Learning Environ Res

DOI 10.1007/s10984-016-9212-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

How teaching science using project-based learning

strategies affects the classroom learning environment

Muhamad Hugerat1

Received: 28 January 2015 / Accepted: 14 October 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This study involved 458 ninth-grade students from two different Arab middle
schools in Israel. Half of the students learned science using project-based learning
strategies and the other half learned using traditional methods (non-project-based). The
classes were heterogeneous regarding their achievements in the sciences. The adapted
questionnaire contained 38 statements concerning students’ perceptions of the science
classroom climate. The results of the study revealed that students who learned sciences by
project-based teaching strategies perceived their classroom learning climate as signifi-
cantly more Satisfying and Enjoyable, with greater Teacher Supportiveness, and the
Teacher–Student Relationships as significantly more positive. The differences between the
experimental (project-based learning strategies) and control (non-project) groups regarding
their perceptions of the science classroom learning climate could be explained by differ-
ences between the two science teaching and learning strategies.

Keywords Classroom climate
Project-based learning strategies
Scientific projects

Student–teacher relationships

Introduction

Classrooms are social organisations that create learning as well as emotional climates
(Anderson 1973; Fraser 1998, 2012; Johnson 1976; Levin et al. 1981). Classes can be
lively and supportive, or quiet, depressing and boring. Some are taught by active, energetic
and highly-motivated teachers, while others are taught by burned-out teachers who feel
isolated, angry and unenthusiastic. In some classes, students are highly motivated, self-

& Muhamad Hugerat

[email protected]
1
The Academic Arab College for Education, 22 Hachashmal St, 33145 Haifa, Israel

123
 Learning Environ Res

disciplined and obey rules and regulations while, in others, students suffer from a lack of
interest, feel unchallenged and are undisciplined (Templeton and Jensen 1993).
The classroom is a social environment where students spend some 20,000 h in 12 years
of schooling and go through various experiences (Fraser 2001). Therefore the quality of
classroom life is significant in shaping their feelings and attitudes towards their classmates,
teachers, the subjects that they study and the whole school system, as well as determining
such things as competitiveness, cooperation, obedience to rules and regulations, disputes
and power struggles, all of which students can be expected to face during their future lives
(Menis 1995).
For more than five decades, the influence of the classroom climate on student learning
has been of interest to researchers. According to Fraser (1989), ‘‘the strongest tradition in
past classroom environment research has involved investigation of associations between
students’ cognitive and effective learning outcomes and their perceptions of psychosocial
characteristics of their classrooms’’ (p. 315). For the purposes of this study, classroom
climate was defined as the learning environment that the instructor creates by teaching
using a teacher-centered (TC) or learner-centered (LC) approach. A TC instructional
preference or teaching style focuses more on teaching and assessing behavioural objectives
through course content and delivery (Brown 2009; Pratt 2002).
A central focus of this teaching style is the transmission of knowledge, while the needs
of the student are subordinate to teaching and assessing the curriculum. In contrast, an LC
instructional preference or teaching style focuses more on the students, their needs and the
process of learning. An LC classroom climate places students at the centre of the learning
process and provides them with support and guidance, positive feedback and encourage-
ment, empathy, mutual trust and respect (Pratt 2002).
Teacher dispositions towards TC versus LC instruction can shape and reflect the
classroom climate and thus influence student achievement (Eggen and Kauchak 2012). A
primary role of the LC educator is to establish a positive teacher–student relationship that
fosters growth and confidence. Students who perceive teachers as caring and supportive
tend to be more motivated and exert greater effort and persistence, making them more
likely to be academically successful (Lumpkin 2007; Wentzel 1997).
Stipek et al. (1995) compared children in learner-centred (n = 104) with children in
teacher-centred (n = 123) preschools/kindergartens in terms of motivational variables
such as perceptions of abilities and expectations for success. Compared with students in
teacher-centred classrooms, students in a learner-centred environment tended to rate their
abilities significantly higher, have higher expectations for success, and display more pride
in their accomplishments.

