The Impact of
Systemic Reform Efforts in Promoting Constructivist Approaches inHigh School
Science
Micheal
Dryden, Dallas Public Schools, Texas, USA
Barry
J. Fraser, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
(Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego CA, April 1998)
During the past four years, a large
school district has been part of an Urban Systemic Initiative funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF). Over
the same four years, the National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics
at Curtin University in Western Australia has assisted the district in
monitoring instructional changes in the learning environment. This paper is a compilation of those efforts
and focuses on the impact that the reform initiative in changing high school
science instruction towards a more constructivist approach.
Perspectives or Theoretical Framework
The recent national reform movements
in the United States are grounded in a constructivist approach to
learning. That is, students should find
personal relevance in their studies, share control over their learning, feel
free to express concerns about their learning, view science as ever changing,
and interact with each other to improve comprehension (Taylor, Dawson, &
Fraser, 1995; Taylor, Fisher, & Fraser, 1997). However, reform is often
difficult to implement is large systems with inertia set by years of tradition
and entrenched beliefs. At this point
in time, the nature of how teachers view their students and how they believe that
students learn is unknown within this district. However, it is known that the majority of teachers do not think
that understanding how students learn is important (Dryden, 1996). Jakubowski and Tobin (1991) show that
teachers who embrace a realist epistemology "emphasize technical interests
and adopt strategies that controlled what students were to learn and how they
were to engage".
In keeping with recommendations that
qualitative and quantitative methods be combined in research on learning
environments (Fraser, & Tobin, 1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1998), over 250
mathematics classroom observations were documented to confirm that a realist
approach was the overwhelming practice of teachers in this district (Dryden,
1997). While fewer science teachers were
observed, this trend of a realist teaching approach was the same (Dryden
&Fraser, 1998). This paper presents
evidence that the realist tradition prevails and that efforts towards reform towards
constructivism are limited.
Methods and Techniques
Reform in a large system is complex
and multiple sources of data and techniques must be used. These sources should all converge to give
the same consistent story. The evaluation
of the USI reform implementation had three implementation phases across the
district. For the purposes of this
study, three high schools per implementation phase were selected. The selection for Phase I was fixed as only
three high schools participated and have been participants in the USI since
1993-1994. Phase II and Phase III
schools were selected based on their representation of the district.
In this study, two methodologies to
assess the implementation of the reform initiative were used. First, pretest and posttest administrations
of the Constructivist
Learning Environment Survey (CLES; Taylor, Dawson & Fraser, 1995; Taylor, Fraser, &
Fisher, 1997) were given to high school science students at the beginning of
the USI and again three years later. Second, science classes were observed to determine the nature of
instruction, with a learning environment checklist being used by the observers. Teacher interviews and teacher surveys were
also conducted, but the results obtained from the application of these
techniques are beyond the scope of this paper.
The data in this large study
involved nine high schools, pretest administration of the CLES to 440 students,
posttest administrations of the CLES to 351 students, and 29 classroom
observations by five evaluators.
Field of Learning Environment and
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
Field of
Classroom Environment Research
Over the previous two decades or so, considerable
interest has been shown internationally in the conceptualization, assessment
and investigation of perceptions of psychosocial characteristics of the
learning environment of classrooms at the elementary, secondary and higher
education levels (Fraser, 1986, 1994, 1998; Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Use of
student perceptions of classroom environment as predictor variables has
established consistent relationships between the nature of the classroom
environment and student cognitive and affective outcomes (McRobbie &
Fraser, 1993). Furthermore, research involving a person-environment fit
perspective has shown that students achieve better where there is greater
congruence between the actual classroom environment and that preferred by
students (Fraser & Fisher, 1983).
Studies involving the use of classroom environment scales
as criterion variables have revealed that classroom psychosocial climate varies
between Catholic and government schools (Dorman, Fraser & McRobbie, 1994).
Researchers and teachers have found it useful to employ classroom climate
dimensions as criteria of effectiveness in curriculum evaluation because they
have differentiated revealingly between alternative curricula when student
outcome measures have shown little sensitivity (Fraser, Williamson & Tobin,
1987). Research comparing students' and teachers' perceptions showed that,
first, both students and teachers prefer a more positive classroom environment
than they perceive as being actually present and, second, teachers tend to
perceive the classroom environment more positively than do their students in
the same classrooms (Fraser, 1994). In small-scale practical applications, teachers
have used assessments of their students' perceptions of their actual and
preferred classroom environment as a basis for identification and discussion of
actual-preferred discrepancies, followed by a systematic attempt to improve
classrooms (Fraser & Fisher, 1986).
Background to
the CLES
The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)
enables researchers and teacher-researchers to monitor the development of
constructivist approaches to teaching school science and mathematics. The
original version of the CLES (Taylor
& Fraser, 1991) was based largely on a psychosocial view of constructivist
reform that focused on students as co-constructors of knowledge but which
remained blind to the cultural context framing the classroom environment.
