5.1 Science Learning
Environments: Assessment, Effects and Determinants
Barry J.
Fraser
Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
Australia
Although
research and evaluation in science education have relied heavily on the
assessment of academic achievement and other valued learning outcomes, these
measures cannot give a complete picture of the educational process. Because
students spend up to 15,000 hours at school by the time they finish senior high
school (Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston & Smith 1979), students have a
large stake in what happens to them at school and their reactions to and
perceptions of their school experiences are significant. This chapter reviews
the remarkable progress over the past 30 years in conceptualising, assessing
and investigating the determinants and effects of social and psychological
aspects of the learning environments of classrooms and schools.
This chapter falls into seven main parts.
First, an introductory section provides background information about the field
of learning environment (including alternative assessment approaches,
historical perspectives on past work, the distinction between school and
classroom environment, and the unit-of-analysis question). Second, a section is
devoted to specific instruments for assessing perceptions of classroom
environment. Third, some important developments with learning environment
instruments are outlined (preferred forms, short versions, hand scoring, the
distinction between Personal and Class forms). Fourth, the validation of
learning environment scales is discussed. Fifth, assessment instruments for
school environment are considered. Sixth, an overview is given of several lines
of past research involving environment assessments in science classrooms
(including associations between outcomes and environment, use of environment
dimensions as criterion variables, and person-environment fit studies of
whether students achieve better in their preferred environment). Seventh,
consideration is given to teachers' use of classroom and school environment
instruments in practical attempts to improve their own classrooms and schools.
Eighth, current trends and future desirable directions in research on
educational environments are identified (e.g., combining quantitative and
qualitative methods, school-level environments, school psychology, links
between educational environments, cross-national studies, transition between
primary and secondary schooling, teacher education and teacher assessment).
Background
Approaches to Studying Educational
Environments
Using
students' and teachers' perceptions to study educational environments can be
contrasted with the external observer's direct observation and systematic
coding of classroom communication and events (Brophy & Good 1986). Murray
(1938) introduced the term alpha press to describe the environment as
assessed by a detached observer and the term beta press to describe the
environment as perceived by milieu inhabitants. Another approach to studying
educational environments involves application of the techniques of naturalistic
inquiry, ethnography, case study or interpretive research (see Erickson's
chapter in this Handbook). Defining the classroom or school environment in
terms of the shared perceptions of the students and teachers has the dual
advantage of characterising the setting through the eyes of the participants
themselves and capturing data which the observer could miss or consider
unimportant. Students are at a good vantage point to make judgements about
classrooms because they have encountered many different learning environments
and have enough time in a class to form accurate impressions. Also, even if
teachers are inconsistent in their day-to-day behaviour, they usually project a
consistent image of the long-standing attributes of classroom environment.
Later in this chapter, discussion focuses on the merits of combining
quantitative and qualitative methods when studying educational environments
(Fraser & Tobin 1991).
Historical Perspectives
Thirty years
ago, Herbert Walberg and Rudolf Moos began seminal independent programs of
research which form the starting points for the work reviewed in this chapter.
Walberg developed the widely-used Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) as
part of the research and evaluation activities of Harvard Project Physics
(Walberg & Anderson 1968). Moos began developing the first of his social
climate scales, including those for use in psychiatric hospitals and
correctional institutions, which ultimately resulted in the development of the Classroom
Environment Scale (CES) (Moos 1979; Moos & Trickett 1987). The
way in which the important pioneering work of Walberg and Moos on perceptions
of classroom environment developed into major research programs and spawned a
lot of other research is reflected in books (Fraser 1986; Fraser & Walberg
1991; Moos 1979; Walberg 1979), literature reviews (Fraser 1994; MacAuley 1990;
von Saldern 1992) and monographs sponsored by the American Educational Research
Association's Special Interest Group (SIG) on the Study of Learning
Environments (e.g., Fisher 1994).
The work on educational environments over the
previous 30 years builds upon the earlier ideas of Lewin and Murray and their
followers (such as Pace and Stern). Lewin's (1936) seminal work on field theory
recognised that both the environment and its interaction with personal
characteristics of the individual are potent determinants of human behaviour.
The familiar Lewinian formula, B = f(P, E), was first enunciated to stress
the need for new research strategies in which behaviour is considered to be a
function of the person and the environment. Murray (1938) was first to follow
Lewin's approach by proposing a needs-press model which allows the analogous
representation of person and environment in common terms. Personal needs refer
to motivational personality characteristics representing tendencies to move in
the direction of certain goals, while environmental press provides an external
situational counterpart which supports or frustrates the expression of internalised
personality needs. Needs-press theory has been popularised and elucidated by
Pace and Stern (e.g., Stern 1970).
School-Level vs. Classroom-Level Environment
It is useful
to distinguish classroom or classroom-level environment from school or school-level
environment, which involves psychosocial aspects of the climate of whole
schools (Fraser & Rentoul 1982). School climate research owes much in
theory, instrumentation and methodology to earlier work on organisational
climate in business contexts. Two widely-used instruments in school environment
research, namely, Halpin and Croft's (1963) Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ)
and Stern's (1970) College Characteristics Index (CCI),
relied heavily on previous work in business organisations. Two features of
school-level environment work which distinguishes it from classroom-level
environment research are that the former has tended to be associated with the
field of educational administration and to involve the climate of higher
education institutions. Despite their simultaneous development and logical
linkages, the fields of classroom-level and school-level environment have
remained remarkably independent. Although the focus of past research in science
education has been primarily upon classroom-level environment, it would be
desirable to break away from the existing tradition of independence of the two
fields of school and classroom environment and for there to be a confluence of
the two areas.
Level of Analysis: Private and Consensual
Press
Murray's
distinction between alpha press (the environment as observed by an external
observer) and beta press (the environment as perceived by milieu inhabitants)
has been extended by Stern, Stein and Bloom (1956) who distinguish between the
idiosyncratic view that each person has of the environment (private
beta press) and the shared view that members of a group hold about the
environment (consensual beta press). Private and consensual beta press
could differ from each other, and both could differ from the detached view of
alpha press of a trained non-participant observer. In designing classroom
environment studies, researchers must decide whether their analyses will
involve the perception scores obtained from individual students (private press)
or whether these will be combined to obtain the average of the environment
scores of all students within the same class (consensual press).
A growing body of literature acknowledges the
importance and consequences of the choice of level or unit of statistical
analysis and considers the hierarchical analysis and multilevel analysis of
data (Bock 1989; Bryk & Raudenbush 1992; Goldstein 1987). The choice of
unit of analysis is important because: measures having the same operational
definition can have different substantive interpretations with different levels
of aggregation; relationships obtained using one unit of analysis could differ
in magnitude and even in sign from relationships obtained using another unit;
the use of certain units of analysis (e.g., individuals when classes are the
primary sampling units) violates the requirement of independence of
observations and calls into question the results of any statistical
significance tests because an unjustifiably small estimate of the sampling
error is used; and the use of different units of analysis involves the testing
of conceptually different hypotheses. Although the unit of analysis problem has
received considerable attention in the context of testing hypotheses using
already-developed learning environment instruments, Sirotnik (1980) considers
it ironic that concerns about analytic units have been virtually non-existent
at the stage of developing and empirically investigating the dimensionality of
new instruments.
Instruments
for Assessing Classroom Environment
This section
describes the following historically important and contemporary instruments: Learning
Environment Inventory (LEI); Classroom Environment Scale (CES); Individualised
Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ); My Class Inventory (MCI); College and
University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI); Questionnaire
on Teacher Interaction (QTI); Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI);
Constructivist
Learning Environment Survey (CLES); and What Is Happening In This Class
(WIHIC) questionnaire. Table 1 shows the name of each scale in each instrument,
the level (primary, secondary, higher education) for which each instrument is
suited, the number of items contained in each scale, and the classification of
each scale according to Moos's (1974) scheme for classifying human
environments. Moos's three basic types of dimension are Relationship Dimensions
(which identify the nature and intensity of personal relationships within the
environment and assess the extent to which people are involved in the
environment and support and help each other), Personal Development Dimensions
(which assess basic directions along which personal growth and self-enhancement
tend to occur) and System Maintenance and System Change Dimensions
(which involve the extent to which the environment is orderly, clear in
expectations, maintains control and is responsive to change).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<REM> PLEASE INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE <REM\>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learning Environment Inventory (LEI)
The initial
development and validation of a preliminary version of the LEI began in the
late 1960s in conjunction with the evaluation and research related to Harvard
Project Physics (Fraser, Anderson & Walberg 1982; Walberg & Anderson
1968). The final version contains a total of 105 statements (or seven per
scale) descriptive of typical school classes. The respondent expresses degree
of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the four response
alternatives of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree and Strongly Agree. The
scoring direction (or polarity) is reversed for some items. A typical item in
the Cohesiveness scale is: 'All students know each other very well' and in the
Speed scale is: 'The pace of the class is rushed'.
Classroom Environment Scale (CES)
The CES was
developed by Rudolf Moos at Stanford University (Fisher & Fraser 1983c;
Moos 1979; Moos & Trickett 1987) and grew out of a comprehensive program of
research involving perceptual measures of a variety of human environments
including psychiatric hospitals, prisons, university residences and work
milieus (Moos 1974). The final published version contains nine scales with 10
items of True-False response format in each scale. Published materials include
a test manual, a questionnaire, an answer sheet and a transparent hand scoring
key. Typical items in the CES are: 'The teacher takes a personal interest in
the students' (Teacher Support) and 'There is a clear set of rules for students
to follow' (Rule Clarity).
Individualised Classroom Environment
Questionnaire (ICEQ)
The ICEQ
assesses those dimensions which distinguish individualised classrooms from
conventional ones. The initial development of the ICEQ (Rentoul & Fraser
1979) was guided by: the literature on individualised open and inquiry-based
education; extensive interviewing of teachers and secondary school students;
and reactions to draft versions sought from selected experts, teachers and
junior high school students. The final published version of the ICEQ (Fraser
1990) contains 50 items altogether, with an equal number of items belonging to
each of the five scales. Each item is responded to on a five-point scale with
the alternatives of Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often and Very Often. The
scoring direction is reversed for many of the items. Typical items are: 'The
teacher considers students' feelings' (Personalisation) and 'Different students
use different books, equipment and materials' (Differentiation). The published
version has a progressive copyright arrangement which gives permission to
purchasers to make an unlimited number of copies of the questionnaires and
response sheets.