Learning science using project-based learning strategies

Project-based learning can be defined briefly as ‘‘a model that organizes learning around
projects’’ (Thomas 2000, p. 1). Even though assigning projects to students in traditional
classrooms is not a new phenomenon, project-based learning is quite different from the
traditional method. Thomas (2000, p. 4) listed five major criteria for a method of learning
to be called project-based:
• In project-based learning, the projects are central, not peripheral to the curriculum,
• Project-based learning projects are focused on questions or problems that ‘drive’
students to encounter the central concepts and principles of a discipline,

123
Learning Environ Res

• Projects involve students in a constructive investigation,

• Projects are student-driven to a significant degree, and
• Projects are realistic, not school-like.
The project-based learning movement has spread quickly among practitioners. How-
ever, Barron et al. (2004) pointed out that a project-based learning approach necessitates an
immediate change not only in the curriculum, but also in instruction and assessment for
both instructors and students. The new role of the instructor in a project-based learning
setting is defined by Frank et al. (2003): ‘‘… lecturing to passive students is replaced by
encouraging motivation, tutoring, providing resources, and helping learners to construct
their own knowledge’’ (p. 280).
Thomas (2000) defined the positive side effects of project-based learning for students as
the development of positive attitudes towards their learning process, work routines,
problem-solving abilities and self-esteem. Similarly, Green (1998) suggested that partici-
pants in project-based learning learn better and are more active in their learning. Instructors
work ‘backstage’ as students work on their projects. This turns participants into active
problem-solvers on the projects, rather than passive receivers of knowledge. Preuss (2002)
noted that, as students complete their projects, they think reflectively on their experiences
with project-based learning processes individually. In addition, students realise similarities
between what they are learning and what is going on outside the school walls.
Even though students could be upset in the early stages of the implementation of
project-based learning because they have been accustomed to the traditional method, with
time most students come to feel more motivated in a project-based course. Because pro-
ject-based learning gives students greater freedom within their learning environment, they
give up their habit of waiting for step-by-step instructor-based commands (Lenschow
1998).
Lenschow (1998) suggested applying a trial-and-error approach before implementing
project-based learning on a large scale. A small-scale project-based learning trial including
five to fifteen participants is enough to determine the effect on students and issues related
to its implementation. Such a small-scale attempt helps instructors to realise the challenges
of project-based learning. For example, Frank and Barzilai (2004) provided a long list of
possible challenges of this kind:
Teachers’ content knowledge, students’ lack of experience in this new approach and
their preference for a traditional-structured approach; their preference for a learning
environment which requires less effort on their part; and problems arising from time
stress. Students struggling with ambiguity, complexity, unpredictability are liable to
experience frustration in an environment of uncertainty, with no notion of how to
begin or in which manner to proceed. (p. 43)
Heckendorn (2002) explains that projects in project-based learning require much more
time to complete compared with non-project-based learning because they are complex in
nature and situated in real life. Additionally, project-based learning concentrates both on
the end-product and on experiencing the process. Because of the emphasis on the project,
making the right choice is a major concern for instructors. Projects train students to take
complex real-life concerns and divide them into more specific smaller steps (Solomon
2003). Consequently, Özdener and Özçoban (2004) note that they should be applied
individually or in groups in which students can utilise their thinking, problem solving, and
creativity skills.

123
 Learning Environ Res

As Lenschow (1998) proposed, a project should be as close as possible to reality. To

