International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
To cite this article: Sulaiman M. Al-Balushi & Shamsa S. Al-Aamri (2014) The effect of
environmental science projects on students’ environmental knowledge and science attitudes,
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 23:3, 213-227, DOI:
10.1080/10382046.2014.927167
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 2014
Vol. 23, No. 3, 213 227, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2014.927167
Introduction
Humans are the key players with regard to the conservation and sustainability of the envi-
ronment and natural resources. Their awareness of different environmental issues is an
influential factor that directs their responses to and interactions with their environment.
Individuals’ awareness of their environment is shaped by their knowledge of their envi-
ronment and the interrelationships among its elements and their attitudes towards it.
Accurate knowledge and positive attitudes lead to positive environmental behaviors (Esa,
2010; Pooly & O’Connor, 2000; Zecha, 2010), mediated by behavioral intentions and
environmental affects (Alp, Ertepinar, Tekkaya, & Yilmaz, 2006). There is a link between
students’ environmental beliefs and their willingness to act to save the environment
(Ambusaidi, Boyes, Stanisstreet, & Taylor, 2012).
Science education is believed to have an important role in equipping individuals with
the required environmental knowledge which leads to a positive environmental behavior
(Alp et al., 2006; Littledyke, 2008). However, traditional pedagogical practices might
hinder environmental learning (Ruiz-Mallen, Barraza, Bodenhorn, & Reyes-Garcıa,
2009). Thus, non-traditional strategies should be encouraged. Different pedagogical
approaches might be used to achieve this goal. Literatures show that instructional
strategies such as mental-model building strategy (Reinfried, 2006), online debate forum,
field trips (Tal, 2010), field-based instruction (Kastens & Liben, 2010; Sheppard, Donald-
son, & Huckleberry, 2010), theory-based learning (Reinfried, Aeschbacher, & Rotter-
mann, 2012), and problem-based strategy (Kwan & So, 2008) have a positive impact on
students’ knowledge related to environmental issues. Another strategy is project-based
learning (PBL), which transforms learning activities into student-centered learning activi-
ties in which learners interact with authentic issues and real-world practices. This learning
endeavor allows learners to implement different academic and innovative skills in order
to come up with and implement different alternative solutions to real-world problems.
Students conclude their PBL activities by presenting their findings in a way that reflects
their epistemological accomplishments and positive attitudes towards the undertaken
issues and problems. They might accompany their presentations with videos, photo-
graphs, sketches, reports, models, and collected artifacts (Holubova, 2008).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
PBL is a constructivism-based method (Allan, 2007; Chen, 2006). Its conceptual frame-
work is rooted in three constructivist principles: learning occurs within the context, learners
should be actively involved in the learning process, and learners’ goals are accomplished
through social interactions that allow for sharing of knowledge and understanding (Cocco,
2006). In PBL, students are involved in social negotiations by which they rearrange their
knowledge through discussions, generation of ideas and rediscovery of knowledge (Sidman
& Milner, 2001). Students during PBL interact with different people inside and outside the
school who become a source for alternative viewpoints which might contradict with what
they believe. This unbalanced epistemological status promotes new learning which supports
individual enjoyment and social interests (Kurzel & Rath, 2007).
Based on the teaching methodologies literature, PBL could be considered as a specific
type of inquiry-based learning (IBL). In both PBL and IBL, questions and problems are the
context for learning, and students design and implement their methods to solve the problem
or answer the question. In the PBL, however, major products provide additional fundamen-
tal context for learning (Prince & Felder, 2006). In PBL, there is production of an end prod-
uct (Barak & Dori, 2005) around which learning is modeled (G€ulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006).
This is not necessarily the case in IBL which, at its highest level, signifies students’ formu-
lation of their own investigating questions; they also design their own methods and experi-
ments to answer these questions (Cuevas, Lee, Hart, & Deaktor, 2005).