Although the original CLES was found to contribute insightful understandings of
classroom learning environments and to be psychometrically sound with
Australian high school students in science and mathematics classes, as well as
in a number of studies in other countries (Lucas & Roth, 1996; Roth &
Bowen, 1995; Roth & Roychoudury, 1993, 1994; Watters & Ginns, 1994),
its theoretical framework supported only a weak program of constructivist
reform.
Our ongoing research program revealed major cultural
restraints that can counteract the development of constructivist learning
environments, such as powerful cultural myths rooted in the histories of
science or mathematics and of schooling (Taylor, in press; Milne & Taylor,
1996). Because of the importance of teachers and students becoming critically
aware of how their teaching and learning roles are being unduly restrained by
these otherwise invisible forces, we decided to redesign the CLES to
incorporate a critical theory perspective on the cultural framing of the classroom
learning environment.
As part of the design process, the
viability of the new CLES for monitoring constructivist transformations to the
epistemology of school science and mathematics classrooms was examined. Trialing early versions of the CLES in two classroom-based
collaborative research studies enabled critical scrutiny of both the conceptual
soundness and psychometric structure of the questionnaire. During our
interpretive research inquiry (Erickson, 1986), we visited classrooms as
participant-observers, observed teaching and learning activities, analysed
curriculum documentation, and interviewed teachers and students. In these two
case studies, we investigated both the way in which students made sense of
responding to CLES items and the way that CLES data enabled us to make sense of
our observations of the classroom environment (Taylor, Dawson & Fraser,
1995; Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994).
These qualitative studies led to
important modifications to both the content and format of the CLES. Some of
these changes signal a departure from traditional practices in learning
environment research. First, by rejecting items whose wording was conceptually
complex and by minimising the use of negatively-worded items, we produced a
more economical and less conceptually complex 30-item version comprising five
six-item scales. Second, we created a more meaningful context for responding to
items by abandoning the traditional cyclic format for items in learning
environment instruments and grouping items in their respective scales, each
with a user-friendly title. Third, in order to focus student thinking on the
immediate classroom learning environment, a prompt was included, In this
science class . . ..
Description of
the CLES
Each scale of the new version of the
Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was designed to obtain
measures of students' perceptions of the frequency of occurrence of five key
dimensions of a critical constructivist learning environment:
· Personal Relevance
focuses on the connectedness of school science to students' out-of-school
experiences, and on making use of students' everyday experiences as a
meaningful context for the development of students' scientific knowledge.
· Uncertainty involves
the extent to which opportunities are provided for students to experience
scientific knowledge as arising from theory-dependent inquiry involving human
experience and values, and as evolving, non-foundational, and culturally and
socially determined.
· Critical Voice
involves the extent to which a social climate has been established in which
students feel that it is legitimate and beneficial to question the teacher's
pedagogical plans and methods, and to express concerns about any impediments to
their learning.
· Shared Control
is concerned with students being invited to share with the teacher control of
the learning environment, including the articulation of learning goals, the
design and management of learning activities, and the determination and
application of assessment criteria.
· Student Negotiation
assesses the extent to which opportunities exist for students to explain and
justify to other students their newly developing ideas, to listen attentively
and reflect on the viability of other students' ideas and, subsequently, to
reflect self-critically on the viability of their own ideas.
The CLES contains 30 items altogether, with six items in
each of the five scales. The response alternatives for each item are Almost
Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, and Almost Never. A complete copy of the CLES
is contained in Appendix A.
Validity and
Reliability of the CLES
As part of our evaluation of the NSF
Urban Systemic Initiative, the CLES was used with a large sample of
approximately 1,600 students in 120 grade 9-12 science classes to establish district-wide
baseline information (Dryden & Fraser, 1996). Table 1 shows the internal
consistency reliability obtained for the Dallas sample for each CLES scale
(Cronbach alpha coefficient) for the individual student as the unit of
analysis. Reliability values range from
0.61 to 0.89.
Table 1. Item Factor
Loadings and Scale Alpha Reliabilities
Item |
|
Factor Loadings |
|
|
|
|
Personal Relevance |
Uncertainty
of Science |
Critical Voice |
Shared Control |
Student Negotiation |
Q1 |
0.58 |
|
|
|
|
Q2 |
0.54 |
|
|
|
|
Q3 |
0.37 |
|
|
|
|
Q4 |
0.66 |
|
|
|
|
Q5 |
0.66 |
|
|
|
|
Q6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Q7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Q8 |
|
0.56 |
|
|
|
Q9 |
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
Q10 |
|
0.38 |
|
|
|
Q11 |
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
Q12 |
|
0.40 |
|
|
|
Q13 |
|
|
0.52 |
|
|
Q14 |
|
|
0.64 |
|
|
Q15 |
|
|
0.62 |
|
|
Q16 |
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
Q17 |
|
|
0.70 |
|
|
Q18 |
|
|
0.79 |
|
|
Q19 |
|
|
|
0.72 |
|
Q20 |
|
|
|
0.66 |
|
Q21 |
|
|
|
0.79 |
|
Q22 |
|
|
|
0.78 |
|
Q23 |
|
|
|
0.78 |
|
Q24 |
|
|
|
0.59 |
|
Q25 |
|
|
|
|
0.44 |
Q26 |
|
|
|
|
0.70 |
Q27 |
|
|
|
|
0.79 |
Q28 |
|
|
|
|
0.81 |
Q29 |
|
|
|
|
0.74 |
Q30 |
|
|
|
|
0.78 |
Alpha |
0.70 |
0.61 |
0.82 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
Only factor loadings ≥ .40 are included.