close the gap between real-life and school environments, Heckendorn (2002) urged that
deadlines should be emphasised in a project-based learning environment as in a real-life
situation. Moreover, both theory and its applications should be regulated in light of stu-
dents’ competence level. Additionally, the amount of project time should be adjusted so
that students can concentrate on a project’s different parts.
According to Colley (2008), project-based learning projects can be defined based on
their intended outcome for the students:
• Problem-solving projects are designed to teach problem-solving and critical- thinking
skills.
• Process-skill projects help students acquire science-process skills such as the ability to
pose a researchable question, identify and formulate a hypothesis, design and conduct
an investigation, collect and analyse data, draw valid conclusions, and document and
report findings.
• Design and engineering projects teach design, testing and production of tools,
technology, structures and materials.
• Content or subject-matter projects are designed to teach science concepts, knowledge,
facts, history and the nature of science.
Methods used in conducting successful projects (regardless of type) include experi-
mentation, internet or library research, observations, interviews and surveys. Furthermore,
a project can have more than one student outcome. For instance, in conducting a project
with an intended outcome in problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, students also can
learn science content, biographies of famous scientists, and the nature of science. It is
important for science teachers who intend to implement project-based instruction to
understand the different types of projects and their possible learning outcomes so that they
can guide their students in selecting the right kinds of projects.

Impact of scientific projects on the classroom learning climate

Educational activities of various kinds, such as scientific projects, clubs, scientific exhibits
and presentations have great importance; generally, science education can take place also
outside the classroom and goes beyond predefined curricula (Hedim and Esche 2002).
The curriculum defines what should be seen by teachers and their students as the
minimum amount of time for learning, which might have to be extended in order to achieve
its goals effectively and efficiently.
These activities usually enable the student to play a positive and effective role by
implementing the project through reading, looking for books, references and sources,
writing reports, constructing devices and models, performing experiments and cooperating
with others in the project’s preparation and execution.
Scientific projects can enable students to understand scientific facts and principles; they
can also help them to adopt new ways of thinking and could stimulate positive behavioural
patterns.
Thurber and Collette (1959) summarise some of the advantages of scientific projects:
They raise scientific concerns, satisfy curiosity, promote the skills for scientific research
and solving problems, train in critical thinking, encourage independent thinking, develop
appreciation for scientists and their work, help students to internalise scientific principles,

123
Learning Environ Res

help the individual to grow to his or her highest potential, increase self-confidence, provide
opportunities for training in the use of science tools and methods, and promote the use of
leisure time for productive work.
We know that the learning process brings about a desirable change in the learner’s
behaviour. Thus, if the goal of the assessment is to measure the effectiveness of the
teaching and learning process, it is essential to determine the nature of the desired change
in pupils’ behaviour as a result of their studying science.
It is not sufficient to have students memorise or hear their lessons; they must change
their behaviour as a result of information and skills they have acquired from their studies
(Tretten and Zachariou 1995). Therefore, we expect science learned using the project-
based method to lead to a behavioral change that reflects positively on educational
achievement and social relations in the classroom, as a result of a change in students’
thoughts, habits, attitudes and preferences in accordance with the objectives of teaching
this material (Green 1998; Meyer et al. 1997).
There is thus a need to identify the strengths and weaknesses in the teaching process in
order to rectify mistakes and to work to correct them, so that teaching can be directed to
achieve the desired goals. Our research goal was to investigate how learning sciences
through project-based teaching strategies affects students’ perceptions of the science
classroom climate.

Methodology

Participants

The participants were 458 ninth-grade students (age about 15 years) from two different
junior high schools in the Northern District of Israel. 230 students from one school were
taught according to the project-based learning strategy, whereas the other 228 students
from the other school were taught according to the more traditional non-project-based
learning strategy. A description of these learning strategies is provided later.

Research tool

The research tool was a questionnaire that assesses science students’ perceptions of their
classroom climate. We used a previously-developed and -validated questionnaire by Zedan
(2008) that measures students’ perceptions of the classroom climate in mathematics classes
and adapted it to measure students’ perceptions in science classrooms.
The adapted questionnaire took into account the fact that, in order for a tool to be valid
and reliable for studying the classroom climate, it has to be specific and must be consistent
with a definite educational theory and its objectives. The questionnaire has to be appro-
priate to the learning context in order to reflect the values and behaviour expected by the
curriculum. Such a tool enables us to understand the mutual relationship between the
desired perception and the existing social environment (Bruce and Rubin 1993).
The questionnaire has a Likert-type response scale and consists of 38 items. All the
questions are closed-answer, with students being asked to indicate their degree of agree-
ment with each item using the responses Not True, True and True to a Certain Degree. A
number of items were negatively phrased in order to prevent systematic response bias.