My Class Inventory (MCI)
The LEI has
been simplified to form the MCI for use among children aged 8--12 years (Fisher
& Fraser 1981; Fraser, Anderson & Walberg 1982; Fraser & O'Brien
1985). Although the MCI was developed originally for use at the primary school
level, it also has been found to be very useful with students in the junior
high school, especially those who might experience reading difficulties with
other instruments. The MCI differs from the LEI in four important ways. First,
in order to minimise fatigue among younger children, the MCI contains only five
of the LEI's original 15 scales. Second, item wording has been simplified to
enhance readability. Third, the LEI's four-point response format has been
reduced to a two-point (Yes-No) response format. Fourth, students answer on the
questionnaire itself instead of on a separate response sheet to avoid errors in
transferring responses from one place to another. The final form of the MCI
contains 38 items altogether, with typical items being: 'Children are always
fighting with each other' (Friction) and 'Children seem to like the class'
(Satisfaction). Although the MCI traditionally has been used with a Yes-No
response format, Goh, Young and Fraser (1995) have successfully used a
three-point response format (Seldom, Sometimes and Most of the Time) with a
modified version of the MCI which includes a Task Orientation scale.
College and University Classroom Environment
Inventory (CUCEI)
Although some
notable prior work has focused on the institutional-level or school-level
environment in colleges and universities (e.g., Halpin & Croft 1963; Stern
1970), surprisingly little work has been done in higher education classrooms
which is parallel to the traditions of classroom environment research at the
secondary and primary school levels. Consequently, the CUCEI was developed for
use in small classes (say up to 30 students) sometimes referred to as
'seminars' (Fraser & Treagust 1986; Fraser, Treagust & Dennis 1986).
The final form of the CUCEI contains seven seven-item scales. Each item has
four responses (Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) and the
polarity is reversed for approximately half of the items. Typical items are:
'Activities in this class are clearly and carefully planned' (Task Orientation)
and 'Teaching approaches allow students to proceed at their own pace'
(Individualisation).
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)
Research which
originated in The Netherlands focuses on the nature and quality of
interpersonal relationships between teachers and students (Créton, Hermans
& Wubbels 1990; Wubbels, Brekelmans & Hooymayers 1991; Wubbels &
Levy 1993). Drawing upon a theoretical model of proximity
(cooperation-opposition) and influence (dominance-submission), the QTI was
developed to assess student perceptions of eight behaviour aspects. Each item
has a five-point response scale ranging from Never to Always. Typical items are
'She/he gives us a lot of free time' (Student Responsibility and Freedom
behaviour) and 'She/he gets angry' (Admonishing behaviour).
Although research
with the QTI began at the senior high school level in The Netherlands,
cross-validation and comparative work has been completed at various grade
levels in the USA (Wubbels & Levy 1993), Australia (Fisher, Henderson &
Fraser 1995), Singapore (Goh & Fraser 1996) and Brunei (Riah, Fraser &
Rickards 1997), and a more economical 48-item version has been developed and
validated (Goh & Fraser 1996). Also, Cresswell and Fisher (1997) modified
the QTI to form the Principal Interaction Questionnaire (PIQ)
which assesses teachers' or principals' perceptions of the same eight
dimensions of a principal's interaction with teachers. Further information
about research involving the QTI can be found in Wubbels and Brekelmans (1997)
and Wubbels and Brekelmans' chapter in this Handbook.
Science Laboratory Environment Inventory
(SLEI)
Because of the
critical importance and uniqueness of laboratory settings in science education,
an instrument specifically suited to assessing the environment of science
laboratory classes at the senior high school or higher education levels was
developed (Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie 1995; Fraser & McRobbie 1995;
Fraser, McRobbie & Giddings 1993). The SLEI has five scales (each with
seven items) and the five response alternatives are Almost Never, Seldom,
Sometimes, Often and Very Often. Typical items are 'I use the theory from my
regular science class sessions during laboratory activities' (Integration) and
'We know the results that we are supposed to get before we commence a
laboratory activity' (Open-Endedness). The Open-Endedness scale was included
because of the importance of open-ended laboratory activities often claimed in
the literature (e.g., Hodson 1988). The SLEI was field tested and validated
simultaneously with a sample of over 5,447 students in 269 classes in six
different countries (the USA, Canada, England, Israel, Australia and Nigeria),
and cross-validated with 1,594 Australian students in 92 classes (Fraser &
McRobbie 1995), 489 senior high school biology students in Australia (Fisher,
Henderson & Fraser 1997) and 1,592 grade 10 chemistry students in Singapore
(Wong & Fraser 1995).
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
(CLES)
According to
the constructivist view, meaningful learning is a cognitive process in which individuals
make sense of the world in relation to the knowledge which they already have
constructed, and this sense-making process involves active negotiation and
consensus building. The CLES (Taylor, Dawson & Fraser 1995; Taylor, Fraser
& Fisher 1997) was developed to assist researchers and teachers to assess
the degree to which a particular classroom's environment is consistent with a
constructivist epistemology, and to assist teachers to reflect on their
epistemological assumptions and reshape their teaching practice. Appendix A
contains a complete copy of the CLES's 'actual' form (see a later section for a
clarification of the distinction between 'actual' and 'preferred' forms).
Recent studies that have used the CLES include Dryden and Fraser (1996) and
Roth and Roychoudhury (1994).
What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC)
Questionnaire
The WIHIC
questionnaire brings parsimony to the field of learning environment by
combining modified versions of the most salient scales from a wide range of
existing questionnaires with additional scales that accommodate contemporary
educational concerns (e.g., equity and constructivism). Also, the WIHIC has a
separate Class form (which assesses a student's perceptions of the class as a
whole) and Personal form (which assesses a student's personal perceptions of
his or her role in a classroom), as discussed in detail later in this chapter.
The original 90-item nine-scale version was
refined by both statistical analysis of data from 355 junior high school
science students, and extensive interviewing of students about their views of
their classroom environments in general, the wording and salience of individual
items and their questionnaire responses (Fraser, Fisher & McRobbie 1996).
Only 54 items in seven scales survived these procedures, although this set of
items was expanded to 80 items in eight scales for the field testing of the
second version of the WIHIC, which involved junior high school science classes
in Australia and Taiwan. Whereas the Australian sample of 1,081 students in 50
classes responded to the original English version, a Taiwanese sample of 1,879
students in 50 classes responded to a Chinese version that had undergone
careful procedures of translation and back translation (Huang & Fraser
1997). This led to a final form of the WIHIC containing the seven eight-item
scales. The WIHIC has been used successfully in its original form or in
modified form in studies involving 250 adult learners in Singapore (Khoo &
Fraser 1997) and 2,310 high school students in Singapore (Chionh & Fraser
1998).
Other Instruments
Many studies
have drawn on scales and items in existing questionnaires to develop modified
instruments which better suit particular research purposes and research
contexts. For a study of the classroom environment of Catholic schools, Dorman,
Fraser and McRobbie (1997) developed a 66-item instrument which drew on the
CES, CUCEI and ICEQ but made important modifications. The seven scales in this
study (Student Application, Interactions, Cooperation, Task Orientation, Order
and Organisation, Individualisation and Teacher Control) were validated using a
sample of 2,211 grade 9 and 12 students in 104 classes.
Because a limited number of classroom
environment instruments have a reading level suitable for the primary school
level, Sinclair and Fraser (1997) developed a questionnaire based on the MCI
and WIHIC for use in teachers' action research attempts to improve their
primary classroom environments in an urban school district. The instrument has
the four scales of Cooperation, Teacher Empathy/Equity, Task Orientation and
Involvement, and it was validated with a sample of 745 students in 43 grade
6--8 classes.
In evaluations of computer-assisted learning,
Maor and Fraser (1996) and Teh and Fraser (1994, 1995b) drew on existing scales
in developing specific-purpose instruments. Maor and Fraser developed a
five-scale classroom environment instrument (assessing Investigation,
Open-Endedness, Organisation, Material Environment and Satisfaction) based on
the LEI, ICEQ and SLEI and validated it with a sample of 120 grade 11 students
in Australia. Teh and Fraser developed a four-scale instrument to assess Gender
Equity, Investigation, Innovation and Resource Adequacy, and validated it among
671 high school geography students in Singapore.
In the first learning environment study
worldwide specifically in agricultural science classes, Idiris and Fraser
(1997) selected and adapted scales from CLES and ICEQ in developing a
five-scale instrument to assess Negotiation, Autonomy, Student Centredness,
Investigation and Differentiation. This instrument was validated with a sample
of 1,175 students in 50 high school agricultural science classes in eight
States of Nigeria.
Influenced partly by the CES, Wong (1993)
developed a questionnaire to assess the actual and preferred environment of
classes in Hong Kong along the dimensions of Enjoyable, Order, Involvement,
Achievement Orientation, Teacher Led, Teacher Involvement, Teacher Support and
Collaborativeness.
Whereas most classroom environment
instruments focus on general psychosocial characteristics, Woods and Fraser
(1995) developed a questionnaire to assess student perceptions of specific
teacher behaviours. The Classroom Interaction Patterns Questionnaire
(CIPQ) assesses teaching style with the scales of Praise and Encouragement,
Open Questioning, Lecture and Direction, Individual Work, Discipline and
Management, and Group Work. Successive versions were field tested with a total
of 1,470 grade 8--10 students in 62 classes in Western Australia.
Based partly on existing instruments, Fisher
and Waldrip (1997) developed a questionnaire to assess culturally sensitive
factors of learning environments. The 40-item Cultural Learning Environment
Questionnaire (CLEQ) assesses students perceptions of Equity,
Collaboration, Risk Involvement, Competition, Teacher Authority, Modelling,
Congruence and Communication. Administration of the new questionnaire to 3,031
secondary science students in 135 classes in Australia provided support for the
internal consistency reliability and factorial validity of the CLEQ.
Jegede, Fraser and Fisher (1995) developed
the Distance
and Open Learning Environment Scale (DOLES) for use among university
students studying by distance education. The DOLES has the five core scales of
Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Personal Involvement and Flexibility,
Task Orientation and Material Environment, and Home Environment, as well as the
two optional scales of Study Centre Environment and Information Technology
Resources. Administration of the DOLES to 660 university students provided
support for its internal consistency reliability and factor structure.
IMPORTANT
DEVELOPMENTS WITH LEARNING ENVIRONMENT INSTRUMENTS
Preferred Forms of Scales
A distinctive
feature of most of the instruments in Table 1 is that they have, not only a
form to measure perceptions of 'actual' or experienced classroom environment,
but also another form to measure perceptions of 'preferred' or ideal classroom
environment. The preferred forms are concerned with goals and value
orientations and measure perceptions of the classroom environment ideally liked
or preferred. Although item wording is similar for actual and preferred forms,
slightly different instructions for answering each are used. For example, an
item in the actual form such as 'There is a clear set of rules for students to
follow' would be changed in the preferred form to 'There would be a clear set of
rules for students to follow'.
