Press, New York.
Doppelt, Y. & Armon, U.: 1999, August, ‘LEGO-Logo (Multi-Techno-Logo) as an Authentic Environment for Improving the Learning Skills of Low-achievers', Proceedings of EUROLOGO 99 Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, 197–205.
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.: 2003, Accepted, ‘Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a MECHATRONICS Context, Submitted to the Journal of Technology Education.
Fraser, J. B.: 1998, ‘Science Learning Environments: Assessment, Effects and Determinants', in J. B. Fraser & G. K. Tobin (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 527–564.
Fraser, J. B., 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(4), 399–422.
Fraser, J. B. & Tobin, K.: 1991, ‘Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Classroom Environment Research', in J. B. Fraser & J. H. Walberg (eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 271–292.
Gardner, H.: 1991, The Unschooled Mind, Basic Books, NY.
Gardner, H.: 1993, Multiple Intelligences/The Theory in Practice, Basic Books, NY.
Holt, J.: 1965, How Children Fail, Penguin Education, Harmondsworth.
Jarvela, S.: 1995, ‘The Cognitive Apprenticeship Model in a Technological Rich Learning Environment: Interpreting the Learning Interaction', Learning and Instruction 5, 237–259.
Jarvinen, E.: 1998, ‘The LEGO-Logo Learning Environment in Technology Education: An Experiment in a Finnish Context', Journal of Technology Education 9(2), 47–59.
Kromholtz, N.: 1998, ‘Simulating Technology Processes to Foster Learning', The Journal of Technology Studies 24(1), 6–11.
Kolb, D.A.: 1985, Learning Styles Inventory, McBer and Company, Boston, MA.
Levin, H.: 1992, May, ‘Accelerating the Education of all Students', Restructuring Brief, A publication of the North Coast Professional Development Consortium. Retrieved from: http://www.smcoe.k12.ca.us./pdc/PDS/restruct2.html.
Papert, S.: 1980, Mindstorms, Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books Inc., New York.
Papert, S.: 1991, ‘Perestroika and Epistemological Politics', in I. Harel & S. Papert (eds.), Constructionism, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ, 13–28.
Perkins, N. D.: 1992, ‘Technology Meets Constructivism: Do They Make a Marriage?', in T. M. Duffy & H. D. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivizim and Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Chap. 4, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 45–55.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.: 1969, The Psychology of the Child, Basic Books, New York.
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S.: 1991, ‘LEGO-Logo: Learning through and About Design', in I. Harel & S. Papert (eds.), Constructionism, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 141–150.
Rogers, C.: 1994, Freedom to Learn, 3rd ed., Merril, New Yord.
Sternberg, J. R. & Grigirenko, E. L.: 1995, ‘Styles of Thinking in the School', European Journal for High Ability 6, 201–219
Sternberg, J. R.: 1998, January, ‘Teaching and Assessing for Successful Intelligence', The School Administrator, 26–31.
Waks, S.: 1995, Novmber, ‘Why Technology Education in the New South Africa', Technology for All, 5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doppelt, Y. Implementation and Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a Flexible Environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13, 255–272 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026125427344
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026125427344