123
 Learning Environ Res

Research question

Our main research question was: How do perceptions of the classroom climate differ
among students who learned science according to a project-based learning strategy in
comparison with those who learned according to a non-project learning strategy?

Teaching science using a project-based learning strategy

In the project-based learning strategy, the students were divided into work groups, each
consisting of six students. Each work group investigated a specific problem by conducting
a scientific experiment that was decided on by the teacher and the group. Table 1 shows the
steps involved in learning sciences using a project-based learning strategy.

Teaching sciences by a non-project-based learning strategy

In a traditional non-project-based teaching strategy, goals are undeclared to pupils. The

role of the teacher is limited to indoctrination; teachers only issue instructions. The teacher
imposes a work style on the students, such as sitting in their seats, and the teacher is the
one who usually asks questions. Communication is only in the direction of the teacher. In a
traditional non-project-based teaching strategy, learning speed is the same for each student
and outputs consist of memorisation.
In this study, the same topics were taught in the non-project-based classes as in the
project-based ones. In the former, a frontal teaching strategy was used in which the teacher
was at the centre of the teaching/learning process. The students were not divided into work
groups but were arranged in columns and rows. The teacher explained the scientific topic
and the students were passive listeners.

Results and discussion

In order to construct a valid measure of students’ perception of the classroom climate,

factor analysis was conducted using the varimax rotation method. Five factors emerged
(see Table 2). Satisfaction and Enjoyment and Teacher Supportiveness, Teacher–Student
Relationships, Gender Inequality and Tension, Student–Student Relationships, and Com-
petitiveness. Table 2 presents the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the five dif-
ferent factors, together with the wording of all items.
Factor 1: Satisfaction, Enjoyment and Teacher Supportiveness assesses the extent of
student satisfaction and enjoyment while studying science, enjoyment in carrying out
scientific tasks, and the teacher’s helpfulness and concern for all students. Factor 2:
Tension and Difficulty focuses on the amount of tension between the students and the
teacher and between the students themselves during science classes, and on the amount of
difficulty students that perceive in learning science. Factor 3: Student–Student Relation-
ships assesses the system of relationships among students during science classes, their
personal ties and the strength of their relationships within the classroom, the closeness and
unity of students in class, the quality of their social ties and the extent of group solidarity.
Factor 4: Competitiveness assesses the level of competitiveness among students, the extent
to which each student strives for greater achievement and more perfect performance of
tasks during sciences classes. Factor 5: Teacher–Student Relationships examines

123
Learning Environ Res

Table 1 Skills in a project-based science learning strategy

Phase Details

Pre-preparation stage The teacher shows a film or experiment or reads a related story that can motivate
students and attract them to the subject. The teacher’s goal here is to introduce
the subject of the lesson in cooperation with the students
Preparation for the The teacher explains the project, sets goals for the students, and informs them
project stage about their tasks, with emphasis on the importance of taking responsibility. The
students are made to feel that they have a great responsibility and that they are
central in the educational process
Planning for the project The teacher divides the students into work groups
Under the teacher’s supervision, each group develops a plan of action, and
discusses the project’s objectives, the available resources, the required skills
and potential difficulties.
The students plan the required materials
The role of the teacher at this stage is to guide the students towards completion of
their project
Project implementation The teacher, in partnership with each work group member, identifies the project’s
objectives and writes them down
Students share views through debate and discussion and, at the end, they state the
research questions and formulate the relevant hypotheses. Then they carry out
the experiment, record their observations and document their findings
The teacher’s role here is to create suitable conditions and to overcome
difficulties. He/she also offers educational guidance and allows timely
implementation based on students’ capabilities. He/she observes the students
during implementation and encourages them and, if necessary, discusses the
difficulties and modifies the project accordingly
Post-project stage Each group of students presents their findings to their classmates by giving a
detailed explanation of their subject with emphasis on their findings and the
post-project scientific principle that they used during their study
The teacher asks questions during this phase in order to make sure that the
students understood the scientific principle that they used
Assessment and The teacher holds discussions with the students on the topic of their research and
evaluation evaluates the conclusions reached during the project’s implementation.
Evaluation must be an ongoing process starting from the preparation stage
through to the implementation stage until the post-project stage. Students
mention the benefits that they gained from the whole process. Students base
their evaluation of the project on the following questions:
1. To what extent did the project give them the opportunity to improve their
experience in using different resources?
2. To what extent did the project allow them to think collectively and
individually?
3. To what extent did the project improve their orientation and promote the
acquisition of new suitable skills?
Collective assessment is used to identify the difficulties or mistakes in order to
overcome them and avoid them in future projects
After that, students submit a scientific report on their research project