Short Forms of ICEQ, MCI and CES
Although the
long forms of classroom environment instruments have been used successfully for
a variety of purposes, some researchers and teachers have reported that they
would like instruments to take less time to administer and score. Consequently,
short forms of the ICEQ, MCI and CES were developed (Fraser 1982a; Fraser &
Fisher 1983a) to satisfy three main criteria. First, the total number of items
in each instrument was reduced to approximately 25 to provide greater economy
in testing and scoring time. Second, the short forms were designed to be
amenable to easy hand scoring. Third, although long forms of instruments might
be needed to provide adequate reliability for the assessment of the perceptions
of individual students, short forms are likely to have adequate reliability for
the many applications which involve averaging the perceptions of students
within a class to obtain class means. The development of the short form was
based largely on the results of several item analyses performed on data
obtained by administering the long forms of each instrument to a large sample.
The short form of the ICEQ and the MCI each consist of 25 items divided equally
among the five scales comprising the long form. Because the long form of the
CES consisted of 90 items, this was reduced to a short version with 24 items
divided equally among six of the original nine scales.
Hand Scoring Procedures
Appendix A
illustrates typical hand scoring procedures for the CLES. Items are arranged in
blocks so that all items from the same scale are found together. All items in
Appendix A except Item 6 are scored by allocating the circled number (i.e., 1
for Almost Never, 2 for Seldom, etc.). Item 6 is scored in the reverse manner.
Omitted or invalidly answered items are scored 3. To obtain scale totals, the
six item scores for each scale are added. For example, the total score for the
first scale (Personal Relevance) is obtained by adding scores for items 1 to 6.
Personal Forms of Scales
Fraser and
Tobin (1991) point out that there is potentially a major problem with nearly
all existing classroom environment instruments when they are used to identify
differences between subgroups within a classroom (e.g., males and females) or
in the construction of case studies of individual students. The problem is that
items are worded in such a way that they elicit an individual student's
perceptions of the class as a whole, as distinct from a student's perceptions
of his/her own role within the classroom. For example, items in the traditional
class form might seek students' opinions about whether 'the work of the class is difficult'
or whether 'the
teacher is friendly towards the class'. In contrast, a personal form
of the same items would seek opinions about whether 'I find the work of the class difficult'
or whether 'the
teacher is friendly towards me'. Confounding could have arisen in
past studies which employed the class form because, for example, males could
find a class less difficult than females, yet males and females still could
agree when asked for their opinions about the class as a whole. The distinction
between personal and class forms is consistent with Stern, Stein and Bloom's
(1956) terms of 'private' beta press, the idiosyncratic view that each person
has of the environment, and 'consensual' beta press, the shared view that
members of a group hold of the environment.
When Fraser, Giddings and McRobbie (1995)
developed and validated parallel class and personal forms of both an actual and
preferred version of the SLEI, item and factor analyses confirmed that the
personal form had a similar factor structure and comparable statistical
characteristics (e.g., internal consistency, discriminant validity) to the
class form when either the individual student or the class mean was used as the
unit of analysis. Also students' scores on the class form were found to be
systematically more favourable than their scores on the personal form, perhaps
suggesting that students have a more detached view of the environment as it
applies to the class as a whole. As hypothesised, gender differences in
perceptions were somewhat larger on the personal form than on the class form.
Although a study of associations between student outcomes and their perceptions
of the science laboratory environment revealed that the magnitudes of
associations were comparable for class and personal forms of the SLEI,
commonality analyses showed that each form accounted for appreciable amounts of
outcome variance which was independent of that explained by the other form
(Fraser & McRobbie 1995). This finding justifies the decision to evolve
separate class and personal forms because they appear to measure different,
albeit overlapping, aspects of the science laboratory classroom environment.
Administration of the WIHIC questionnaire
followed by interviews with 45 students showed that many students have
perceptions from the perspective of the class as a whole that differ from their
perceptions of their personal role within the classroom (Fraser, Fisher &
McRobbie 1996). Underlying many of the responses was the idea that, because the
individual student is only part of the class, interactions with an individual
student (Personal form) are less frequent than the interactions with the class
as a whole (Class form). Further discussion of the distinction between Personal
and Class forms can be found in McRobbie, Fisher and Wong's chapter in this Handbook.
Validation of
Scales
This section
reports typical validation data for selected classroom environment scales.
Table 2 provides a summary of a limited amount of statistical information for
the nine instruments (LEI, CES, ICEQ, MCI, CUCEI, QTI, SLEI, CLES and WIHIC )
considered previously. Attention is restricted to the student actual form and
to the use of the individual student as the unit of analysis. Table 2 provides
information about each scale's internal consistency reliability (alpha
coefficient) and discriminant validity (using the mean correlation of a scale
with the other scales in the same instrument as a convenient index), and the
ability of a scale to differentiate between the perceptions of students in
different classrooms (significance level and eta2 statistic from
ANOVAs). Statistics are based on 1,048 students for the LEI, except for
discriminant validity data which are based on 149 class means (Fraser, Anderson
& Walberg 1982), 1,083 students for the CES (Fisher & Fraser 1983c),
1,849 students for the ICEQ (Fraser 1990), 2,305 students for the MCI (Fisher
& Fraser 1981), 372 students for the CUCEI (Fraser & Treagust 1986),
3,994 high school science and mathematics students for the QTI (Fisher, Fraser
& Rickards 1997), 3,727 senior high school students for the SLEI (Fraser,
Giddings & McRobbie 1995) and 1,081 high school science students for both
the CLES and WIHIC (previously unpublished results).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<REM> PLEASE INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE <REM\>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments
for Assessing School Environment
In contrast to
work on classroom-level environment, relatively little research has been
directed towards helping teachers assess and improve the environments of their
own schools. Earlier instruments include Stern's (1970) College Characteristics
Index (CCI) and Halpin and Croft's (1963) Organizational Climate Description
Questionnaire (OCDQ). The Work
Environment Scale (WES; Moos 1981) was designed for use in any work
milieu rather than for use specifically in schools. To improve the WES's face
validity for use in schools, the word 'people' was changed to 'teachers',
'supervisor' was changed to 'senior staff', and 'employee' was changed to
'teacher' (Fisher & Fraser 1983b; Fraser, Docker & Fisher 1988). Of the
WES's 10 scales, three measure Relationship Dimensions (Involvement, Peer
Cohesion, Staff Support), two measure Personal Development Dimensions
(Autonomy, Task Orientation) and five measure System Maintenance and System
Change Dimensions (Work Pressure, Clarity, Control, Innovation, Physical
Comfort). The WES consists of 90 items of True/False response format, with an
equal number of items in each scale. Validation data for the WES were generated
in a study of 34 primary and secondary schools in Tasmania (Docker, Fraser
& Fisher 1989).
The School-Level Environment Questionnaire
(SLEQ) was designed especially to assess school teachers' perceptions of
psychosocial dimensions of the environment of the school. A review of potential
strengths and problems associated with existing school environment instruments
suggested that the SLEQ should contain eight scales (Fisher & Fraser 1991;
Rentoul & Fraser 1983). Two scales measure Relationship Dimensions (Student
Support, Affiliation), one measures the Personal Development Dimension (Professional
Interest) and five measure System Maintenance and System Change Dimensions
(Staff Freedom, Participatory Decision Making, Innovation, Resource Adequacy
and Work Pressure). The SLEQ consists of 56 items, with each of the eight
scales being assessed by seven items. Each item is scored on a five-point scale
with the responses of Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree and Strongly
Disagree. In addition to an actual form which assesses perceptions of what a
school's work environment is actually like, the SLEQ also has a preferred form.
In a study of the school-level environment of Catholic schools, Dorman, Fraser
and McRobbie (1997) developed a 57-item school environment instrument which
includes modified versions of five SLEQ scales (Student Support, Affiliation,
Professional Interest, Resource Adequacy and Work Pressure), but which adds the
two new scales of Empowerment (the extent to which teachers are empowered and
encouraged to be involved in decision-making processes) and Mission Consensus
(the extent to which consensus exists within the staff with regard to the
overarching goals of the school). This instrument was used in studies of
differences in the school environment of Catholic and government schools
(Dorman & Fraser 1996) and of associations between school environment and
classroom environment (Dorman, Fraser & McRobbie 1997).
Research
Involving Educational Environment Instruments
Three types of
past research considered in this section involve (1) associations between
student outcomes and environment, (2) use of environment dimensions as
criterion variables (including the evaluation of educational innovations and
investigations of differences between students' and teachers' perceptions of
the same classrooms) and (3) investigations of whether students achieve better
when in their preferred environments. A separate section later focuses on
teachers' practical attempts to improve their classroom and school climates.
Associations Between Student Outcomes and
Environment
The strongest
tradition in past classroom environment research has involved investigation of
associations between students' cognitive and affective learning outcomes and
their perceptions of psychosocial characteristics of their classrooms (Fraser
& Fisher 1982; Haertel, Walberg & Haertel 1981; McRobbie & Fraser
1993). Numerous research programs have shown that student perceptions account
for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes, often beyond that
attributable to background student characteristics. For example, Fraser 's
(1994) tabulation of 40 past studies in science education shows that
associations between outcome measures and classroom environment perceptions
have been replicated for a variety of cognitive and affective outcome measures,
a variety of classroom environment instruments and a variety of samples
(ranging across numerous countries and grade levels).
Using the SLEI, associations with students'
cognitive and affective outcomes have been established for a sample of
approximately 80 senior high school chemistry classes in Australia (Fraser
& McRobbie 1995; McRobbie & Fraser 1993), 489 senior high school
biology students in Australia (Fisher, Henderson & Fraser 1997) and 1,592
grade 10 chemistry students in Singapore (Wong & Fraser 1996). Using an
instrument suited for computer-assisted instruction classrooms, Teh and Fraser
(1995a) established associations between classroom environment, achievement and
attitudes among a sample of 671 high school geography students in 24 classes in
Singapore. Using the QTI, associations between student outcomes and perceived
patterns of teacher-student interaction were reported for samples of 489 senior
high school biology students in Australia (Fisher, Henderson & Fraser
1995), 3,994 high school science and mathematics students in Australia (Fisher,
Fraser & Rickards 1997) and 1,512 primary school mathematics student in
Singapore (Goh, Young & Fraser 1995).
Multilevel Analysis
While many
past learning environment studies have employed techniques such as multiple
regression analysis, few have used the multilevel analysis (Bock 1989; Bryk
& Raudenbush 1992; Goldstein 1987), which takes cognisance of the
hierarchical nature of classroom settings. Because classroom environment data
typically are derived from students in intact classes, they are inherently
hierarchical. Ignoring this nested structure can give rise to problems of
aggregation bias (within-group homogeneity) and imprecision.