Sample size was approximately 1 600 students
Also the structure of the CLES was
explored using factor analysis (principal components with varimax rotation).
Separate factor analyses were conducted using the individual and the class mean
as the units of analysis. Table 1 shows
that, with the student as the unit of analysis, the orthogonal structure of the
CLES held up, thus supporting that each CLES scale assesses a unique aspect of
constructivism within the classroom environment. With the exception of two items, all CLES items had a factor
loading of 0.40 or higher with its a priori scale. No item had a factor loading as high as 0.40 with any of the
other four scales.
The CLES also was administered in
Western Australia to 494 13-year-old students in 41 science classes from 13
schools. The Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient for four of the CLES scales (i.e., Personal Relevance, Critical
Voice, Shared Control, Student Negotiation) was above 0.80. When factor analyses with varimax rotation
were performed with the Australian data, the orthogonal structure found for the
American sample (shown in Table 1) was replicated.
Results: Students Pretest and Posttest Scores on Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
If reform that is standards-based is
truly occurring, then improvements in scores on the five CLES scales should be
evident after three full years of implementation. In this study, the original Phase I schools responded to the CLES
as a pretest in 1994 and as a posttest again in 1997. In general, physical science was taught in ninth grade in 1994-1995
and biology was taught in the tenth grade.
At some schools, this was reversed and, in many schools, honors students
skip physical science to accelerate their academic program. As a result of the USI reform movement,
integrated science has replaced physical science, although this course is still
mainly designed to cover physical science concepts. Thus, in 1997-1998, ninth graders took integrated science in
ninth grade (tenth grade is not an option), and biology was taken in the tenth
grade. Again, honors students skip
integrated science and take biology in the ninth grade.
The CLES was administered to 440
students in 1994 and 351 students in 1997.
Means scores and t tests for differences between the two
years are shown in Table 2. Scores on CLES scales were converted to a scale
from 0 to 100 by scoring 0 for Almost Never, 25 for Seldom, 50 for Sometimes,
75 for Often and 100 for Almost Always.
Table 2 shows that, among biology
students, only the Personal Relevance scale had a posttest mean which was significantly
different from the pretest mean, but this represented a decline in this
dimension. For the physical science/integrated
science courses, Table 2 shows there were no significant changes in scale means
among any of the CLES dimensions. This
implies that student-perceived change is not occurring, at least not towards a
constructivist approach to instruction.
TABLE 2. Changes in Student Perceptions of Dimensions
of Constructivism Between 1994 and 1997
|
|
Biology |
Integrated
Science |
|||||||
CLES Scale |
Year |
Mean |
SD |
t |
|
Mean |
SD |
t |
|
|
Personal |
1994 |
60.2 |
18.6 |
-2.0* |
|
55.5 |
17.3 |
0.3 |
|
|
Relevance |
1997 |
56.9 |
17.6 |
|
|
56.1 |
16.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical |
1994 |
64.7 |
22.9 |
0.3 |
|
65.3 |
21.1 |
0.5 |
|
|
Voice |
1997 |
65.3 |
23.8 |
|
|
66.5 |
24.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncertainty |
1994 |
64.0 |
16.7 |
-1.5 |
|
56.6 |
15.0 |
0.6 |
|
|
of Science |
1997 |
61.5 |
19.1 |
|
|
57.8 |
19.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
1994 |
32.0 |
25.1 |
-1.1 |
|
26.3 |
21.5 |
1.8 |
|
|
Control |
1997 |
29.5 |
24.5 |
|
|
31.2 |
24.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student |
1994 |
54.7 |
24.9 |
0.6 |
|
51.6 |
24.2 |
1.3 |
|
|
Negotiation |
1997 |
56.1 |
23.8 |
|
|
55.1 |
24.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*p<0.05
0
= Almost Never, 25 = Seldom, 50 = Sometimes, 75 = Often, 100 = Almost Always
The mean scores in Table 2 indicate
that the practices encompassed by all CLES scales except Shared Control were
perceived by students to occur with a frequency of between Sometimes and
Often. Although this suggests that a
moderate level of constructivist practices were perceived by students in 1994
(in terms of Personal Relevance, Critical Voice, Uncertainty of Science and
Student Negotiation), it is noteworthy that increases in these dimensions did
not occur during the three years of the USI.