Literature indicates that PBL is an effective method to enrich students’ environmental
knowledge (Dori & Tal, 2000; Kwan & Chan, 2004; Tal & Alkaher, 2009; Utarasakul,
2008). It has been observed that the knowledge and skills which students get out of their par-
ticipation in different science projects prepare them to take their appropriate position in sci-
ence-related social discussions and negotiations in and out of the classroom (Turgut, 2008).
Steinberg, Cushman, and Riordan (1999) specify six features of PBL (the six As): authentic-
ity, academic rigor, applied learning, active exploration, adult connections, and assessment
practices, using known criteria and continuous self-assessment. Students in PBL learn how
to wonder, question, plan, search, make decisions, and apply previously attained knowledge.
Science learning faces different challenges that threaten students’ interest in it. Previ-
ous research which documents students’ attitudes towards science shows that these atti-
tudes are quite negative (Nair & Fisher, 1999; Reiss, 2004). In addition, science is
considered by students to be less popular than some other subject matters (Hendley, Par-
kinson, Stables, & Tunner, 1995; Hendley, Stables, & Stables, 1996). Their interest in sci-
ence drops in grade three and the number of students who look for science-related
professions declines (Craker, 2006). In addition, it has been shown that science attitudes
drop when students transfer from low- to high-grade levels and that the attitudes of
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 215
final-grade students towards their science courses are quite negative (Nair & Fisher,
1999). PBL is a promising approach to advance the science curriculum because it is an
authentic exploratory activity backed by technology to support inquiry (Barak & Dori,
2005). Both technology and inquiry have the potential to respond to young students’ inter-
ests. Technology-based projects respond to new generations of students’ interests created
by new technologies. Additionally, inquiry-based projects respond to students’ interest in
hands-on work which allows them to get away from the traditional lecturing teaching
method. PBL permits students to investigate what fills them with wonder, make decisions
regarding the sources of their learning, and engage in minds-on learning (Jacklin, 2008).
Collectively, these features of PBL stir students’ interests and enhance their internal moti-
vation and enthusiasm for learning. Hence, PBL helps enhance students’ attitudes towards
science (Morgil, Seyhan, Alsan, & Temel, 2008; Yalcin, Turgut, & B€uy€ukkasap, 2009).
Additionally, studies done on environmental issues using PBL show that PBL not only
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
enriches students’ environmental knowledge, but also nurtures their interests in global
environmental issues and prepares them to instigate environmentally accepted initiations
(Utarasakul, 2008). It also trains them to become young environmental specialists who
conduct their own inquiries based on their needs and interests, involves them in authentic
activities such as organizing environmental exhibits (Kwan & Chan, 2004) and directs
their attentions toward environmental problems around them (Dori & Tal, 2000).
Students in PBL have the opportunity to express their different talents which are not
discovered by traditional instruction. What helps in this regard is the type of assessment
used in PBL. The traditional paper-and-pencil tests assess very few cognitive abilities
such as reading, writing, and arithmetic ability. Therefore, many students are classified as
low achievers as a result of this type of assessment. Their other talents, such as their artis-
tic ability, their technological capability, their hands-on skills, and their social skills, are
uncovered and not fully supported in science lessons. The commonly used assessment
practices do not capture success in creating, learning, and using knowledge (Mintzes,
Wandersee, & Novak, 2000). However, PBL allows this wide spectrum of skills to be
integrated into science learning endeavors. Previous studies indicate that using alternative
assessments during PBL experiences to assess students’ performance has a positive
impact on helping students to comprehend scientific concepts, enhance their motivation,
foster their social skills, nurture their critical-thinking skills, and boost their enjoyment
with the learning process (ChanLin, 2008; G€ulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006; Tal & Alkaher,
2009). Examples of these alternative assessments are portfolios, artistic work samples,
and designing electronic applications. In addition, PBL helps low achievers to attain a
high level of formulating scientific explanations which they do not attain in the traditional
teaching environments (Doppelt, Mehalik, Schunn, Silk, & Krysinski, 2008). Addition-
ally, students in PBL behave like young scientists. They conduct studies which involve
asking questions, designing experiments, collecting data, drawing conclusions, and think-
ing of explanations (Colley, 2005; Holubova, 2008; Krajcik et al., 1998).