Two studies of outcome-environment
associations compared the results obtained from multiple regression analysis
with those obtained from an analysis involving the hierarchical linear model.
The multiple regression analyses were performed separately at the individual
student level and the class mean level. In the HLM analyses, the environment
variables were investigated at the individual level, and were aggregated at the
class level. In Wong, Young and Fraser's (1997) study involving 1,592 grade 10
students in 56 chemistry classes in Singapore, associations were investigated
between three student attitude measures and a modified version of the SLEI. In
Goh, Young and Fraser's (1995) study with 1,512 grade 5 mathematics students in
39 classes in Singapore, scores on a modified version of the MCI were related
to student achievement and attitude. Most of the significant results from the
multiple regression analyses were replicated in the HLM analyses, as well as
being consistent in direction.
Meta-Analysis of Studies
The findings
from prior research are highlighted in the results of a meta-analysis involving
734 correlations from 12 studies involving 823 classes, eight subject areas,
17,805 students and four nations (Haertel, Walberg & Haertel 1981).
Learning posttest scores and regression-adjusted gains were found to be
consistently and strongly associated with cognitive and affective learning
outcomes, although correlations were generally higher in samples of older
students and in studies employing collectivities such as classes and schools
(in contrast to individual students) as the units of statistical analysis. In
particular, better achievement on a variety of outcome measures was found
consistently in classes perceived as having greater Cohesiveness, Satisfaction
and Goal Direction and less Disorganisation and Friction. Other meta-analyses
synthesised by Fraser, Walberg, Welch and Hattie (1987) provide further
evidence supporting the link between educational environments and student
outcomes.
Cooperative Learning
Among the
various lines of programmatic research on classroom environment, the work on
the relative effectiveness of cooperative, competitive and individualistic goal
structures stands out because of the volume of studies completed (Johnson &
Johnson 1991). Although many past studies of student achievement have found
that cooperative learning is more successful than either competitive or
individualistic learning, the evidence is not always consistent. The generally
positive effect of cooperative learning approaches on student achievement is
illustrated by the findings of a comprehensive meta-analysis involving 122
studies (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon 1981), but this
synthesis is not totally conclusive and generalisable. For instance, a large
proportion of these studies involved group outcomes (e.g., the group's ability
to solve problems) rather than the conventional student individual outcome
which is so important in primary and secondary schooling.
Educational Productivity Research
Psychosocial
learning environment has been incorporated as one factor in a multi-factor
psychological model of educational productivity (Walberg 1981). This theory,
which is based on an economic model of agricultural, industrial and national
productivity, holds that learning is a multiplicative, diminishing-returns
function of student age, ability and motivation; of quality and quantity of
instruction; and of the psychosocial environments of the home, the classroom,
the peer group and the mass media. Because the function is multiplicative, it
can be argued in principle that any factor at a zero-point will result in zero
learning; thus either zero motivation or zero time for instruction will result
in zero learning. Moreover, it will do less good to raise a factor that already
is high than to improve a factor that currently is the main constraint to
learning. Empirical probes of the educational productivity model were made by
carrying out extensive research syntheses involving the correlations of
learning with the factors in the model (Fraser, Walberg, Welch & Hattie
1987; Walberg 1986) and secondary analyses of large data bases collected as
part of the National Assessment of Educational Achievement (Walberg 1986) and
National Assessment of Educational Progress (Fraser, Welch & Walberg 1986;
Walberg, Fraser & Welch 1986). Classroom and school environment was found
to be a strong predictor of both achievement and attitudes even when a
comprehensive set of other factors was held constant.
Use of Environment Perceptions as Criterion
Variables
Evaluation of Educational Innovations
Classroom
environment instruments can be used as a source of process criteria in the
evaluation of educational innovations (Fraser, Williamson & Tobin 1987). An
evaluation of the Australian Science Education Project (ASEP) revealed that, in
comparison with a control group, ASEP students perceived their classrooms as
being more satisfying and individualised and having a better material
environment (Fraser 1979). The significance of this evaluation is that
classroom environment variables differentiated revealingly between curricula,
even when various outcome measures showed negligible differences. Recently, the
incorporation of a classroom environment instrument within an evaluation of the
use of a computerised database revealed that students perceived that their
classes became more inquiry oriented during the use of the innovation (Maor
& Fraser 1996). Similarly, in two studies in Singapore, classroom
environment measures were used as dependent variables in evaluations of
computer-assisted learning (Teh & Fraser 1994) and computer application
courses for adults (Khoo & Fraser 1997). In an evaluation of an urban
systemic reform initiative in the USA, use of the CLES painted a disappointing
picture in terms of a lack of success in achieving constructivist-oriented reform
of science education (Dryden & Fraser 1996).
Differences Between Student and Teacher
Perceptions of Actual and Preferred Environment
An
investigation of differences between students and teachers in their perceptions
of the same actual classroom environment and of differences between the actual
environment and that preferred by students or teachers was reported by Fisher
and Fraser (1983a) using the ICEQ with a sample of 116 classes for the
comparisons of student actual with student preferred scores and a subsample of
56 of the teachers of these classes for contrasting teachers' and students'
scores. Students preferred a more positive classroom environment than was
actually present for all five ICEQ dimensions. Also, teachers perceived a more
positive classroom environment than did their students in the same classrooms
on four of the ICEQ's dimensions. These results replicate patterns emerging in
other studies in school classrooms in the USA (Moos 1979), Israel (Hofstein
& Lazarowitz 1986), The Netherlands (Wubbels, Brekelmans & Hooymayers
1991) and Australia (Fraser 1982b; Fraser & McRobbie 1995), and in other
settings such as hospital wards and work milieus (e.g., Moos 1974).
Studies Involving Other Independent Variables
Classroom
environment dimensions have been used as criterion variables in research aimed
at identifying how the classroom environment varies with such factors as
teacher personality, class size, grade level, subject matter, the nature of the
school-level environment and the type of school (Fraser 1994). For example,
larger class sizes were found to be associated with greater classroom Formality
and less Cohesiveness (Anderson & Walberg 1972). Kent and Fisher (1997)
established associations between teacher personality and classroom environment
(e.g., extravert teachers' classes having high levels of Student Cohesiveness).
Knight (1992) reported differences in the classroom environment perceptions of
African American and Hispanic students, and Levy, Wubbels, Brekelmans and
Morganfield (1994) reported cultural differences (based on place of birth and
primary language spoken at home) in student perceptions of teacher-student
interaction.
Several studies have attempted to bring the
fields of classroom environment and school environment together by
investigating links between classroom and school environment (Fisher, Fraser
& Wubbels 1993; Fisher, Grady & Fraser 1995; Fraser & Rentoul
1982). When Dorman, Fraser and McRobbie (1997) administered a classroom
environment instrument to 2,211 students in 104 classes and a school
environment instrument to 208 teachers of these classes, only weak associations
between classroom environment and school environment were found. Although
school rhetoric often would suggest that the school ethos would be transmitted
to the classroom level, it appears that classrooms are somewhat insulated from
the school as a whole.
In a study of students' preferences for
different types of classroom environments, girls were found to prefer
cooperation more than boys, but boys preferred both competition and
individualisation more than girls (Owens & Straton 1980). Similarly, Byrne,
Hattie and Fraser (1986) found that boys preferred friction, competitiveness
and differentiation more than girls, whereas girls preferred teacher structure,
personalisation and participation more than boys. Several studies have revealed
that females generally hold perceptions of their classroom environments that
are somewhat more favourable than the perceptions of males in the same classes
(Fisher, Fraser & Rickards 1997; Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie 1995;
Henderson, Fisher & Fraser 1995).
Person-Environment Fit Studies of Whether
Students Achieve Better in
Their Preferred Environment
Using both
actual and preferred forms of educational environment instruments permits
exploration of whether students achieve better when there is a higher
similarity between the actual classroom environment and that preferred by
students. By using a person-environment interaction framework, it is possible
to investigate whether student outcomes depend, not only on the nature of the
actual classroom environment, but also on the match between students'
preferences and the actual environment (Fraser & Fisher 1983b, 1983c; Wong
& Watkins 1996). Using the ICEQ with a sample of 116 class means, Fraser
and Fisher's study involved the prediction of posttest achievement from pretest
performance, general ability, the five actual individualisation variables and
five variables indicating actual-preferred interaction. Overall, the findings
suggested that actual-preferred congruence (or person-environment fit) could be
as important as individualisation per se in predicting student achievement
of important affective and cognitive aims. The practical implication of these
findings is that class achievement of certain outcomes might be enhanced by
attempting to change the actual classroom environment in ways which make it
more congruent with that preferred by the class.
Teachers'
Attempts to Improve Classroom and School Environments
Although much
research has been conducted on educational environments, less has been done to
help teachers to improve the environments of their own classrooms or schools.
This section reports how feedback information based on student or teacher
perceptions can be employed as a basis for reflection upon, discussion of, and
systematic attempts to improve classroom and school environments (Fraser 1981).
The proposed methods have been applied successfully in studies at the early
childhood (Fisher, Fraser & Bassett 1995), primary (Fraser & Deer 1983;
Fraser, Docker & Fisher 1988), secondary (Fraser, Seddon & Eagleson
1982; Thorp, Burden & Fraser 1994; Woods & Fraser 1996) and higher
education levels (Fisher & Parkinson in press; Yarrow & Millwater 1995;
Yarrow, Millwater & Fraser 1997).
The attempt at improving classroom
environments described below (Fraser & Fisher 1986) made use of the short
24-item version of the CES discussed previously. The class involved in the
study consisted of 22 grade 9 boys and girls of mixed ability studying science
at a government school in Tasmania. The procedure followed by the teacher of
this class incorporated the following five steps:
(1) Assessment. All students in the class
responded to the preferred form of the CES first, while the actual form was
administered in the same time slot one week later.
(2) Feedback. The teacher was provided with
feedback information derived from student responses in the form of the profiles
shown in Figure 1 representing the class means of students' actual and preferred
environment scores. These profiles permitted ready identification of the
changes in classroom environment needed to reduce major differences between the
nature of the actual environment and the preferred environment as currently
perceived by students. Figure 1 shows that the interpretation of the larger
differences was that students would prefer less Friction, less Competitiveness
and more Cohesiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<REM> PLEASE INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE <REM\>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Reflection and discussion. The teacher
engaged in private reflection and informal discussion about the profiles in
order to provide a basis for a decision about whether an attempt would be made
to change the environment in terms of some of the dimensions. The main criteria
used for selection of dimensions for change were, first, that there should
exist a sizeable actual-preferred difference on that variable and, second, that
the teacher should feel concerned about this difference and want to make an
effort to reduce it. These considerations led the teacher to decide to
introduce an intervention aimed at increasing the levels of Teacher Support and
Order and Organisation in the class.