Perhaps the most striking pattern in
Table 2 is the low mean scores for Shared Control for both biology and
integrated science both in 1994 and 1997.
Mean scores suggest a frequency of only around Seldom for the practices
encompassed by this scale. This
important aspect of constructivism clearly is largely absent in this USI.
Results: Classroom Observations
During the fall of 1997 and early
spring of 1998, five evaluators observed 14 biology, 15 integrated science and
12 mathematics classes (a total of 41 classes) to document practices in these
targeted high schools. During these
observations, an observer rating form was used to give a quick impression of
the learning environment.
The observational instrument, which
is shown in Appendix B, involves the observer in rating the nine areas of (1)
instructional pacing, (2) high expectations for all students, (3) informal
assessment, (4) respect and equity, (5) enthusiasm for teaching, (6) meaningful
instruction, (7) student-centeredness, (8) student involvement, and (9) student
thinking. Each area was rated by the
observers using a three-point frequency scale consisting of the alternatives of
Often, Sometimes and Not Observed.
A factor analysis (principal
components with varimax rotation) of the nine scores for each of the 41 classes
yielded the two clear factors shown in Table 3. A factor named Instructional Delivery encompasses six of
the areas in the observational scheme (high expectations for all students,
respect and equity, informal assessment, enthusiasm for teaching, instructional
pacing, and meaningful instruction) and a factor named Learner-Centeredness covers
the other three areas in the observational scheme (student-centeredness,
student involvement, and student thinking).
Each of the nine areas observed had a factor loading ranging from 0.62
to 0.86 with its own factor scales, and a loading of less than 0.30 with the
other scale.
Table 3 also shows that the internal
consistency (Cronbach alpha reliability) was 0.88 for Instructional Delivery
and 0.82 for Learner Centeredness.
Overall, the data in Table 3 support the factorial validity and internal
consistency reliability of the observational scheme, even though five separate
researchers were involved in conducting the observations in different
classrooms.
Table
3: Factor Structure and Internal
Consistency (Alpha Reliability) for Classroom Observation Learning Environment
Instrument
|
Factor
Loading |
|
|
Scale |
Instructional
Delivery |
Learner
Centeredness |
|
|
|
|
|
High
expectations for all students |
0.81 |
|
|
Respect
and equity |
0.77 |
|
|
Informal
assessment |
0.76 |
|
|
Enthusiasm
for teaching |
0.71 |
|
|
Instructional
pacing |
0.68 |
|
|
Meaningful
instruction |
0.62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student-centeredness |
|
0.86 |
|
Student
involvement |
|
0.73 |
|
Student
thinking |
|
0.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
Alpha
reliability |
0.88 |
0.82 |
|
Factor loadings of less
than 0.30 have been omitted.
A comparison was made of biology
classes (N=14) with integrated science classes (N=15) with respect to scores on
the two factors of Instructional Delivery and Learner-Centeredness. Table 4
shows the mean and standard deviation for each factor, together with the
results of an ANOVA comparing scores on the two subjects. (Means were
calculated in such a way that a mean of 100, 50 and 0 would occur when all
areas belonging to a factor scales were scored, respectively, Often, Sometimes
and Not Observed by the Observers.)
According to Table 4, there is slightly more emphasis on Instructional
Delivery in biology classes that in integrated science classes, and somewhat
more emphasis on Learner-Centeredness (about 0.4 standard deviations) in
biology classes than in integrated science classes. However, Table 4 shows that these differences between biology and
integrated science classes were not statistically significant.
Table 4:
Comparison of Biology and Integrated Science Classes on Observed
Instructional Delivery and Learner-Centeredness
Factor |
Subject |
N |
Meana |
SD |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional |
Biology |
14 |
71.4 |
30.4 |
0.6 |
Delivery |
Integrated Science |
15 |
68.9 |
26.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learner- |
Biology |
14 |
39.3 |
33.8 |
1.1 |
Centeredness |
Integrated Science |
15 |
53.3 |
37.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aOften=100, Sometimes=50, Not Observed=0
Another noteworthy pattern in Table 4 is the relatively
lower means for Learner-Centeredness than for Instructional Delivery,
especially for biology. The mean of
39.3 for Learner-Centeredness for biology indicates that, on average, observers
thought that the three constituent areas (student-centeredness, student
involvement, and student thinking) were observed less often than Sometimes in
biology classes and approximately Sometimes in integrated science. Given that Learner-Centeredness is such a
key aspect of constructivism, it is noteworthy that it was observed to occur
less frequently than desirable.
On the other hand, relative to Learner-Centeredness,
aspects of Instructional Delivery (e.g. pacing, high expectations, enthusiasm)
were observed at reasonably high frequencies (between Sometimes and Often) and
with a mean of around 70 in Table 4).