Some teachers do not view PBL as a feasible strategy that could be implemented in
their classrooms. Some of them think that PBL works only for higher achievers, requires
a level of metacognition that some students might not have and relies on group work,
which might allow some students to depend on their group members. Moreover, they
think that PBL does not permit a large amount of the curriculum to be covered, requires
expensive resources and technologies, takes much time to conduct and puts a heavy work-
load on students and teachers (Do gan, Batdi, & Yildirim, 2012; Fallik, Eylon, & Rose-
nfeld, 2008; G€ ulbahar & Tinmaz, 2006; Rogers, Cross, Gresalfi, Trauth-Nare, & Buck,
2011). These findings are supported by studies which show that not all students excel in
216 S.M. Al-Balushi and S.S. Al-Aamri
all the promises that PBL makes. For instance, they face difficulties in asking precise sci-
entific questions that lead to authentic projects (Krajcik et al., 1998). The current study is
an attempt to provide science teachers with examples of school-wide projects that might
be implemented in their classrooms with few resources and no extra lesson time. In addi-
tion, these projects are designed to suit the limited school resources in developing coun-
tries where highly sophisticated equipments, large computer and science laboratories, and
advanced computer software programs are not available, at least not in all schools.
Instead, most of the time science teachers need to rely on everyday items and whatever is
available in their surroundings so their students are able to conduct scientific investiga-
tions. Nevertheless, the projects in the current study have the academic rigor and focus on
enhancing students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Additionally, there is a gap in the lit-
erature of environmental education: that environmental knowledge and attitudes toward
science have not been explored together as dependent variables for PBL. The current
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
Purpose of study
The current study explores the effectiveness of involving students in environmental sci-
ence projects for their environmental knowledge and attitudes towards science. The study
focuses on two research questions:
(1) What is the effect of involving students in environmental science projects on their
environmental knowledge?
(2) What is the effect of involving students in environmental science projects on their
attitudes towards science?
Methodology
Participants
The participants were 62 11th-grade female students who were studying a unit called
“The Impact of Humans on the Environment” within a subject called science and technol-
ogy in a public school in Ad Dakhiliyah Governorate in the Sultanate of Oman. In this
school, there were three classes taking the science and technology subject. Two classes
were randomly chosen to participate in the study. They were then randomly assigned into
an experimental group (n D 34) and a control group (n D 28). The environmental science
projects were conducted by the experimental group. The control group was taught by the
traditional method.
The school system in Oman is composed of two major stages: the basic education and
the post-basic education. The basic education stage is composed of two cycles: Cycle one
for grades 1 4 and Cycle two for grades 5 10. The post-basic education stage is for
grades 11 and 12. Cycle one schools are mixed gender where male and female students
study together in the same classrooms. However, there are different schools for male and
female students in Cycle two and post-basic education.
Design of study
This study is a quasi-experimental pretest post-test control group design. Two instruments
were administered pre and post the study which lasted for two months (30 lessons). The
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 217
instruments were the Environmental Knowledge Test (EKT) and the Science Attitudes
Survey (SAS). The independent samples t-test was run for the data taken from the pre-
administration of the instruments to test whether there were statistically significant differ-
ences between the two groups before the start of the study. Results show that there were
no statistically significant differences with regard to the two variables: the environmental
knowledge and the science attitudes. Both groups were taught by the same science teacher
who had four years’ experience of teaching science. The second researcher conducted a
four-day workshop for the teacher to train her on PBL, go through the teacher manual for
the experimental group, and explain the projects involved in the experiment. The total
number of training hours was 6.5.