(4) Intervention. The teacher introduced an
intervention of approximately two months' duration in an attempt to change the
classroom environment. This intervention consisted of a variety of strategies,
some of which originated during discussions between teachers, and others of
which were suggested by examining ideas contained in individual CES items. For
example, strategies used to enhance Teacher Support involved the teacher moving
around the class more to mix with students, providing assistance to students
and talking with them more than previously. Strategies used to increase Order
and Organisation involved taking considerable care with distribution and
collection of materials during activities and ensuring that students worked
more quietly.
(5) Reassessment. The student actual form of
the scales was re-administered at the end of the intervention to see whether
students were perceiving their classroom environments differently from before.
The results
summarised graphically in Figure 1 show that some change in actual environment
occurred during the time of the intervention. When tests of statistical
significance were performed, it was found that pretest-posttest differences
were significant (p<0.05) only for Teacher Support, Task Orientation and
Order and Organisation. These findings are noteworthy because two of the
dimensions on which appreciable changes were recorded were those on which the
teacher had attempted to promote change. (Note also that there appears to be a
side effect in that the intervention could have resulted in the classroom
becoming more task oriented than the students would have preferred.) Although
the second administration of the environment scales marked the end of this
teacher's attempt at changing a classroom, it might have been thought of as
simply the beginning of another cycle.
Woods and Fraser (1995) used this basic
approach to improving classroom environments with 16 teachers who used the
actual and preferred forms of the Classroom Interaction Patterns Questionnaire
to assess student perceptions of six dimensions of teacher behaviour (Praise
and Encouragement, Open Questioning, Lecture and Direction, Individual Work,
Discipline and Management, and Group Work). Whereas half of the teachers
received feedback and attempted changes in their classrooms, the other half
only administered the questionnaires. The study showed that the teachers who
received feedback, compared with the teachers who didn't receive feedback, were
able to achieve more reductions in actual-preferred discrepancies on most
classroom environment dimensions.
Yarrow, Millwater and Fraser (1997) reported
a study in which 117 preservice education teachers were introduced to the field
of learning environment through being involved in action research aimed at
improving their university teacher education classes and their 117 primary
school classes during teaching practice. The CUCEI was used at the university
level and the MCI was used at the primary level. Improvements in classroom
environment were observed, and the preservice teachers generally valued both
the inclusion of the topic of learning environment in their preservice programs
and the opportunity to be involved in action research aimed at improving
classroom environments.
The methods
described previously for improving classroom environments have been adapted for
use by teachers wishing to improve their school-level environments. Fraser,
Docker and Fisher (1988) used the WES as part of teacher development activities
and reported a case study of a successful school change attempt in a primary
school with a staff of 24 teachers. The SLEQ (Fisher & Fraser 1991) was
used in similar school improvement studies using the same basic strategy in a
primary school of 15 teachers. After an intervention had been implemented for
approximately 10 weeks, it was found that sizeable changes had occurred in two
of the targeted areas (of about two-thirds of a standard deviation and about
half a standard deviation, respectively).
Recent Trends
and Desirable Future Directions
Combining Quantitative and Qualitative
Methods
Educational
researchers claim that there are merits in moving beyond choosing between
quantitative or qualitative methods, to combining quantitative and
qualitative methods. In recent years, significant progress has
been made towards the desirable goal of combining quantitative and qualitative
methods within the same study in research on classroom learning environments
(see Fraser & Tobin 1991 and Tobin & Fraser's chapter in this Handbook).
For example, a team of 13 researchers was
involved in over 500 hours of intensive classroom observation of 22 exemplary
teachers and a comparison group of non-exemplary teachers (Fraser & Tobin
1989). The main data collection methods were based on interpretive research
methods and involved classroom observation, interviewing of students and
teachers, and the construction of case studies. But, a distinctive feature was
that the qualitative information was complemented by quantitative information
obtained from questionnaires assessing student perceptions of classroom
psychosocial environment. These instruments furnished a picture of life in
exemplary teachers' classrooms as seen through the students' eyes. The study
suggested that, first, exemplary and non-exemplary teachers could be
differentiated in terms of the psychosocial environments of their classrooms as
seen through their students' eyes and, second, that exemplary teachers
typically create and maintain environments that are markedly more favourable
than those of non-exemplary teachers (Fraser & Tobin 1989).
In a study which focused on the elusive goal
of higher-level cognitive learning, a team of six researchers intensively
studied the grade 10 science classes of two teachers (Peter and Sandra) over a
ten-week period (Tobin, Kahle & Fraser 1990). Each class was observed by
several researchers, interviewing of students and teachers took place on a
daily basis, and students' written work was examined. The study also involved
quantitative information from questionnaires assessing student perceptions of
classroom psychosocial environment. Students' perceptions of the learning
environment within each class were consistent with the observers' field records
of the patterns of learning activities and engagement in each classroom. For
example, the high level of Personalisation perceived in Sandra's classroom
matched the large proportion of time that she spent in small-group activities
during which she constantly moved about the classroom interacting with
students. The lower level of Personalisation perceived in Peter's class was
associated partly with the larger amount of time spent in the whole-class mode
and the generally public nature of his interactions with students.
Fraser's (1996) multilevel study of the
learning environment of a science class in Australia incorporated a
teacher-researcher perspective as well as the perspective of six
university-based researchers. The research commenced with an interpretive study
of a grade 10 science teacher's classroom learning environment at one school,
which provided a challenging learning environment in that many students were
from working class backgrounds, some were experiencing problems at home, and
others had English as a second language. Qualitative methods involved several
of the researchers visiting this class each time it met over five weeks, using
student diaries, and interviewing the teacher-researcher, students, school
administrators and parents. A video camera recorded activities during each
lesson for later analysis. Field notes were written during and soon after each
observation, and team meetings took place three times per week. The qualitative
component of the study was complemented by a quantitative component involving
the use of a questionnaire which linked three levels: the class in which the
interpretive study was undertaken; selected classes from within the school; and
classes distributed throughout the same State. This enabled a judgement to be
made about whether this teacher was typical of other teachers at her school,
and whether the school was typical of other schools within the State. Some of
the features identified as salient in this teacher's classroom environment were
peer pressure and an emphasis on laboratory activities. (For another example of
a multilevel classroom environment study which combined quantitative and
qualitative methods, see Waxman, Huang & Wang 1996.)
School-Level Environments
Although
science education researchers have paid more attention to classroom environment
research than to school environment research, desirable future directions
include a greater emphasis on the school-level environment and the integration
of classroom and school climate variables within the same study. Docker, Fraser
and Fisher (1989) reported the use of the WES with a sample of 599 teachers in
investigating differences between the environment of various school types.
Reasonable similarity was found for preferred environment scales, but teachers'
perceptions of their actual school environments varied markedly in that the
climate in primary schools was more favourable than the environment of high
schools on most scales. For example, primary schools were viewed as having
greater Involvement, Staff Support, Autonomy, Task Orientation, Clarity,
Innovation and Physical Comfort and less Work Pressure. Similarly, when the
SLEQ was used in a study of differences between the climates of primary and
high schools for a sample of 109 teachers in 10 schools (Fisher & Fraser
1991), the most striking finding was that the climate in primary schools
emerged as more favourable than the environment of high schools on most SLEQ
scales. Dorman and Fraser (1996) used a school environment questionnaire based
on the SLEQ in a comparison of Catholic and government schools. Data from 208
science and religion teachers from 32 schools showed significant differences of
approximately one standard deviation between the two school types on
teacher-perceived Mission Consensus and Empowerment. Catholic school teachers
saw their schools as more empowering and higher on Mission Consensus than
government school teachers.
School Psychology
Given the
school psychologist's changing role, the field of psychosocial learning
environment provides a good example of an area which furnishes a number of
ideas, techniques and research findings which could be valuable in school
psychology (Fraser 1987; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Od-Cohen 1992). Traditionally,
school psychologists have tended to concentrate heavily and sometimes exclusively
on their roles in assessing and enhancing academic achievement and other valued
learning outcomes. The field of classroom environment provides an opportunity
for school psychologists and teachers to become sensitised to subtle but
important aspects of classroom life, and to use discrepancies between students'
perceptions of actual and preferred environment as a basis to guide
improvements in classrooms (Burden & Fraser 1993). Similarly, expertise in
assessing and improving school environment can be considered important in the
work of educational psychologists (Burden & Fraser 1994).
Links Between Educational Environments
Although most
individual studies of educational environments in the past have tended to focus
on a single environment, there is potential in simultaneously considering the
links between and joint influence of two or more environments. For example,
Marjoribanks (1991) shows how the environments of the home and school interact
and codetermine school achievement, and Moos (1991) illustrates the links
between school, home and parents' work environments. Several studies have
established associations between school-level and classroom-level environment
(Dorman, Fraser & McRobbie 1997; Fraser & Rentoul 1982). In order to
investigate whether the socio-cultural environment influences Nigerian
students' learning of science, Jegede, Fraser and Okebukola (1994) developed
and validated the Socio-Cultural Environment Scale to assess students'
perceptions of Authoritarianism, Goal Structure, African World-View, Societal
Expectations and Sacredness of Science with 600 senior secondary students.
Apparently, students' socio-cultural environment in non-Western societies can
create a wedge between what is taught and what is learned.
Cross-National Studies
Science
education research which crosses national boundaries offers much promise for
generating new insights for at least two reasons (Fraser 1997). First, there
usually is greater variation in variables of interest (e.g., teaching methods,
student attitudes) in a sample drawn from multiple countries than from a
one-country sample. Second, the taken-for-granted familiar educational
practices, beliefs and attitudes in one country can be exposed, made 'strange'
and questioned when research involves two countries.
Huang and Fraser (1997) reported one of the
few cross-national studies undertaken in science education. It involved six
Australian and seven Taiwanese science education researchers in working
together on a cross-national study of learning environments. The WIHIC was
administered to 50 junior high school science classes in each of Taiwan (1,879
students) and Australia (1,081 students). An English version of the
questionnaire was translated into Chinese, followed by an independent back
translation of the Chinese version into English again by team members who were
not involved in the original translation. Qualitative data, involving
interviews with teachers and students and classroom observations, were
collected to complement the quantitative information and to clarify reasons for
patterns and differences in the means in each country.`
The scales of Involvement and Equity had the
largest differences in means between the two countries, with Australian
students perceiving each scale more positively than students from Taiwan. Data
from the questionnaires were used to guide the collection of qualitative data.