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to evaluate
the success of an Urban Systemic Initiative (USI) in terms of students
perceptions on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) in 1994
and 1997, as well as external observers classroom observations. Although moderate levels of the CLES
dimensions of Personal Relevance, Critical Voice, Uncertainty of Science, and
Student Negotiation were perceived by students in 1994, these levels did not
increase during the three years of the USI.
(In fact, Personal Relevance declined significantly in biology.)
The most striking finding from the
student questionnaire survey was the low level Shared Control (i.e., the
teacher sharing with students decisions about curriculum, teaching methods and
assessment) in both biology and integrated science. Furthermore, negligible shift in this dimension occurred between
1994 and 1997. The low levels of, and
negligible shift in, Shared Control can be considered to be rooted in the
system.
The teachers are part of a state and
district accountability system that threatens to fired teacher and
administrators if examination scores do not increase. The typical teacher response to this threat, whether real or
perceived, has been to focus on those skills thought necessary score well on
examinations. The shift in training
generally has been from pedagogy in the general sense (i.e., how to design a
lesson, how to maintain discipline), to program-specific pedagogy (i.e., how to
use NSF, standards-based materials).
During this training, some effort was made to incorporate research on
brain theory, or child development principles but, in general, the focus was on
how to use the materials. While this
materials-based training is occurring, the Board of Education and the public in
general is demanding that content be taught.
Content is viewed as fixed and there
is a strong belief that learning is the acquisition of a fixed set of
knowledge. Although the system has
focused on using materials, it has never attempted to focus on how students
learn and how content is dependent on the experiences of the learner.
Although teachers often attempt to
make lessons personally relevant for students, still the approving of a small
set of textbooks and the presence of an accountability system that measures
gains based on a multiple-choice examination items only make the assessment
system part of the problem.
While not reported
in this study, the predominant form of instruction was guided discussion in
which the teacher presents the material and guides students by asking
questions. Most of these questions were
asked and ultimately answered by the teacher.
At no time were student-initiated questions observed, despite the
teachers prodding. Ironically, the
best example of students negotiating meaning among themselves occurred when
newly immigrant Latino students of limited English proficiency sought the
assistance of the more English-proficient Latino students.
The
Critical Voice scale on the student questionnaire had one of the highest
ratings, but it has changed little between 1994 and 1997. It has always been a tradition for students
to express their opinions. For example,
within the past five years and on more than one occasion, hundreds of students have
descended upon District headquarters to protest about the actions of central
administration. However, typically, the
students voice has not been used in a productive way in the classroom to
produce a more student-centered and student-involved teaching and learning.
Based on
classroom observations, moderate levels of Instructional Delivery (e.g. pacing,
high expectations and enthusiasm) were found, but aspects of
Learner-Centeredness were observed to occur with quite low frequencies.
References
Dorman, J., Fraser, B.J., & McRobbie, C.J. (1997, April). Classroom
environments in Australian Catholic and government secondary schools. Curriculum
and Teaching, 12 (1), 3-14.
Dryden, M. (1996). Dallas Urban
Systemic Initiative: Evaluation report,
1995-96 (REIS96-450-2, technical report). Dallas, Texas: Dallas
Public Schools.
Dryden, M. (1997). Dallas Urban
Systemic Initiative: Evaluation report,
1996-97 (REIS97-450-2, technical report). Dallas, Texas: Dallas
Public Schools.
Dryden, M. & Fraser, B.J. (1996, April). Use of classroom environment
instruments in monitoring urban systemic reform. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Dryden, M. & Fraser, B.J. (1998, April). Awareness versus acceptance of systemic change among secondary science
teachers. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In
M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.,
pp. 119-159). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B.J. (1986).
Classroom
environment. London: Croom Helm.
Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on
classroom an school climate. In D.
Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science
learning environments: Assessment,
effects and determinants. In B.J.
Fraser and K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp.
527-564). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B.J., & Fisher, D.L. (1983). 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. (1986). Using short forms of classroom
climate instruments to assess and improve classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 23, 387-413.
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. & Tobin, K. (1991).
Combining qualitative and quantitative methods classroom environment research.
In B.J. Fraser and H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences
(pp. 271-292). Oxford: Pergamon.
Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford:
Pergamon.
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.
Jacubowski,E. & Tobin, K. (1991).
Teachers personal epistemologies and classroom learning
environments. In B.J. Fraser and H.J.
Walberg (Eds.),
Educational environments: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences (pp. 201-214). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lucas, K.B. & Roth, W.M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge
and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26,
103-129.
McRobbie, C.J. & Fraser, B.J. (1993). Association between student
outcomes and psychosocial science environments. Journal of Educational Research, 87,
78-85.
Milne, C. & Taylor, P.C. (1996, April). School science: A fertile culture for
the evolution of myths. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.
Roth, W.M. & Bowen, G.M. (1995). Knowing and interacting: A study of
culture, practices, and resources in a grade 8 open-inquiry science classroom
guided by a cognitive apprenticeship metaphor. Cognition and Instruction, 13,
73-128.
