Teachers' and pupils' perceptions of science-technology learning environments

Learning Environments Research

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 163-178

  Doppelt, Yaron ^a,b  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b NONE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Alternative assessment; Learning outcomes; Science technology learning environment; Teacher training; Team projects; Thinking skills

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750912602     PISSN: 13871579     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-006-9005-9     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the Cognitive Research Trust (CoRT) program for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 139-151.
2. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16-24.
3. Barak, M., & Raz, E. (1998). Hot air balloons: Project centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84, 27-42.
4. Barak, M., & Waks, S. (1997). An Israeli study of longitudinal in-service training of mathematics science and technology teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23, 179-190.
5. Barak, M., Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Majoring in technology studies at high school and fostering learning. Learning Environments Research, 3, 135-158.
6. Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124-143). London: Routledge.
7. Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design & technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In I. Mottier & M. De Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of the PATT-12 Conference (pp. 3-12). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://www.iteaconnect.org/PATT12/Barlex.pdf.
8. Barlex, D., & Pitt, J. (2001). Is it possible or desirable to change the relationship between science and design and technology in secondary schools? In E. W. L. Norman & P. H. Roberts (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development IDATER 2001 (pp. 17-22). Leicestershire, UK: Loughborough University. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/idater/ downloads01/idater2001.pdf.
9. Bransford, D. J., Brown, L. A., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, National Research Council, National Academy Press.
10. Corcoran, T. B. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional development. CPRE Policy Briefs: Reporting on issues and research in education policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Retrieved May 11, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/t61/index.html.
11. De Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the "technology is applied science" paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7-15.
12. De Vries, M. J. (1997). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 21-32.
13. Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255-272.
14. Doppelt, Y. (2004). Characteristics' impact of science-technology learning environment on learning outcomes: Pupils' perceptions and gender differences. Learning Environments Research, 7, 271-293.
15. Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a mechatronics' context. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 7-24.
16. Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12-18.
17. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, D. C. (2005, April). A close-knit collaboration between researchers and teachers for developing and implementing a design-based science module. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
18. Dori, I., & Barnea, N. (1997). In-service chemistry teachers' training: The impact of introducing computer technology on teachers' attitudes and classroom implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 577-592.
19. Eylon, B.-S. (2000a). Designing powerful learning environments and practical theories: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 885-890.
20. Eylon, B.-S. (2000b, August). Reflections on long-term professional development of physics teachers in Israel. Paper presented at the Physics Education Research Conference 2000: Teacher Education, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
21. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinates. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
22. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271-290). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
23. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences/the theory to practice. New York: Basic Books.
24. Harari, H. (1992). A report of the Committee for Science and Technology Education (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Education.
25. Kennedy, M. M. (1999, November). Form and substance in mathematics and science professional development. NISE Brief, 5(2), 1-7. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Science Education.
26. Kolb, D. A. (1985). Learning Styles Inventory. Boston: McBer and Company.
27. Lazarowitz, R., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Baird J. H. (1994). Learning in a cooperative setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121-1131.
28. National Science Education Standards. (1996). Standards for professional development for teachers of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education (CSMEE).
29. Perkins, N. D. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? In T. M. Duffy & H. D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 45-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30. Pizzini, E. L., Shepardson, D. P., & Abell, S. K. (1989). A rationale for and the development of a problem solving model of instruction in science education. Science Education, 73, 523-534.
31. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768-790.
32. Sternberg, J. R. (1998). Teaching and assessing for successful intelligence. The School Administrator, 55(1), 26-31.
33. Tal, R., Dori, I., Keiny S., & Zoller, U. (2001). Assessing conceptual change of teachers involved in STES education and curriculum development - The STEMS project approach. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 247-262.
34. Waks, S. (1994). Science-technology dimensions in physics education: Prospects and impacts. Physics Education, 29, 64-70.
35. Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg, Germany: Tempus Publications.
36. Waks, S., & Doppelt, Y. (2002, August). A system perspective on evaluating a science-technology in-service teachers' training. Paper presented at the International Conference in Educational Assessment, Northumbria University, UK.
37. Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/technology/society: As reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
38. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students - Are they mutually exclusive? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145-182.