relationships between the teacher and the students, at both the personal and the professional
level, the extent of the teacher’s emotional and schooling support for students, the extent of
help, interest and friendship manifested by the teacher towards the students, and the degree
to which students feel that the teacher is prepared to provide assistance and support and
shows an interest in their achievements.

123
 Learning Environ Res

Table 2 Item wording and scale reliability for the adapted version of perception of science classroom
climate
Item Item wording Cronbach a
number reliability

Factor 1: Satisfaction, Enjoyment and Teacher Supportiveness 0.84

1 The science class is interesting, lively and useful
2 I get clear instructions from the science teacher to carry out my tasks
6 The teacher thinks my advancement in science is highly important
7 I feel satisfied in learning science
10 I do feel that the teacher has great expectations and expects me to
succeed
12 I enjoy the tasks I carry out in science classes
17 A number of students in my class always want to be first in science
23 I am satisfied with the class where I study science
24 I need to get permission for any learning activity
33 Most of the students succeed in science classes
34 I get the teacher’s help and he/she contributes to my success
35 It is fun to be in a science class
36 The science teacher gives ample explanations on how to succeed
39 The teacher encourages me to participate and take part in the classes
Factor 2: Tension and Difficulty 0.70
4 Many students can’t stand each other in a science class
16 Learning is very difficult in science classes
19 I feel that the science teacher relates more to boys’ questions than to
girls’
25 The tasks in science classes are very difficult
26 There are students who brag when they get good grades in science
28 Some students do not like to attend science classes
29 The boys in the class are more encouraged than the girls
31 Science classes make me feel restless and tense
32 There are students in the classroom who behave unsuitably
Factor 3: Student–Student Relationships 0.83
3 Many children in the class always want things to be done their way
9 I abide by the rules and regulations of science classes
11 In science classes, I maintain a good relationship with other students
14 In science classes all students are friends
21 During science classes, students always fight with each other.
27 There are a number of students in class who are not friends of mine
Factor 4: Competitiveness 0.90
13 Sometimes students compete to be the first to finish the exercises.
15 Only the clever students in the classroom succeed in science classes
20 I have to abide by many rules of behaviour during science classes
30 The sciences teacher always praises my success
38 In science classes, most of the students want to be better than their mates
40 Some students always try to perform their work better than others in
science classes

123
Learning Environ Res

Table 2 continued

Item Item wording Cronbach a

number reliability

Factor 5: Teacher–Student Relationships 0.62

5 I offer assistance to my colleagues in their science classes
8 Boys and girls participate equally and receive equal treatment
18 In sciences classes, I feel a tension between me and the others
22 I can share my personal problems with the science teacher
37 I feel offended by the science teacher’s attitude

Table 3 Comparison between the experimental group (project-based learning strategy) and the control
group (non-project-based learning strategy) in perceptions of the science classroom climate
Factor (Scale) Experimental group Control group t
(n = 230) (n = 228)