The experimental group conducted six environmental science projects. These projects are
illustrated in Table 1. These projects are listed in their chronological order as they were
conducted during the course of the study. All the students in the experimental group were
involved in all the projects. The class was divided into five groups, each of which con-
sisted of six to seven students. These groups were heterogeneous and each of them had a
balanced number of low, average, and high achievers. A leader was appointed for each
group. Each group received an instructions sheet explaining each project. In addition, a
computer connected to the Internet was assigned for each group. Each group conducted a
series of steps during the period of implementation. These steps were summarized as
follows:
(1) Design a plan for collecting more information about the project.
(2) Collect the information from different resources.
(3) Pose researchable questions.
(4) Design a plan to answer the questions.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
Appendix 1 illustrates an example that provides more details of the information and
instructions given to students in order for them to conduct their project. The example
details the steps taken by students until they eventually presented their project.
Instructional materials
A teacher manual was designed for the experimental group. This manual consisted of a
theoretical and research base for PBL, a unit plan for the “Impact of Humans on the Envi-
ronment” unit in the Science and Technology textbook, a list of the learning outcomes,
lesson plans, individual project description sheets, plan-your-project working sheets,
assessment rubrics, peer assessment forms, and self-assessment forms. Each lesson plan
included the following elements: a guiding question, a brief description of the project,
project objectives, and a project-phases table. The project-phase table illustrates the title
of each phase, mechanisms to complete each phase, and completion period. These phases
are as follows: introducing the project idea, planning, implementation, and assessment.
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 219
Each phase in the project-phase table poses a set of tasks that the teacher conducts to
facilitate students’ completion of each phase. The teacher is instructed not to give stu-
dents ready answers or procedures to conduct the project. Instead, she is encouraged to
support their creativity and independent decision-making.
The teacher manual was reviewed by four faculty members teaching at a public uni-
versity, five science supervisors working at the Ministry of Education and one senior sci-
ence teacher working at a public school. Different modifications were made to the guide
such as redesigning some of the projects’ phases, redesigning the worksheets, and
rephrasing the items in the assessment tools.
0.85. This piloting process also helped to estimate the administration time for SAS, which
was 20 minutes.
Data collection
Both instruments, EKT and SAS, were administered as pre and post to both groups of the
study. The following sequence was used for data collection:
Data analysis
Means and standard deviations were calculated for both instruments’ scores. An indepen-
dent samples t-test was used to compare the experimental and the control groups in terms
of the environmental knowledge and science attitudes. A dependent samples t-test was
used to compare the pre and post mean scores for each group regarding each of the depen-
dent variables. For statistically significant comparisons, effect size r values were
calculated.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results for post-EKT.
Additionally, it should be noticed from Table 1 that the topics in which the experi-
mental group excelled are those for which participants in that group produced non-tradi-
tional final products: a documentary movie, recycled products, and an exhibit with
leaflets, posters, and comics. They also conducted a school-wide project for the recycling
project in which they conducted knowledge competitions and delivered a morning broad-
cast. These unusual activities and products must have a positive impact on participants’
search for related environmental information to be included in their final products. On the
other hand, the final products of the other two products were ordinary products that stu-
dents were used to in their school study. These were a report and a comparison chart. The
project which involved writing and designing a play did not make a significant difference.
This might signify that the final product should not only be unusual and enjoyable, but it
should also adhere to the academic rigor condition stated in the literature for successful
PBL (Steinberg et al., 1999).
Table 3 illustrates the pre-post comparisons with regard to participants’ score in EKT
for both groups. Both groups significantly gained environmental knowledge after they
completed the “Impact of Humans on the Environment” unit. Moreover, it is noticed that
the pre-post mean difference for the experimental group (8.03) was higher than for the
control group (2.82). This result gives the experimental group more advantage over the
control group and supports its significant outperformance illustrated in Table 2. This posi-
tive impact of PBL on students’ environmental knowledge has also been supported by the
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and paired samples t-test results for pre6 post-EKT.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, and independent samples t-test results for post-SAS.