Student responses to individual items were used to form an interview schedule
which was used to clarify whether items had been interpreted consistently by
students and to help to explain differences in questionnaire scale means
between countries. Classrooms were selected for observations on the basis of
the questionnaire data, and specific scales formed the focus for observations
in these classrooms. The qualitative data provided valuable insights into the
perceptions of students in each of the countries, helped to explain some of the
differences in the means between countries, and highlighted the need for
caution when interpreting differences between the questionnaire results from
two countries with cultural differences.
Transition from Primary to High School
There is
considerable interest in the effects on early adolescents of the transition
from primary school to the larger, less personal environment of the junior high
school at this time of life. Midgley, Eccles and Feldlaufer (1991) reported a
deterioration in the classroom environment when students moved from generally
smaller primary schools to larger, departmentally-organised lower secondary schools,
perhaps because of less positive student relations with teachers and reduced
student opportunities for decision making in the classroom. Ferguson and
Fraser's (1996) study of 1,040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16
linked high schools in Australia also indicated that students perceived their
high school classroom environments less favourably than their primary school
classroom environments, but the transition experience was different for boys
and girls and for different school size 'pathways'.
Teacher Education
Although the
field of psychosocial learning environment provides a number of potentially
valuable ideas and techniques for inclusion in teacher education programs,
little progress has been made in incorporating these ideas into teacher
education. Fraser (1993) reported some case studies of how classroom and school
environment work has been used within preservice and inservice teacher
education to (1) sensitise teachers to subtle but important aspects of
classroom life, (2) illustrate the usefulness of including classroom and
school environment assessments as part of a teacher's overall
evaluation/monitoring activities, (3) show how assessment of classroom and
school environment can be used to facilitate practical improvements in classrooms
and schools and (4) provide a valuable source of feedback about teaching
performance for the formative and summative evaluation of student teaching. It
appears that information on student perceptions of the classroom learning
environment during preservice teachers' field experience adds usefully to the
information obtained from university supervisors, school-based cooperating
teachers and student teacher self-evaluation (Duschl & Waxman 1991).
Créton, Hermans and Wubbels (1990) have used a systems communication
perspective to provide guidance on how teacher education programs can be
changed to improve interpersonal teacher behaviour in the classroom (e.g.,
changing escalating spirals of breakdown in communication).
Teacher Assessment
An innovative
teacher assessment system called the Louisiana STAR (System for Teaching and
Learning Assessment and Review) specifically includes learning environment
dimensions among a set of four performance dimensions (Ellett, Loup &
Chauvin 1989). The other three performance dimensions are Preparation, Planning
and Evaluation (e.g., teaching methods, homework, assessment), Classroom and
Behaviour Management (e.g., student engagement, monitoring student behaviour)
and Enhancement of Learning (e.g., content accuracy, thinking skills, pace,
feedback). With the STAR, multiple observers complete an assessment in 45
minutes by focusing on preparation and planning in addition to in-class
performance, on student learning as well as teaching behaviour, on higher-level
as well as lower-level student learning, and on differential provision for
different children. Teachers who were effective in terms of the psychosocial
learning environment dimension were found to encourage positive interpersonal
relationships within a classroom environment in which students felt comfortable
and accepted. The teacher, through verbal and non-verbal behaviours, modelled
enthusiasm and interest in learning, included all students in learning
activities and encouraged active involvement.
Discussion and
Conclusion
The major
purpose of this chapter devoted to perceptions of psychosocial characteristics
of classroom and school environments has been to make this exciting research
tradition in science education more accessible to wider audiences. In its
attempt to portray prior work, attention has been given to instruments for
assessing classroom and school environments (including some interesting new
instruments and the distinction between Personal and Class forms), several
lines of previous research (e.g., associations between outcomes and
environment, use of environment dimensions as dependent variables,
person-environment fit studies of whether students achieve better in their
preferred environment), and teachers' use of learning environment perceptions
in guiding practical attempts to improve their own classrooms and schools. Also
new lines of research which suggest desirable future directions for the field
were discussed, including the desirability of combining quantitative and
qualitative methods, school-level environment, links between different
educational environments, cross-national studies, changes in environment during
the transition from primary to high school, and incorporating educational
environment ideas into school psychology, teacher education and teacher
assessment.
This section of the Handbook devoted to learning
environments has five other chapters which are summarised below. In 'The
Teacher Factor in the Social Climate of the Classroom', Theo Wubbels and Mieke
Brekelmans review research on teachers' contributions to a positive social
climate in science classes, particularly through their interaction or
communication with students. The way in which a teacher interacts with students
is important because it is a predictor of student learning and discipline
problems and of teacher job satisfaction and burnout. The chapter considers
data-gathering methods (such as observation and questionnaires, including the
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction, associations between student outcomes and
teacher-student interactions, and correlates of teacher-student interactions
(e.g., teacher age, experience and cognition, student gender and setting).
McRobbie, Fisher and Wong's chapter on
'Personal and Class Forms of Classroom Environment Instruments' differentiates
between a learning environment questionnaire which assesses the whole-class
environment (Class form) and one which assesses a student's perception of his
or her role within a classroom (Personal form). Personal forms are better
suited for investigating within-class subgroups and for case studies of
individual students. Differences were found in the means obtained on Personal
and Class forms, and these were illuminated through student interviews. The
Personal form and the Class form each accounted for unique variance in student
outcomes that could not be explained by the other form.
Hanna Arzi's chapter entitled 'Enhancing
Science Education Through Laboratory Environments: More than Walls, Benches and
Widgets' assumes that laboratory work is both a means and an end in science
education and that some of school science teaching should be carried out in a
flexibly-designed laboratory. The chapter considers the goal of laboratory
work, the structure and function of laboratories, and the physical design of
laboratories. A case study of designing science environments is reported.
In 'Reading the Furniture: The Semiotic
Interpretation of Science Learning Environments', Bonnie Shapiro broadens the
term 'learning environment' to include signs, symbols and rule sets as powerful
features that influence learning and teaching. The chapter considers the
historical development of semiotics as a research approach, and provides five
case studies of the use of a semiotic interpretive perspective. Finally,
implications of the semiotic perspective for teaching, learning and curriculum
organisation are explored, and the value of a semiotic awareness of school
learning environments is discussed.
Kenneth Tobin and Barry Fraser, in
'Qualitative and Quantitative Landscapes of Classroom Learning Environments',
consider multiple theoretical perspectives for framing learning environment
research and its methods, and they advocate combining qualitative and
quantitative methods to maximise the potential of research. A major contribution
of the chapter is a case study involving an analysis of a learning environment
at multiple levels or 'grain sizes'. The credibility of assertions from this
study was enhanced by the use of qualitative and quantitative information from
multiple data sources and grain sizes.
Based on research on learning environments,
several practical implications for policy-makers and practitioners can be drawn
(see, Fraser & Wubbels 1995). First, learning environment assessments
should be used in addition to student learning outcome measures to provide
information about subtle but important aspects of classroom life. Second,
because teachers and students have systematically different perceptions of the
same classrooms, student feedback about classrooms should be collected. Third,
teachers should strive to create 'productive' classroom learning environments
as identified by research (e.g., classroom environments with greater
organisation, cohesiveness and goal direction and less friction). Fourth, in
order to improve student outcomes, classroom environments should be changed to
make them more similar to those preferred by the students. Fifth, the
evaluation of innovations, new curricula and reform efforts should include
classroom environment assessments to provide process measures of effectiveness.
Sixth, teachers should use assessments of actual and the preferred learning
environments to monitor and guide attempts to improve classrooms and schools.
Seventh, learning environment assessments should be used by school psychologists
in helping teachers change their styles of interacting with students and
improve their classroom and school environments.
References
Anderson, G.J. & Walberg, H.J.: 1972, 'Class Size
and the Social Environment of Learning: A Mixed Replication and Extension', Alberta
Journal of Educational Research 18, 277--286.
Bock, R.D. (ed.): 1989, Multilevel Analysis of Educational Data,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Brophy, J. & Good, T.L.: 1986, 'Teacher Behavior
and Student Achievement', in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching
(third edition), Macmillan, New York, 328--375.
Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W.: 1992, Hierarchical
Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Burden, R. & Fraser, B.J.: 1993, 'Use of Classroom
Environment Assessments in School Psychology: A British Perspective', Psychology
in the Schools 30 232--240.
Burden, R.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1994, 'Examining
Teachers' Perceptions of Their Working Environments: Introducing the School
Level Environment Questionnaire', Educational Psychology and Practice 10,
67--73.
Byrne, D.B., Hattie, J.A. & Fraser, B.J.: 1986,
'Student Perceptions of Preferred Classroom Learning Environment', Journal of
Educational Research 81, 10--18.
Chionh, Y.H. & Fraser, B.J.: 1998, 'Validation of
the "What Is Happening In This Class" Questionnaire', Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Cresswell, J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1997, 'A Comparison
of Actual and Preferred Principal Interpersonal Behavior', Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago,
IL.
Créton, H., Hermans, J. & Wubbels, Th.: 1990,
'Improving Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour in the Classroom: A Systems
Communication Perspective', South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
18, 85--94.
Docker, J.G., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1989,
'Differences in the Psychosocial Work Environment of Different Types of
Schools', Journal
of Research in Childhood Education 4, 5--17.
Dorman, J.P. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'Teachers'
Perceptions of School Environment in Australian Catholic and Government
Secondary Schools', International Studies in Educational Administration 24(1),
78--87.
Dorman, J.P., Fraser, B.J. & McRobbie, C.J.: 1997,
'Relationship Between School-Level and Classroom-Level Environments in
Secondary Schools', Journal of Educational Administration 35,
74--91.
Dryden, M. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'Evaluating Urban
Systemic Reform Using Classroom Learning Environment Instruments', Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York.
Duschl, R.A. & Waxman, H.C.: 1991, 'Influencing
the Learning Environment of Student Teaching', in B.J. Fraser & H.J.
Walberg (eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences,
Pergamon, London, 255--270.
Ellett, C.D., Loup, K.S. & Chauvin, S.W.: 1989, System for
Teaching and Learning Assessment and Review (STAR): Annotated Guide to Teaching
and Learning, Louisiana Teaching Internship and Teacher Evaluation
Projects, College of Education, Louisiana State University, Barton Rouge, LA.