M SD M SD

Satisfaction, Enjoyment and Teacher Supportiveness 2.36 1.38 2.13 0.43 -6.22***
Tension and Difficulty 1.73 0.41 1.89 0.39 1.84**
Student–Student Relationships 2.07 0.46 2.03 0.30 -4.08
Competitiveness 1.98 0.40 1.94 0.40 -4.81
Teacher–Student Relationships 1.69 0.33 1.57 0.40 -8.1***

*** p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.01; p \ 0.05

A multiple discriminant analysis was used to derive weights for the five classroom
climate factors in order to separate them maximally in discriminant space. The value of
Wilks’ k associated with one discriminant function was 0.64 and the associated F value
was 61.8 (df = 5, p \ 0.001). Wilks’ k provides a multivariate test for the statistical
significance of the overall differences among several group means in a multivariate
analysis of variance (Tatsuoka 1971).
These findings suggest that perceptions of classroom climate differed significantly
between those who studied science according to project-based learning strategy and those
who did so according to non-project-based learning strategies. The results and the statis-
tical analysis are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1.
From the data in Table 3, it can be inferred that students who learned science using a
project-based learning strategy were significantly more satisfied, enjoyed the class more,
and perceived that their teacher was more supportive (Factor I) and that they perceived
teacher–student relationships (Factor 5, Table 2) as being significantly more favourable
than those who learned sciences by frontal non-project-based learning strategies. In
addition, it can be inferred from this table that students in the experimental group perceived
the science classroom climate as significantly less tense and the tasks as less difficult
(Factor 2, Table 2). On the other hand, the results also show that, with respect to Student–
Student Relationships (Factor 3, Table 2) and Competitiveness (Factor 4, Table 2), no
significant differences were found between the experimental and the control groups.

123
 Learning Environ Res

Fig. 1 Students’ perceptions of the classroom climate for project-based and non-project-based learning
strategies

Under a project-based teaching strategy, students perform a scientific investigation

using a variety of scientific methods, including field trips and experiments. This seems to
have enhanced their attitudes and motivation to learn. Moreover, students who learned
science according to project-based learning strategies appear to have felt that their teacher
was more helpful and showed concern for all students, more so than those who learned by
non-project-based science learning strategies (Factor I). This finding could be
attributable to the support which the former get during the planning and implementation of
the scientific project (see Table 1 for the description of a project- based learning strategy).
Adas (1999) mentions that any learning that we do could be meaningless unless we
implement what we have learned in order to enhance our appreciation, thinking and
learning.
Obviously science teachers use teaching methods which enable their students to enjoy
learning, because student attention is necessary for them to benefit from the lesson (Omaira
1989). Furthermore, the more that students enjoy the lessons, the greater their educational
achievements are likely to be. In order for an individuals to perform well in their work,
they must be motivated rather than pushed to do the task (Zedan 2008, 2010).
Another finding from this study is that learning sciences by project-based learning was
associated with significantly less tension and perceived difficulty of the science classroom
climate (Factor 2). This result suggests that project-based teaching methods allow students
to perceive the classroom learning climate as less tense and less difficult because the
students are more actively involved in their own learning, in comparison to the students
following the more-traditional teaching method, and this in turn can lead to perceptions of

123
Learning Environ Res

significantly lower tension and difficulty in the classroom learning environment, which is
an important consideration in science education (Fraser 1989).
In addition, it seems that learning science by means of the scientific projects method can
lead to significantly improved relationships between teachers and their students (Factor 5).
The teacher is the active element in generating student motivation. Indeed, a scientific
project constitutes a partnership between teacher and student, in which the student chooses
the project and the teacher provides guidance and direction. As we know, successful
teaching must be based on common issues between the teacher and students. However, if
this relationship is negative and not built on mutual trust and respect, the process of
learning and teaching brings about increased tension amongst both students and teachers,
leading eventually to failure of the educational process.
If teachers wish to guide their students towards greater educational achievement, they
must improve their relationships with students through improving classroom behaviour.