Roth, W. M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific
knowledge, knowing and learning: The perspectives of four physics students. International
Journal of Science Education, 15, 27-44.
Roth, W.M. & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students
epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 31, 5-30.
Steffe, L.P. & Gale, J., (1995) Constructivism in education. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor, P.C. (in press). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics
classroom. Educational
Studies in Mathematics.
Taylor, P.C. & Dawson, V. (in press). Critical reflections on a
problematic student-supervisor relationship. In J. Malone, W. Atweh, & J.
Northfield (Eds.), The practice of postgraduate research supervision.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Taylor, P.C., Dawson, V. & Fraser, B.J. (1995, April). Classroom learning environments under
transformation: A constructivist
perspective. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco.
Taylor, P.C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B.J. (1995, April). A
constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under
transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco, CA.
Taylor, P.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1991, April). Development of an instrument for
assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning
environments. International Journal of Educational
Research, 27, 293-302.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & White, L.R. (1994, April). The revised
CLES: A questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of
school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998).
Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning
environments. In B.J. Fraser and K.G.
Tobin (Eds.), International Journal of Science Education (pp. 623-640).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Watters, J.J. & Ginns, I.S. (1994). Self-efficacy and science
anxiety among preservice primary teachers: Origins and remedies. Research in
Science Education, 24, 348-357.
BJF-1194-RW-7/4/98
Appendix A
Constructivist
Learning
Environment
Survey
directions
1. Purpose
of the Questionnaire
This questionnaire asks you to describe
important aspects of the science classroom which you are in right now. There
are no right or wrong answers. This is not a test and your answers will not
affect your assessment. Your opinion is what is wanted. Your answers
will enable us to improve future science classes.
2. How
to Answer Each Question
On the next few pages you will find 30
sentences. For each sentence, circle only one number corresponding to
your answer. For example:
|
|
Almost Always |
Often
|
Some-times |
Seldom
|
Almost Never |
||||
In this
class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
8 |
The teacher
asks me questions. |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||
If you think this teacher almost
always asks you questions, circle the 5.
If you think this teacher almost never
asks you questions, circle the 1.
Or you can choose the number 2, 3 or 4 if one
of these seems like a more accurate answer.
3. How
to Change Your Answer
If
you want to change your answer, cross it out and circle a new number,
For example:
8 |
The teacher asks me questions. |
|
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
|
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
I learn
about the world outside of school. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
My new
learning starts with problems |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
I learn how
science can be part of |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
4 |
I get a
better understanding of |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
I learn
interesting things about |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
6 |
What I
learn has nothing to do with |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
7 |
I learn
that science cannot provide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
8 |
I learn
that science has changed over time. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
9 |
I learn
that science is influenced by |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
10 |
I learn
about the different sciences |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
11 |
I learn
that modern science is different |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
12 |
I learn
that science is about inventing theories. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
13 |
It's OK for
me to ask the teacher |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
14 |
It's OK for
me to question the way I'm being taught. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
15 |
It's OK for
me to complain about activities |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
16 |
It's OK for
me to complain about anything |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
17 |
It's OK for
me to express my opinion. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
18 |
It's OK for
me to speak up for my rights. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
|||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
19 |
I help the
teacher to plan |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
20 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
21 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
22 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
23 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
24 |
I help the
teacher to assess my learning. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost |
|||||||||
In this
class . . . |
|
|
|||||||||||||
25 |
I get the
chance to talk to other students. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
26 |
I talk with
other students about how to solve problems. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
27 |
I explain
my ideas to other students. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
28 |
I ask other
students to explain their ideas. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
29 |
Other
students ask me to explain my ideas. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
30 |
Other
students explain their ideas to me. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
|
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
||||||||
Appendix B
Observer Rating of Classroom Learning Environment
|
Often Sometimes Not Observed |
||||||||||
1. Instructional pacing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher keeps students on-task and rarely
allows downtime; is prepared for the lesson and paces