Ferguson, P.D. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'School Size,
Gender, and Changes in Learning Environment Perceptions During the Transition
from Elementary to High School', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
Fisher, D.L. (ed.): 1994, The Study of Learning Environments,
Volume 6, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1981, 'Validity and
Use of My Class Inventory', Science Education 65, 145--156.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1983a, 'A Comparison
of Actual and Preferred Classroom Environment as Perceived by Science Teachers
and Students', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20, 55--61.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1983b, 'Use of WES to
Assess Science Teachers' Perceptions of School Environment', European
Journal of Science Education 5, 231--233.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1983c, 'Validity and
Use of Classroom Environment Scale', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
5, 261--271.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1991, 'School Climate
and Teacher Professional Development', South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
19(1), 17--32.
Fisher, D.L., Fraser, B.J. & Bassett, J.: 1995,
'Using a Classroom Environment Instrument in an Early Childhood Classroom', Australian
Journal of Early Childhood 20(3), 10--15.
Fisher, D.L., Fraser, B.J. & Rickards, T.: 1997,
'Gender and Cultural Differences in Teacher-Student Interpersonal Behavior',
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
Fisher, D.L., Fraser, B.J. & Wubbels, Th.: 1993,
'Interpersonal Teacher Behavior and School Environment', in Th. Wubbels &
J. Levy (eds.), Do You Know What You Look Like: Interpersonal Relationships in
Education, Falmer Press, London, 103--112.
Fisher, D.L., Grady, N. & Fraser, B.: 1995,
'Associations Between School-Level and Classroom-Level Environment', International
Studies in Educational Administration 23, 1--15.
Fisher, D.L., Henderson, D. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995,
'Interpersonal Behaviour in Senior High School Biology Classes', Research in
Science Education 25, 125--133.
Fisher, D., Henderson, D. & Fraser, B.: 1997,
'Laboratory Environments & Student Outcomes in Senior High School Biology',
American
Biology Teacher 59, 214--219.
Fisher, D.L. & Parkinson, A.: in press, 'Improving
Nursing Education Classroom Environment', Journal of Nursing Education.
Fisher, D.L. & Waldrip, B.G.: 1997, 'Assessing
Culturally Sensitive Factors in the Learning Environment of Science
Classrooms', Research in Science Education 27, 41--49.
Fraser, B.J.: 1979, 'Evaluation of a Science-Based
Curriculum', in H.J. Walberg (ed.), Educational Environments and Effects: Evaluation,
Policy, and Productivity, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, 218--234.
Fraser, B.J.: 1981, 'Using Environmental Assessments
to Make Better Classrooms', Journal of Curriculum Studies 13,
131--144.
Fraser, B.J.: 1982a, 'Development of Short Forms of
Several Classroom Environment Scales', Journal of Educational Measurement 19,
221--227.
Fraser, B.J.: 1982b, 'Differences Between Student and
Teacher Perceptions of Actual and Preferred Classroom Learning Environment', Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4, 511--519.
Fraser, B.J.: 1986, Classroom Environment, Croom
Helm, London.
Fraser, B.J.: 1987, 'Use of Classroom Environment
Assessments in School Psychology', School Psychology International 8,
205--219.
Fraser, B.J.: 1990, Individualised Classroom Environment
Questionnaire, Australian Council for Educational Research,
Melbourne, Australia.
Fraser, B.J.: 1993, 'Incorporating Classroom and
School Environment Ideas into Teacher Education Programs', in T.A. Simpson
(ed.), Teacher
Educators' Annual Handbook, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia, 135--152.
Fraser, B.J.: 1994, 'Research on Classroom and School
Climate', in D. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,
Macmillan, New York, 493--541.
Fraser, B.J.: 1996, '"Grain Sizes" in
Educational Research: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods', Paper
presented at the Conference on Improving Interpretive Research Methods in
Research on Science Classroom Environments, Taipei, Taiwan.
Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'NARST's Expansion,
Internationalization and Cross-Nationalization' (1996 Annual Meeting
Presidential Address), NARST News 40(1), 3--4.
Fraser, B.J., Anderson, G.J. & Walberg, H.J.:
1982, Assessment
of Learning Environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and
My Class Inventory (MCI) (third version), Western Australian
Institute of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Fraser, B.J. & Deer, C.E.: 1983, 'Improving
Classrooms Through Use of Information About Learning Environment', Curriculum
Perspectives 3(2), 41--46.
Fraser, B.J., Docker, J.G. & Fisher, D.L.: 1988,
'Assessing and Improving School Climate', Evaluation and Research in Education 2(3),
109--122.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1982, 'Predicting
Students' Outcomes from Their Perceptions of Classroom Psychosocial
Environment', American Educational Research Journal 19, 498--518.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1983a, 'Development
and Validation of Short Forms of Some Instruments Measuring Student Perceptions
of Actual and Preferred Classroom Learning Environment', Science Education 67,
115--131.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1983b, 'Student
Achievement as a Function of Person-Environment Fit: A Regression Surface
Analysis', British
Journal of Educational Psychology 53, 89--99.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1983c, 'Use of Actual
and Preferred Classroom Environment Scales in Person-Environment Fit Research',
Journal
of Educational Psychology 75, 303--313.
Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1986, 'Using Short
Forms of Classroom Climate Instruments to Assess and Improve Classroom
Psychosocial Environment', Journal of Research in Science Teaching 5,
387--413.
Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L. & McRobbie, C.J.: 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, New York.
Fraser, B.J., Giddings, G.J. & McRobbie, C.J.:
1995, 'Evolution and Validation of a Personal Form of an Instrument for
Assessing Science Laboratory Classroom Environments', Journal of Research in Science Teaching
32, 399--422.
Fraser, B.J. & McRobbie, C.J.: 1995, 'Science
Laboratory Classroom Environments at Schools and Universities: A Cross-National
Study', Educational
Research and Evaluation 1, 289--317.
Fraser, B.J., McRobbie, C.J. & Giddings, G.J.:
1993, 'Development and Cross-National Validation of a Laboratory Classroom
Environment Instrument for Senior High School Science', Science Education 77, 1--24.
Fraser, B.J. & O'Brien, P.: 1985, 'Student and
Teacher Perceptions of the Environment of Elementary-School Classrooms', Elementary
School Journal 85, 567--580.
Fraser, B.J. & Rentoul, A.J.: 1982, 'Relationship
Between School-Level and Classroom-Level Environment', Alberta Journal of Educational Research
28, 212--225.
Fraser, B.J., Seddon, T. & Eagleson, J.: 1982,
'Use of Student Perceptions in Facilitating Improvement in Classroom
Environment', Australian Journal of Teacher Education 7, 31--42.
Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K.: 1989, 'Student Perceptions
of Psychosocial Environments in Classrooms of Exemplary Science Teachers', International
Journal of Science Education 11, 14--34.
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, Pergamon, London, 271--292.
Fraser, B.J. & Treagust, D.F.: 1986, 'Validity and
Use of an Instrument for Assessing Classroom Psychosocial Environment in Higher
Education', Higher
Education 15, 37--57.
Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F. & Dennis, N.C.: 1986,
'Development of an Instrument for Assessing Classroom Psychosocial Environment
at Universities and Colleges', Studies in Higher Education 11, 43--54.
Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (eds.): 1991, Educational
Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, Pergamon,
London.
Fraser, B.J., Walberg, H.J., Welch, W.W. & Hattie,
J.A.: 1987, 'Syntheses of Educational Productivity Research', International
Journal of Educational Research 11(2), 145--252. (whole issue)
Fraser, B.J., Welch, W.W. & Walberg, H.J.: 1986,
'Using Secondary Analysis of National Assessment Data to Identify Predictors of
Junior High School Students' Outcomes', Alberta Journal of Educational Research 32,
37--50.
Fraser, B.J., Williamson, J.C. & Tobin, K.: 1987,
'Use of Classroom and School Climate Scales in Evaluating Alternative High
Schools', Teaching
and Teacher Education 3, 219--231.
Fraser, B.J. & Wubbels, Th.: 1995, 'Classroom
Learning Environments', in B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (eds.), Improving
Science Education, National Society for the Study of Education,
Chicago, IL, 117--144.
Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'Validation of an
Elementary School Version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction', Psychological
Reports 79, 512--522.
Goh, S.C., Young, D.J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995,
'Psychosocial Climate and Student Outcomes in Elementary Mathematics
Classrooms: A Multilevel Analysis', Journal of Experimental Education 64,
29--40.
Goldstein, H.: 1987, Multilevel Models in Educational and
Social Research, Charles Griffin, London.
Haertel, G.D., Walberg, H.J. & Haertel, E.H.:
1981, 'Socio-Psychological Environments and Learning: A Quantitative
Synthesis', British
Educational Research Journal 7, 27--36.
Halpin, A.W. & Croft, D.B.: 1963, Organizational
Climate of Schools, Midwest Administration Center, University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Henderson, D., Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995,
'Gender Differences in Biology Students' Perceptions of Actual and Preferred
Learning Environments', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Od-Cohen, M.: 1992, 'The
School Psychologist as a Facilitator of a Community-Wide Project to Enhance
Positive Learning Climate in Elementary Schools', Psychology in the Schools
29, 348--358.
Hodson, D.: 1988, 'Experiments in Science and Science
Teaching', Educational
Philosophy and Theory 20(2), 53--66.
Hofstein, A. & Lazarowitz, R.: 1986, 'A Comparison
of the Actual and Preferred Classroom Learning Environment in Biology and
Chemistry as Perceived by High School Students', Journal of Research in Science Teaching
23, 189--199.
Huang, I. & Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'The Development
of a Questionnaire for Assessing Student Perceptions of Classroom Climate in
Taiwan and Australia', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
Idiris, S. & Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'Psychosocial
Environment of Agricultural Science Classrooms in Nigeria', International
Journal of Science Education 19, 79--91.
Jegede, O.J., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1995,
'The Development and Validation of a Distance and Open Learning Environment
Scale', Educational
Technology Research and Development 43, 90--93.
Jegede, O.J., Fraser, B.J. & Okebukola, P.A.:
1994, 'Altering Socio-Cultural Beliefs Hindering the Learning of Science', Instructional
Science 22, 137--152.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T.: 1991, 'Cooperative
Learning and Classroom and School Climate', in B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg
(eds.), Educational
Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, Pergamon,
London, 55--74.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson R., Nelson, D.
& Skon, L.: 1981, 'The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and
Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta-Analysis', Psychological
Bulletin 89, 47--62.
Kent, H. & Fisher, D.L.: 1997, 'Associations
Between Teacher Personality and Classroom Environment', Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Khoo, H.S. & Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'The Learning
Environments Associated with Computer Application Courses for Adults in
Singapore', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Knight, S.L.: 1992, 'Differences Among Black and
Hispanic Students' Perceptions of Their Classroom Learning Environment in
Social Studies', in H.C. Waxman & Chad D. Ellett (eds.), The Study of
Learning Environments, Volume 5, University of Houston, Houston, TX,
101--107.