Conclusions

Dewey (1902) and other progressive educators (e.g. Piaget 1966, 1970) laid the curricular
and psychological foundations for project-based science instruction. In The Child and the
Curriculum, Dewey notes that the ‘‘child is the starting point, the center, and the end’’ and
that the most natural way for children to learn is by doing (Dewey 1902, p. 187). However,
he also observes that children must be guided and provided with appropriate learning
experiences if they are to develop a habit of ‘‘critical examination and inquiry’’ (Dewey
1902, p. 29).
From a historical perspective, the use of projects in science instruction dates back to
1908, when Rufus Stimson, a teacher at Smith Agricultural School in Northampton,
Massachusetts, coined the term ‘home projects’ (Stevenson 1928). The purpose of these
projects was to provide students with the opportunity to apply the school’s teachings in
their farm work at home.
‘Child-centered learning’, ‘learning by doing’ and ‘applying school teachings in the
home’ are the core values of project-based science instruction. This method was further
strengthened by the work of constructivists such as Piaget and Inhelder (1966), Piaget
(1970) and Vygotsky et al. (1978), who focused on child-centred learning and knowledge
construction through practice and reflection. The work of progressive and constructivist
science educators laid the foundation for project-based science instruction in the United
States and elsewhere.
A favourable classroom climate contributes to improved students’ interest, motivation
to learn and educational achievement (Broussard and Garrison 2004). Thus, a positive and
supportive classroom climate leads to higher educational achievement.
Gordon (2000) indicates that students with a supportive and positive classroom climate
can learn from their mistakes without feeling ashamed to ask or to err. Therefore, a positive
and supportive climate leads to greater achievement.
The findings of the current study point to the importance of scientific projects in
creating a more positive general classroom climate, as an alternative teaching method that
affects the student positively. Undoubtedly, a positive classroom climate is supportive of
enhanced learning achievements among students (Hackett 1985; Hall and Ponton 2005;
Pajares and Miller 1994). The methods of organising the classroom and the distribution of
study materials can directly affect students’ behaviour in the classroom, as well as

123
 Learning Environ Res

determining the extent of the effects which the different elements have on the performance
of students.
It was found in the current study that teaching science by the project-based learning
method significantly improved student–teacher relationships, and enhanced students’
enjoyment. These variables led to the creation of a positive educational climate that
enabled the teacher to achieve the lesson’s objectives and the students to benefit.
New standards in science education are being advocated that reflect the current vision of
content, pedagogy, students’ assessment of the classroom environment, and the support
necessary to provide a high-quality education for all students. We operate in an era when
we have observed a revival of the inquiry approach in science teaching and learning.
Teachers who motivates their students and stir their curiosity and their ability to
research and explore will cultivate students who can contribute to local social and eco-
nomic development. Thus there will rise a generation which is capable of planning and
inventing the appliances needed by the community and of becoming good citizens in their
society.
Education has to be applied in a way that is relevant to the real life of the student and the
surroundings. We must therefore emphasise the importance of having students acquire the
spirit of discovery and research. The success or failure of educational tools produced in the
framework of each project ultimately depends on the teachers and the extent of their desire
and willingness to use these methods in their classrooms.

Acknowledgments I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to the college president Advocate Zaki
Kamal for his support of this research. I also wish to thank Dr Raed Zidan for his assistance in the statistical
analysis. My profound thanks also go to Dr Iyad Dkedik, Dr. Ahmad Bashir and Ms. Aiysha Sindyani for
their scientific advice. Many thanks to Professor Avi Hofstein for his fruitful advice.

