Abstract
An innovative learning environment is the current outcome of the constructivist approach, the essence of which is co-construction of knowledge in an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) environment. We examined how Israeli students perceived 10 characteristics of their classroom learning environment—student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, task orientation, investigation, cooperation, equity, differentiation, computer usage and young adult ethos. Particular foci were students’ perceptions of the actual state of their learning environment compared with the preferred state, and which characteristics predicted students’ cooperation. Participants were 1022 students in 33 classes from 12 computerised elementary and middle schools in Israel. Data were collected using the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). Results indicated a gap between the actual and the preferred states for all characteristics, although the scope of these gaps differed between elementary-schools students and middle-school students for certain characteristics. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis indicated that nine characteristics of the innovative environment in both actual and preferred states were related to cooperation, with these relations being primarily direct with the exception of teacher support and differentiation which had an indirect influence. Teacher support was mediated through student cohesiveness, involvement, equity and young adult ethos, whereas differentiation was mediated through investigation. Evaluation of the innovative learning environment might lead to better insights regarding the behaviours and needs of twenty-first century students in Israel’s education system. These insights could advance constructivist processes and teaching methods and bring the students to effective cooperative learning in an innovative learning environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abu Hussain, J., & Gonen, S. (2013). Responsibility for education and educating for responsibility. Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute (Hebrew).
Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Pupils’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 16(1), 131–150.
Aldridge, J. M., Afari, E., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Influence of teacher support and personal relevance on academic self-efficacy and enjoyment of mathematics lessons: A Structural Equation Modeling approach. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 614–633.
Aldridge, J. M., Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Use of multitrait–multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 110–125.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). AMOS 22.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Aristovnik, A. (2012). The impact of ICT on educational performance and its efficiency in selected EU and OECD countries: A non-parametric analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(11), 144–152.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bonk, C. J. (2010). For openers: How technology is changing school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 60–65.
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.518811.
Boy, A. V., & Pine, G. J. (1988). Fostering psychosocial development in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Burić, I. (2015). The role of social factors in shaping pupils’ test emotions: A mediation analysis of cognitive appraisals. Social Psychology of Education, 18(4), 785–809.
Cohn, S. T., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Effectiveness of pupil response systems in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement. Learning Environment Research, 19, 153–167.
Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait–multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 11, 179–193.
Dorman, J. P. (2009). Partitioning the variance in scores on classroom environment instruments. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 9, 18–31.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Fraillon, J., & Ainley, J. (2010). The IEA International Study of Computer Usage and Information Literacy (ICILS). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Ainley/publication/268297993_The_IEA_International_Study_of_Computer_and_Information_Literacy_ICILS/links/54e.
Fraser, B. J. (1990). Pupils’ perceptions of their classroom environments. In K. Tobin, J. B. Kahle, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Windows into science classrooms: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning (pp. 199–221). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 104–119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D., & McRobbie, C. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, New York.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. http://www.newpedagogies.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/New_Pedagogies_for_Deep%20Learning_Whitepaper.pdf.
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 39–54.
Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in school. Journal of Computer Usage in Teacher Education, 26(2), 16–49.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
Jarvela, S., Hurme, T. R., & Jarvenoja, H. (2011). Self-regulation and motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 330–345). New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Roseth, C., & Shin, T. S. (2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(9), 622–633.
Jonassen, D. (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York and London: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.
Ju-Sen, L., & Chaoyun, L. (2014). The perceived influence of learning environment on design pupil imagination. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 2(1), 124–136.
Kaniel, S. (2010). The courage to decide and to act: Individual and group decision-making. Tel Aviv: Ramot (Hebrew).
Kirkland, K., & Sutch, D. (2009). Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation. A literature review. www.futurelab.org.uk/projects/map-of-innovations.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In J. M. Voogt & G. A. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 425–434). New York, NY: Springer.
Magen-Nagar, N., & Shachar, N. (2016). The contribution of the quality of teaching and satisfaction with school to the degree of the risk of dropout in experimental and regular schools: Multi-level analysis. Megamot, 50, 224–251 (Hebrew).
Magen-Nagar, N., & Steinberger, P. (2014). The contribution of the innovative learning environment on improving pupils’ digital literacy. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 1, 59–66.
McGhee, R., & Kozma, R. (2000). World links for development: accomplishments and challenges. Monitoring and evaluation annual report, 1999–2000. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Michalsky, T., & Kramarski, B. (2008). Cultivating self-direction in learning among student teachers in an online environment in connection with the perceptions of teaching and learning. Megamot, 45(4), 765–798 (Hebrew).
Ministry of Education, Israel, (2016). The national program—Adapting the education system to the 21st century-vision and rationale. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/MadaTech/ICTInEducation/Odot/ (Hebrew).
Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Henriksen, D. (2013). Creativity, self-directed learning, and the architecture of technology rich environments. TechTrends, 57(1), 10–13.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). A framework for 21st-century learning. http://www.p21.org/overview.
Pickett, L. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Evaluation of a mentoring program for beginning teachers in terms of the learning environment and pupil outcomes in participants’ school classrooms. In A. Selkirk & M. Tichenor (Eds.), Teacher education: Policy, practice and research (pp. 1–15). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller and Clark 2006. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.
Shachar, H. (2011). Constructivism in education: Teaching, assessment and research. Reches: Even Yehuda (Hebrew).
Shmuel, N. (2015). Transitions, not gaps: Absorbing children of Ethiopian origin into the education system. Gilui Da’at, 8, 137–145 (Hebrew).
Slavin, R. E. (2013). An introduction to cooperative learning research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5–16). New York, NY: Springer.
Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and its opposite. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 24–29.
Tobin, D., & Lis, N. (2013). ‘Threatening but not carrying out’: Practices of control and authority in elementary school. In B. Alpert & S. Shlasky (Eds.), A close up look at the classroom and the school: Ethnographic studies on Education (pp. 272–305). Tel Aviv: MOFET Institute (Hebrew).
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Williford, A. P., Vick Whittaker, J. E., Vitiello, V. E., & Downer, J. T. (2013). Children’s engagement within the preschool classroom and their development of self-regulation. Early Education and Development, 24, 162–187.
Yoshida, H., Tan, S., Uchida, T., Masui, J., & Nakayama, A. (2014). Effects of online cooperative learning on motivation in learning Korean as a foreign language. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(6), 473–477.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by The MOFET Institute and the Department of Teacher Education at the Ministry of Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magen-Nagar, N., Steinberger, P. Characteristics of an innovative learning environment according to students’ perceptions: actual versus preferred. Learning Environ Res 20, 307–323 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9232-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9232-2