Levy, J., Wubbels, Th., Brekelmans, M. &
Morganfield, B.: 1994, 'Language and Cultural Factors in Students' Perceptions
of Teacher Communication Style, International Journal of Intercultural Relations
21, 29--56.
Lewin, K.: 1936, Principles of Topological Psychology,
McGraw, New York.
MacAuley, D.J.: 1990, 'Classroom Environment: A
Literature Review', Educational Psychology 10, 239--253.
Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'Use of Classroom
Environment Perceptions in Evaluating Inquiry-Based Computer Assisted
Learning', International
Journal of Science Education 18, 401--421.
Marjoribanks, K.: 1991, 'Families, Schools, and
Students' Educational Outcomes', in B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (eds.), Educational
Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, Pergamon,
London, 75--91.
McRobbie, C.J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1993, 'Associations
Between Student Outcomes and Psychosocial Science Environment', Journal of
Educational Research 87, 78--85.
Midgley, C., Eccles, J.S. & Feldlaufer, H.: 1991,
'Classroom Environment and the Transition to Junior High School', in B.J.
Fraser & H.J. Walberg (eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and
Consequences, Pergamon, London, 113--139.
Moos, R.H.: 1974, The Social Climate Scales: An overview,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Moos, R.H.: 1979, Evaluating Educational Environments: Procedures,
Measures, Findings and Policy Implications, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
Moos, R.H.: 1981, Manual for Work Environment Scale,
Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Moos, R.H.: 1991, 'Connections Between School, Work,
and Family Settings', in B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (eds.), Educational
Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences, Pergamon,
London, 29--53.
Moos, R.H. & Trickett, E.J.: 1987, Classroom
Environment Scale Manual (second edition), Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Murray, H.A.: 1938, Explorations in Personality,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Owens, L.C. & Straton, R.G.: 1980, 'The
Development of a Cooperative, Competitive and Individualized Learning
Preference Scale for Students', British Journal of Educational Psychology
50, 147--161.
Rentoul, A.J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1979,
'Conceptualization of Enquiry-Based or Open Classroom Learning Environments', Journal of
Curriculum Studies 11, 233--245.
Rentoul, A.J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1983, 'Development
of a School-Level Environment Questionnaire', Journal of Educational Administration
21, 21--39.
Riah, H., Fraser, B.J. & Rickards, T.: 1997,
'Interpersonal Teacher Behaviour in Chemistry Classes in Brunei Darussalem's
Secondary Schools', Paper presented at the International Seminar on Innovations
in Science and Mathematics Curricula, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam.
Roth, W.M. & Roychoudhury, A.: 1994, 'Physics
Students' Epistemologies and Views about Knowing and Learning', Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 31, 5--30.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J.
& Smith, A.: 1979, Fifteen Thousand Hours: Secondary Schools and Their
Effects on Children, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sinclair, B.B. & Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'The Effect
of Inservice Training and Teachers' Action Research on Elementary Science
Classroom Environments', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Sirotnik, K.A.: 1980, 'Psychometric Implications of
the Unit-of-Analysis Problem (With Examples from the Measurement of
Organizational Climate)', Journal of Educational Measurement 17,
245--282.
Stern, G.G.: 1970, People in Context: Measuring Person-Environment
Congruence in Education and Industry, Wiley, New York.
Stern, G.G., Stein, M.I. & Bloom, B.S.: 1956, Methods in
Personality Assessment, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Taylor, P.C., Dawson, V. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995,
'Classroom Learning Environments Under Transformation: A Constructivist
Perspective', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L.: 1997,
'Monitoring Constructivist Classroom Learning Environments', International
Journal of Educational Research 27, 293--302.
Teh, G. & Fraser, B.J.: 1994, 'An Evaluation of
Computer-Assisted Learning in Terms of Achievement, Attitudes and Classroom
Environment', Evaluation and Research in Education 8, 147--161.
Teh, G. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995a, 'Associations
Between Student Outcomes and Geography Classroom Environment', International
Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 4(1), 3--18.
Teh, G. & Fraser, B.: 1995b, 'Development and
Validation of an Instrument for Assessing the Psychosocial Environment of
Computer-Assisted Learning Classrooms', Journal of Educational Computing Research
12, 177--193.
Thorp, H., Burden, R.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1994,
'Assessing and Improving Classroom Environment', School Science Review 75,
107--113.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J.B. & Fraser, B.J. (eds.):
1990, Windows
into Science Classes: Problems Associated with Higher-Level Cognitive Learning,
Falmer Press, London.
von Saldern, M.: 1992, Social Climate in the Classroom:
Theoretical and Methodological Aspects, Waxmann Münster, New York.
Walberg, H.J. (ed.): 1979, Educational Environments and Effects:
Evaluation, Policy, and Productivity, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.
Walberg, H.J.: 1981, 'A Psychological Theory of
Educational Productivity', in F. Farley & N.J. Gordon (eds.), Psychology
and Education: The State of the Union, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA,
81--108.
Walberg, H.J.: 1986, 'Synthesis of Research on Teaching',
in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (third
edition), American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 214--229.
Walberg, H.J. & Anderson, G.J.: 1968, 'Classroom
Climate and Individual Learning', Journal of Educational Psychology 59,
414--419.
Walberg, H.J., Fraser, B.J. & Welch, W.W.: 1986,
'A Test of a Model of Educational Productivity Among Senior High School
Students', Journal
of Educational Research 79, 133--139.
Waxman, H.C., Huang, S.Y. & Wang, M.C.: 1996,
'Investigating the Multilevel Classroom Learning Environments of Resilient and
Non-Resilient Students from Inner-City Elementary Schools', Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Wong, A.F.L. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995,
'Cross-Validation in Singapore of the Science Laboratory Environment
Inventory', Psychological
Reports 76, 907--911.
Wong, A.L.F. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996,
'Environment-Attitude Associations in the Chemistry Laboratory Classroom', Research in
Science and Technological Education 14, 91--102.
Wong, A.F.L., Young, D.J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1997, 'A
Multilevel Analysis of Learning Environments and Student Attitudes', Educational
Psychology 17, 449--468.
Wong, N.Y.: 1993, 'The Psychosocial Environment in the
Hong Kong Mathematics Classroom', Journal of Mathematical Behavior 12,
303--309.
Wong, N.Y. & Watkins, D.: 1996, 'Self-Monitoring
as a Mediator of Person-Environment Fit: An Investigation of Hong Kong
Mathematics Classroom Environments', British Journal of Educational Psychology
66, 223--229.
Woods, J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1995, 'Utilizing
Feedback Data on Students' Perceptions of Teaching Style and Preferred Learning
Style to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness', Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco,
CA.
Woods, J. & Fraser, B.J.: 1996, 'Enhancing
Reflection by Monitoring Students' Perceptions of Teaching Style and Preferred
Learning Style', Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Wubbels, Th. & Brekelmans, M.: 1997, 'A Comparison
of Student Perceptions of Dutch Physics Teachers' Interpersonal Behavior and
Their Educational Opinions in 1984 and 1993', Journal of Research in Science Teaching
34, 447--466.
Wubbels, Th., Brekelmans, M. & Hooymayers, H.:
1991, 'Interpersonal Teacher Behavior in the Classroom', in B.J. Fraser &
H.J. Walberg (eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and
Consequences, Pergamon, London, 141--160.
Wubbels, Th. & Levy, J. (eds.): 1993, Do You Know
What You Look Like: Interpersonal Relationships in Education, Falmer
Press, London.
Yarrow, A. & Millwater, J.: 1995, 'Smile: Student
Modification in Learning Environments Establishing Congruence Between Actual
and Preferred Classroom Learning Environment', Journal of Classroom Interaction
30(1), 11--15.
Yarrow, A., Millwater, J. & Fraser, B.: 1997,
'Improving University and Elementary School Classroom Environments Through
Preservice Teachers' Action Research', Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Table 1: Overview of scales contained
in nine classroom environment instruments (LEI, CES, ICEQ, MCI, CUCEI, QTI,
SLEI, CLES and WIHIC)
|
|
|
|
Scales
Classified According to Moos's Scheme
|
|
Instrument
|
Level
|
Items
per
scale
|
Relationship
dimensions
|
Personal
development
dimensions
|
System
maintenance and change dimensions
|
|
|
Learning
Environment Inventory
(LEI)
|
Secondary
|
7
|
Cohesiveness
Friction
Favouritism
Cliqueness
Satisfaction
Apathy
|
Speed
Difficulty
Competitiveness
|
Diversity
Formality
Material
Environment
Goal Direction
Disorganisation
Democracy
|
|
|
Classroom
Environment Scale
(CES)
|
Secondary
|
10
|
Involvement
Affiliation
Teacher
Support
|
Task
Orientation
Competition
|
Order
and
Organisation
Rule Clarity
Teacher Control
Innovation
|
|
|
Individualised
Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ)
|
Secondary
|
10
|
Personalisation
Participation
|
Independence
Investigation
|
Differentiation
|
|
|
My
Class Inventory
(MCI)
|
Elementary
|
6--9
|
Cohesiveness
Friction
Satisfaction
|
Difficulty
Competitiveness
|
|
|
|
College
and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI)
|
Higher
Education
|
7
|
Personalisation
Involvement
Student
Cohesiveness
Satisfaction
|
Task
Orientation
|
Innovation
Individualisation
|
|
|
Questionnaire
on Teacher
Interaction
(QTI)
|
Secondary/Primary
|
8--10
|
Helpful/Friendly
Understanding
Dissatisfied
Admonishing
|
|
Leadership
Student
Responsibility
and Freedom
Uncertain
Strict
|
|
|
Science
Laboratory Environment Inventory
(SLEI)
|
Upper
Secondary/
Higher Education
|
7
|
Student
Cohesiveness
|
Open-Endedness
Integration
|
Rule
Clarity
Material
Environment
|
|
|
Constructivist
Learning
Environment
Survey
(CLES)
|
Secondary
|
7
|
Personal
Relevance
Uncertainty
|
Critical
Voice
Shared Control
|
Student
Negotiation
|
|
|
What
Is Happening In
This Classroom (WIHIC)
|
Secondary
|
8
|
Student
Cohesiveness
Teacher Support
Involvement
|
Investigation
Task Orientation
Cooperation
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2:
Internal consistency (alpha reliability), discriminant validity (mean
correlation of a scale with other scales), and ANOVA results for class
membership differences (eta2
statistic and significance level) for student
actual form of nine instruments using individual as unit of analysis
Scale Alpha
Mean ANOVA Scale Alpha Mean ANOVA
rel. correl. results rel. correl. results
with
eta2 with eta2
other other
scales scales