References
Adas, A. R. (1999). With the student in his class. Amman: Dar Alfekr for Printing and Publishing. (In
Arabic).
Anderson, G. J. (1973). The assessments for learning environment: A manual for the Learning Environment
Inventory and the My Class Inventory. Halifax, NS: Atlantic Institute of Education.
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (2004). The
relationship between classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary-school-aged
children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33, 106–120.
Brown, K. (2009). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning in diverse
classrooms. Education, 124(1), 49–54.
Bruce, B. C., & Rubin, A. (1993). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in
classroom. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Colley, K. (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75, 5–9.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eggen, P. D., & Kauchak, D. P. (2012). Educational psychology: Windows into the classrooms. (Student
Value Edition) (9th ed.). London: Pearson.
Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2004). Integrating alternative assessment in a project-based learning course for
preservice science and technology teachers. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1),
41–61.
Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic
engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 273–288.
Fraser, B. J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 21, 307–327.
Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning
Environments Research, 1, 7–33.
Fraser, B. (2001). Twenty thousand hours. Learning Environments Research, 4, 1–5.

123
Learning Environ Res

Fraser, B. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context, and prospect. In B. Fraser, K.
Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Gordon, T. L. (2000). Identifying Ekvall’s creative climate dimensions in an elementary school classroom
setting. Unpublished Master’s project, Buffalo State College, Center for Studies in Creativity, Buffalo,
NY.
Green, A. M. (1998). Project-based learning: Moving students through the GED with meaningful learning.
[Online]. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED422466.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2014.
Hackett, G. (1985). The role of mathematics self-efficacy in the choice of math-related majors of college
women and men: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 47–56.
Hall, J., & Ponton, M. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman. Journal of Developmental
Education, 28, 26–33.
Heckendorn, R. B. (2002). Building a Beowulf: Leveraging research and department needs for student
enrichment via project based learning. Computer Science Education, 12(4), 255–273.
Hedim, H. A., & Esche, S. K. (2002). Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based
learning. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference, Boston.
Johnson, R. (1976). The relationship between cooperation and inquiry in science classrooms. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 13, 55–63.
Lenschow, R. J. (1998). From teaching to learning: A paradigm shift in engineering education and lifelong
learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 23(2), 155–161.
Levin, T., Robnik, B., & Amiad, R. (1981). How do pupils perceive the social and learning climate in their
classrooms. Iyyunim Behinuch, 29, 87–96. [In Hebrew].
Lumpkin, A. (2007). Caring teachers: The key to student learning. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43(4), 158–160.
Menis, J. (1995). Mathematics in Israeli elementary classes: The intended, implemented and the achieved
curricula. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Ramot. [in Hebrew].
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A. (1997). Challenge in a mathematics classroom: Students’
motivation and strategies in project based learning. Elementary School Journal, 97(5), 501–521.
Omaira, I. (1989). Teaching of science and science education. Cairo: Dar Almaaref. [In Arabic].
Özdener, N., & Özçoban, T. (2004). A project based learning model’s effectiveness on computer courses
and multiple intelligence theory. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 4(1), 164–170.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem
solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193–203.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1966). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Pratt, D. (2002). Analyzing perspectives: Identifying commitments and belief structures. In D. Pratt (Ed.),
Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education (pp. 217–255). Malabar, FL: Krieger
Publishing Company.
Preuss, D. A. (2002). Creating a project-based curriculum. Technology Directions, 62(3), 16–19.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6), 20–26.
Stevenson, J. A. (1928). The project method of teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on
young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209–223.
Tatsuoka, M. M. (1971). Multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley.
Templeton, R. A., & Jensen, R. A. (1993, April). How exemplary teachers perceive their school environ-
ment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Atlanta,
GA.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk. http://
www.k12reform.org/foundation/pbl/research.
Thurber, W. A., & Collette, A. T. (1959). Teaching science in today’s secondary schools. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon Inc.
Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Self- assessment preliminary
report of result. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.
Vygotsky, L. S., Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., & Souberman, E. (Eds.). (1978). Mind in society:
The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wentzel, K. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.
Zedan, R. (2008). Classroom climate among pupils of Arab elementary schools in Israel. Iyunim be-Nihul
ve-Irgun ha-Hinukh, 30, 51–80. (In Hebrew).
Zedan, R. (2010). New dimensions in the classroom climate. Learning Environments Research, 13, 75–88.

123