Domain Group M SD df t p
results of previous studies (Dori & Tal, 2000; Kwan & Chan, 2004; Tal & Alkaher, 2009;
Utarasakul, 2008).
Science attitudes
Table 4 shows the means, standard deviations, and t-test comparisons between the experi-
mental and the control group in terms of participants’ scores in each science attitudes
domain included in SAS and their total scores. The experimental group significantly out-
performs the control group in terms of their overall science attitudes and in terms of the
“Enjoyment of Science” domain. The effect size r values are 0.32 and 0.42, which are
classified as moderate effect size. There are no statistically significant differences in terms
of the other two domains: the “Importance of Science” and the “Respect of Scientists”
domains.
The significant positive impact of PBL on the “Enjoyment of Science” domain of sci-
ence attitudes supports the results obtained by EKT regarding participants’ environmental
knowledge. The experimental group, as stated above, outperformed the control group in
the environmental topics which were addressed by projects that had enjoyable and
unusual activities and final products during the experimental phase of the current study.
These enjoyable activities must have contributed to enhancing participants’ attitudes in
the “Enjoyment of Science” domain.
Table 5 demonstrates the pre-post comparisons for both groups in terms of their sci-
ence attitudes. There is a statistically significant improvement in the experimental group’s
attitudes towards science. This is not the case for the control group. Their improvement in
science attitudes is not statistically significant. These findings, which reflect a positive
impact of PBL on science attitudes, were also corroborated by previous studies (Morgil
et al., 2008; Yalcin et al., 2009).
Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and paired samples t-test results for pre6 post-SAS.
Another limitation in the current study is that the SAS results might reveal a novelty
effect. Students’ enthusiasm in the experimental group when working on designing their
final products in each project and the excitement they felt when experiencing new tech-
nology contributed to the improvement in the results of post-tests. Students in the control
group did not have the opportunity to experience some of these excitements. This is sup-
ported by the out-performance of the experimental group in terms of enjoyment of science
in SAS. To control for this novelty effect, a follow-up study might be to have more infu-
sion of technology and designing experiences in a second experimental group. In this sug-
gested research design, there will be a control group taught by the traditional method, a
PBL experimental group, and a second experimental group taught in the same way as the
control group except that it has more technology and designing experiences. To differen-
tiate this second experimental group from the PBL group, students will not follow the
PBL phases and there will be no final product required. Their technology and designing
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
experiences will be small tasks based on the nature of the topics under study.
The above conclusions and observations lead to thoughts of a follow-up research that
compares the effectiveness of different projects that differ in terms of the type of final prod-
ucts required by students: technology-based, school-wide, and outside school. One study
might study the impact of type of audience on students’ achievement and attitudes. Four
experimental groups might be involved in this experimental study. All groups do the same
projects with the same final products. They only differ in the type of audience they interact
with. One of them demonstrates their final product inside their classroom and interacts with
their classmates. A second group displays its final product for the school-wide audience. A
third group goes outside school and displays their product outside the school and interacts
with a wider range of audience with different backgrounds. A fourth group might dissemi-
nate its final project on one of the social networks and interact with a global audience.
References
Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, R. (2007). The effect of problem-based active learning in science edu-
cation on students’ academic achievement, attitudes and concept learning. Science and Tech-
nology Education, 3(1), 71 81.
Allan, J. (2007). Snapshot of a generation: Bridging the theory-practice divide with project-based
learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 47(1), 78 93.
Alp, E., Ertepinar, H., Tekkaya, C., & Yilmaz, A. (2006). A statistical analysis of children’s envi-
ronmental knowledge and attitudes in Turkey. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 15(3), 210 223.
Ambusaidi, A., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., & Taylor, N. (2012). Omani students’ views about
global warming: Beliefs about actions and willingness to act. International Research in Geo-
graphical and Environmental Education, 21(1), 21 39.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y.J. (2005). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding
through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education, 89, 117 139.