instruction appropriately; keeps the flow of the lesson moving to
maintain high involvement; has classroom rules and enforces them to keep
students on task. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2. High expectations for all students |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher encourages active participation of
all students; challenges students; allows students time to consider other points
of view or multiple solutions; assigns open-ended problems for students to
solve. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3. Informal assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher asks direct questions to elicit
conceptual understanding; asks "what if" or "suppose
that" questions; modifies lesson based on student questioning
or other information; has students explain their reasoning when
answering a question. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4. Respect and equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher fosters a climate of respect for
student ideas and contributions; uses language and behavior that demonstrate
sensitivity to all students; encourages slower learners or reluctant
participants; interacts with off-task students in dignified
manner. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5. Enthusiasm for teaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher is enthusiastic in presentation of
material; appears confident in his/her ability to teach
math/science; praises and reinforces student efforts. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6. Meaningful instruction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher builds lesson from simpler to more
complex ideas or concepts; provides age-appropriate concrete examples of
concepts to be learned; makes lesson relevant by relating lesson to
students' interests. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7. Student-centeredness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students explore ideas collaboratively; think about and relate examples from their
own experiences; are given meaningful assignments when
completing an activity early. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
8. Student involvement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students gather, record, represent, and/or
analyze data; design or implement investigations in math or
science (hands-on); attempt to solve open-ended problems or
investigations. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9. Student thinking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students attempt to justify their ideas and
explain their thoughts; ask and pursue questions on their own; formulate conjectures or make reasonable
guesses; look for patterns, cycles or trends as they
learn new things. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
The Impact of Systemic
Reform Efforts in Promoting Constructivist
Approaches in High School Science
Michael Dryden
Dallas Public Schools
3700 Ross Avenue
Dallas TX 75204, USA
Barry J. Fraser
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth 6845, Australia
The Impact of Systemic
Reform Efforts
on Instruction in High School Science
Classes
Barry J. Fraser
Curtin
University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth 6845, Australia
Michael Dryden
Dallas Public Schools
3700 Ross Avenue
Dallas TX 75204, USA
Peter Taylor
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
Perth 6845, Australia
The Impact of Systemic Reform
Efforts in Promoting Constructivist Approaches
in High School Science
Michael Dryden
Dallas Public Schools
Barry J. Fraser
Curtin University of Technology
The Impact of Systemic Reform Efforts
on Instruction in
High School
Science Classes
Barry J. Fraser
Curtin University of Technology
Michael Dryden
Dallas Public Schools
Peter Taylor
Curtin University of Technology
Constructivist Learning
Environment Survey (CLES)
· Personal
Relevance focuses on the connectedness of
school science to students' out-of-school experiences, and on making use of
students' everyday experiences as a meaningful context for the development of
students' scientific knowledge.
· Uncertainty involves the extent to which opportunities are provided for
students to experience scientific knowledge as arising from theory-dependent
inquiry involving human experience and values, and as evolving,
non-foundational, and culturally and socially determined.
· Critical Voice involves the extent to which a social climate has been
established in which students feel that it is legitimate and beneficial to
question the teacher's pedagogical plans and methods, and to express concerns
about any impediments to their learning.
· Shared Control is concerned with students being invited to share with the
teacher control of the learning environment, including the articulation of
learning goals, the design and management of learning activities, and the
determination and application of assessment criteria.
· Student
Negotiation assesses the extent to which
opportunities exist for students to explain and justify to other students their
newly developing ideas, to listen attentively and reflect on the viability of
other students' ideas and, subsequently, to reflect self-critically on the
viability of their own ideas.
The
CLES contains 30 items altogether, with six items in each of the five scales.
The response alternatives for each item are Almost Always, Often, Sometimes,
Seldom, and Almost Never. A complete copy of the CLES is contained in Appendix
A.
Table 1. Item Factor
Loadings and Scale Alpha Reliabilities
Item |
|
Factor Loadings |
|
|
|
|
Personal Relevance |
Uncertainty of Science |
Critical Voice |
Shared Control |
Student Negotiation |
Q1 |
0.58 |
|
|
|
|
Q2 |
0.54 |
|
|
|
|
Q3 |
0.37 |
|
|
|
|
Q4 |
0.66 |
|
|
|
|
Q5 |
0.66 |
|
|
|
|
Q6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Q7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Q8 |
|
0.56 |
|
|
|
Q9 |
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
Q10 |
|
0.38 |
|
|
|
Q11 |
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
Q12 |
|
0.40 |
|
|
|
Q13 |
|
|
0.52 |
|
|
Q14 |
|
|
0.64 |
|
|
Q15 |
|
|
0.62 |
|
|
Q16 |
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
Q17 |
|
|
0.70 |
|
|
Q18 |
|
|
0.79 |
|
|
Q19 |
|
|
|
0.72 |
|
Q20 |
|
|
|
0.66 |
|
Q21 |
|
|
|
0.79 |
|
Q22 |
|
|
|
0.78 |
|
Q23 |
|
|
|
0.78 |
|
Q24 |
|
|
|
0.59 |
|
Q25 |
|
|
|
|
0.44 |
Q26 |
|
|
|
|
0.70 |
Q27 |
|
|
|
|
0.79 |
Q28 |
|
|
|
|
0.81 |
Q29 |
|
|
|
|
0.74 |
Q30 |
|
|
|
|
0.78 |
Alpha |
0.70 |
0.61 |
0.82 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
Only factor loadings ≥ .40 are included.