ChanLin, L. (2008). Technology integration applied to project-based learning in science. Innova-
tions in Education and Teaching International, 45(1), 55 65.
Chen, H. (2006). Projects-to-think-with and projects-to-talk-with: How adult learners experience
project-based learning in an online course (Doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University Col-
lege of Education, Manhattan, KS. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database.
(Document ID 1246565031).
Cocco, S. (2006). Student leadership development: The contribution of project-based learning
(Unpublished master’s thesis). Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence.
Colley, E.C. (2005). Project-based science instruction: Teaching science for understanding. Radical Ped-
agogy, 7(2). Retrieved January 12, 2010, from http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/issue7_2/
colley.html
International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 225
Craker, D. (2006). Attitudes toward science of students enrolled in introductory level science
courses at UW-La Crosse. Journal of Undergraduate Research, IX, 1 6.
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., Hart, J., & Deaktor, R. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary stu-
dents of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337 357.
Desta, D., Chalchisa, D., Mulat, Y., Berihun, A., & Tesera, A. (2009). Enhancing active learning
through self- and peer reflections: The case of selected schools in Ethiopia. Journal of Interna-
tional Cooperation in Education, 12(1), 71 87.
Dogan, Y., Batdi, V., & Yildirim, B. (2012, March). Teachers’ views on the practice of project-
based learning approach in primary school science education. Paper presented at the New Per-
spectives in Science Education, Florence, Italy.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M, Schunn, C., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagegement and achieve-
ment: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Educa-
tion, 19(2), 22 39.
Dori, J., & Tal, R. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with
environmental awareness. Science Education, 84(1), 95 113.
Dori, Y., & Belcher, J. (2005). Learning electromagnetism with visualizations and active learning.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science education (pp. 187 216). Dordrecht: Springer.
Esa, N. (2010). Environmental knowledge, attitude and practices of student teachers. International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 19(1), 39 50.
Fallik, O., Eylon, B.-S., & Rosenfeld, S. (2008). Motivating teachers to enact free-choice project-
based learning in science and technology (PBLSAT): Effects of a professional development
model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 565 591.
G€ulbahar, Y., & Tinmaz, H. (2006). Implementing project-based learning and e-portfolio assessment
in an undergraduate course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 309 327.
Hendley, D., Parkinson, J., Stables, A., & Tanner, H. (1995). Gender differences in pupil attitudes to
the national curriculum foundation subjects of English, mathematics, science and technology in
Key Stage 3 in South Wales. Educational Studies, 21, 85 97.
Hendley, D., Stables, S., & Stables, A. (1996). Pupils’ subject preferences at Key Stage 3 in South
Wales. Educational Studies, 22, 177 187.
Holubova, R. (2008). Effective teaching methods project-based learning in physics. US-China
Education Review, 12(5), 27 35.
Jacklin, R. (2008). Building student knowledge: A study of project-based learning to aid geography
concept recall. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Walden University, Minnesota, USA.
Kastens, K., & Liben, L. (2010). Children’s strategies and difficulties while using a map to record
locations in an outdoor environment. International Research in Geographical and Environmen-
tal Education, 19(4), 315 340.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in proj-
ect based science classrooms initial attempts by middle school students. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313 350.
Kurzel, F., & Rath, M. (2007). Project-based learning and learning environments. Issues inInform-
ing Science and Information Technology, 4, 504 510.
Kwan, T., & Chan, E. (2004). Using theory of learning and awareness to bring about learning
through a school-based environmental field project. International Research in Geographical
and Environmental Education, 13(4), 303 328.
Kwan, T., & So, M. (2008). Environmental learning using a problem-based approach in the field: A
case study of a Hong Kong school. International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 17(2), 93 113.
Littledyke, M. (2008). Science education for environmental awareness: Approaches to integrating
cognitive and affective domains. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 1 17.
Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (2000). Assessing science for understanding: A
human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Morgil, I., Seyhan, H., Alsan, E.U., & Temel, S. (2008). The effect of web-based project applica-
tions on students’ attitudes towards chemistry. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,
9(2), 220 237.
Nair, C., & Fisher, D. (1999). Learning environments and students attitudes to science at the senior
secondary and tertiary levels. Issues in Educational Research, 11(2), 12 31.
Pooley, J.A., & O’Connor, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs
are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711 723
226 S.M. Al-Balushi and S.S. Al-Aamri
Prince, M. & Felder R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons,
and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 123 138.
Reinfried, S. (2006). Conceptual change in physical geography and environmental sciences through
mental model building: The example of groundwater. International Research in Geographical
and Environmental Education, 15(1), 41 61.
Reinfried, S., Aeschbacher, U., & Rottermann, B. (2012). Improving students’ conceptual under-
standing of the greenhouse effect using theory-based learning materials that promote deep
learning. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 21(2),
155 178.
Reiss, J. (2004). Pupils’ attitudes towards science: A long-term perspective. Retrieved October 14,
2009, from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/446/1/Reiss2004Students97.pdf
Rogers, M., Cross, D., Gresalfi, M., Trauth-Nare, A., & Buck, G. (2011). First year implementation
of a project-based learning approach: The need for addressing teachers’ orientations in the era
of reform. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 893 917.
Ruiz-Mallen, I., Barraza, L., Bodenhorn, B., & Reyes-Garcıa, V. (2009). School and local environ-
mental knowledge, what are the links? A case study among indigenous adolescents in Oaxaca,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
(4) Design and distribute leaflets, posters, and recycled products and deliver lectures to the
school.
(5) Develop positive attitudes toward the environment, environmental balance, and environ-
mental preservation (this objective is similar for all projects).
Project phases
Phase I: introducing the project idea: Students are divided into groups of four and five. The teacher
discusses with students the role of humans in disturbing the environmental and ecological balance
and producing waste. Students, in their groups, read and discuss statistical reports illustrating the
amount of garbage in some Omani cities. The teacher uses this discussion to help students compre-
hend the importance of recycling, its history, its international movements, and its types, as well as
provide examples of recycling efforts in Oman and the region. Then, students receive a worksheet
that explains the project idea and introduces its objectives.
Phase II: planning and designing: During this phase, each group designs a plan to achieve the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:01 04 December 2014
project objectives and answer the guiding question. The members also list the necessary materials
needed and the timeline for achieving their goals. They need to detail all steps related to the produc-
tion of recycled products, advertising, and conducting an in-school campaign, delivery of lectures,
and the production of leaflets and posters. Each group needs to distribute the work among its mem-
bers. Students during this phase make their own decisions regarding different project requirements
and issues. They need also to show academic rigor and incorporate information regarding the topic
of recycling and its different aspects from trusted resources. Then, the teacher reviews the plans and
gives feedback.
Phase III: implementation: Each group starts to produce the recycled products. Students need to
rely on themselves to collect the needed materials. They experiment with different ways of recy-
cling until they arrive at the best method for certain types of materials such as newspapers, empty
cans, plastic bottles, palm tree leaves and used compact discs. Then, they produce leaflets and post-
ers for their in-school campaign. Next, they start advertising for their campaign and its related lec-
tures. Afterwards, they conduct the campaign and the lectures. At the end of this phase, students
deliver the final presentation of their project, illustrate their final recycled products, reflect on how
the school audience received their campaign, present how they benefited from the project, and dis-
cuss the difficulties they faced. Also, they submit their final project report. During this stage, stu-
dents need to adhere to their plans from the previous phase. However, they might decide to change
their plan as the project develops.
Phase IV: project evaluation: A rubric is used by the teacher to evaluate each group during each
phase. The rubric criteria are based on project objectives and the outcomes related to each phase. In
addition, a peer assessment form and a self-assessment form are used. Students get regular feedback
at the end of each phase.