Sample size was approximately 1 600 students
TABLE 2. Changes in Student Perceptions of Dimensions
of Constructivism Between 1994 and 1997
|
|
Biology |
Integrated
Science |
||||||
CLES Scale |
Year |
Mean |
SD |
t |
|
Mean |
SD |
t |
|
Personal |
1994 |
60.2 |
18.6 |
-2.0* |
|
55.5 |
17.3 |
0.3 |
|
Relevance |
1997 |
56.9 |
17.6 |
|
|
56.1 |
16.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical |
1994 |
64.7 |
22.9 |
0.3 |
|
65.3 |
21.1 |
0.5 |
|
Voice |
1997 |
65.3 |
23.8 |
|
|
66.5 |
24.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uncertainty |
1994 |
64.0 |
16.7 |
-1.5 |
|
56.6 |
15.0 |
0.6 |
|
of Science |
1997 |
61.5 |
19.1 |
|
|
57.8 |
19.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shared |
1994 |
32.0 |
25.1 |
-1.1 |
|
26.3 |
21.5 |
1.8 |
|
Control |
1997 |
29.5 |
24.5 |
|
|
31.2 |
24.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student |
1994 |
54.7 |
24.9 |
0.6 |
|
51.6 |
24.2 |
1.3 |
|
Negotiation |
1997 |
56.1 |
23.8 |
|
|
55.1 |
24.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*p<0.05
0 = Almost
Never, 25 = Seldom, 50 = Sometimes, 75 = Often, 100 = Almost Always
Table 3: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency (Alpha Reliability) for
Classroom Observation Learning Environment Instrument
|
Factor
Loading |
|
|
Scale |
Instructional
Delivery |
Learner
Centeredness |
|
|
|
|
|
High
expectations for all students |
0.81 |
|
|
Respect
and equity |
0.77 |
|
|
Informal
assessment |
0.76 |
|
|
Enthusiasm
for teaching |
0.71 |
|
|
Instructional
pacing |
0.68 |
|
|
Meaningful
instruction |
0.62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student-centeredness |
|
0.86 |
|
Student
involvement |
|
0.73 |
|
Student
thinking |
|
0.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
Alpha
reliability |
0.88 |
0.82 |
|
Factor loadings of less than 0.30 have
been omitted.
Table 4: Comparison of
Biology and Integrated Science Classes on Observed Instructional Delivery and
Learner-Centeredness
Factor |
Subject |
N |
Meana |
SD |
F |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional |
Biology |
14 |
71.4 |
30.4 |
0.6 |
Delivery |
Integrated Science |
15 |
68.9 |
26.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learner- |
Biology |
14 |
39.3 |
33.8 |
1.1 |
Centeredness |
Integrated Science |
15 |
53.3 |
37.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aOften=100, Sometimes=50, Not
Observed=0
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
|||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
19 |
I help the
teacher to plan |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
20 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
21 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
22 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
23 |
I help the
teacher to decide |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
24 |
I help the
teacher to assess my learning. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost |
|||||||||
In this
class . . . |
|
|
|||||||||||||
25 |
I get the
chance to talk to other students. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
26 |
I talk with
other students about how to solve problems. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
27 |
I explain
my ideas to other students. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
In this class . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
28 |
I ask other
students to explain their ideas. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
29 |
Other
students ask me to explain my ideas. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
30 |
Other
students explain their ideas to me. |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
||||||||
|
|
|
Almost Always |
Often |
Some-times |
Seldom |
Almost Never |
||||||||
Appendix B
Observer
Rating of Classroom Learning Environment
|
Often Sometimes Not
Observed |
||||||||||
1. Instructional pacing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher keeps students on-task and rarely
allows downtime; is prepared for the lesson and paces
instruction appropriately; keeps the flow of the lesson moving to
maintain high involvement; has classroom rules and enforces them to keep
students on task. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2. High expectations for all students |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher encourages active participation of
all students; challenges students; allows students time to consider other points
of view or multiple solutions; assigns open-ended problems for students to
solve. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
3. Informal assessment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher asks direct questions to elicit
conceptual understanding; asks "what if" or "suppose
that" questions; modifies lesson based on student questioning
or other information; has students explain their reasoning when
answering a question. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4. Respect and equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher fosters a climate of respect for
student ideas and contributions; uses language and behavior that demonstrate
sensitivity to all students; encourages slower learners or reluctant
participants; interacts with off-task students in dignified
manner. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5. Enthusiasm for teaching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher is enthusiastic in presentation of
material; appears confident in his/her ability to teach
math/science; praises and reinforces student efforts. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
6. Meaningful instruction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher builds lesson from simpler to more
complex ideas or concepts; provides age-appropriate concrete examples of
concepts to be learned; makes lesson relevant by relating lesson to
students' interests. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7. Student-centeredness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students explore ideas collaboratively; think about and relate examples from their
own experiences; are given meaningful assignments when
completing an activity early. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
8. Student involvement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students gather, record, represent, and/or
analyze data; design or implement investigations in math or
science (hands-on); attempt to solve open-ended problems or
investigations. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
9. Student thinking |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Students attempt to justify their ideas and
explain their thoughts; ask and pursue questions on their own; formulate conjectures or make reasonable
guesses; look for patterns, cycles or trends as they
learn new things. |
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|