Constructivist
Learning Environments in a Cross-National Study in Taiwan and Australia
Jill M. Aldridge, Barry J. Fraser and Peter C.
Taylor, Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of
Technology, Perth
Chung-Chi Chen, National Kaohsiung Normal University,
Taiwan
This article focuses on
the validation and use of English and Chinese versions of the Constructivist
Learning Environment Survey (CLES) in a cross-national study of high
school science classrooms in Australia and Taiwan. The CLES was administered to
1081 students from 50 classes in Australia and 1879 students from 50 classes in
Taiwan. Data analysis supported each scale’s internal consistency reliability,
factor structure and ability to differentiate between classrooms, and revealed
interesting differences between average scale scores in Taiwan and Australia.
The questionnaire data were used to guide the collection of qualitative data in
each country to explain patterns and differences in mean scale scores in
Australia and Taiwan. Interviews with students also provided precautionary
information regarding students’ understanding of some items and the use of a
Western survey to measure constructivist learning environments in an Eastern
country.
Educational research which crosses national boundaries offers much promise for generating new insights for at least two reasons (Brislin, 1983; Fraser, 1996a; Stigler & Hiebert, 1997). First, the range and variation in variables of interest (e.g. teaching methods, student attitudes) is frequently greater 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 researchers from two countries collaborate on research involving teaching and learning in two countries.
The present research is 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 in Taiwan and Australia. The study involved the validation of English and Mandarin versions of a learning environment questionnaire and a comparison of classroom learning environments in Taiwan and Australia. As well, it investigated determinants and effects of learning environment in these two countries. This article is organised into four sections: background; method; findings; and discussion and conclusions.
Background
Learning Environment Research
Considerable progress has been made over the past 30 years in the conceptualisation, assessment and investigation of the important but subtle concept of learning environment (Fraser, 1986, 1994, 1998; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; McRobbie & Ellett, 1997; Wubbels & Levy, 1993). Some highlights from the field of classroom environment include (1) the use of qualitative methods in learning environment research (Tobin, Kahle & Fraser, 1990), including the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods (Fraser & Tobin, 1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1998), (2) the development of preferred forms of instruments which permit investigations of differences between actual and preferred classroom environments (Fisher & Fraser, 1983) and person-environment fit studies of whether students achieve better in their preferred classroom environment (Fraser & Fisher, 1983), (3) teachers’ use of assessments of actual and preferred classroom environment in action research attempts to improve their classrooms (Fraser & Fisher, 1986), (4) the incorporation of learning environment ideas into teacher education (Fraser, 1993) and school psychology (Burden & Fraser, 1993), and (5) the idea of ‘grain sizes’ in learning environment research (Fraser, 1996b).
The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey
The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES; Taylor, Dawson & Fraser, 1995a, 1995b; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997) was developed to enable educators and researchers to measure students’ perceptions of the extent to which constructivist approaches are present in classrooms. 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. Although the original version of the CLES was used within Australian high schools and in other countries (Lucas & Roth, 1996; Roth & Bowen, 1995, Watters & Ginns, 1994) and found to be reliable, the theoretical framework supporting the survey was found to be weak (Fraser, Dryden & Taylor, 1998).
A new version of the CLES was developed from the perspective of critical constructivism (Taylor, 1996) to recognise socio-cultural constraints to the cognitive constructive activity of the individual learner and thereby strengthening weaknesses in the original version. The new version of the CLES was designed to obtain measures of five key elements of a critical constructivist learning environment from the students’ perception: the degree of personal relevance in their studies; whether students have shared control over their learning; the degree to which students feel free to express concerns about their learning; the degree to which students are able to interact with each other to improve their understanding; and the extent to which science is viewed as ever changing (Taylor, Dawson & Fraser, 1995a; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997).
This new version of the CLES was trialled in two classroom-based collaborative research studies (Taylor, Dawson & Fraser, 1995a, 1995b; Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994). The conceptual strength and psychometric structure of the questionnaire were rigorously tested using quantitative and qualitative methods. These studies led to modifications in the survey to enhance comprehensibility by omitting negative items and those items considered ‘conceptually complex’. In addition, the survey departed from traditional measures of the learning environment by grouping together items of the same scale and including a simple scale name that would provide students with a contextual cue (rather than arranging the items from a given scale randomly or cyclically throughout the questionnaire).
Method
Quantitative Data Collection
In this study qualitative and quantitative methods were combined as recommended by Fraser and Tobin (1991) and Tobin and Fraser (1998). The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) was used to assess:
·
Personal Relevance (extent to which teachers relate science to students out-of-school
experiences).
·
Student Negotiation (extent to which opportunities exist for students to explain and
justify to other students their newly developing ideas and to listen and
reflect on the viability of other students’ ideas).
·
Shared Control (extent to which students are invited to share with the teacher
control of the learning environment, including the articulation of their own
learning goals, design and management of their learning activities and
determining and applying assessment criteria).
·
Critical Voice (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).
·
Uncertainty (the
extent to which opportunities are provided for students to experience
scientific knowledge as arising from theory dependent inquiry, involving human
experience and values, evolving and non-foundational, and culturally and
socially determined).
There are six items in each scale with a total of 30 items with a five-point response scale of Almost Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom and Almost Never. Appendix 1 lists the items in the CLES.
In order to permit investigation of association between classroom environment and student outcomes, an eight-item scale was used to assess students’ satisfaction in terms of enjoyment, interest and how much they look forward to science classes. This was based on a scale from the Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA; Fraser, 1981).
The instruments were translated into Chinese by team members based in Taiwan. The next step involved an independent back translation of the Chinese version into English again by other team members who were not involved in the original translation. Then, the Australian researchers checked the back translations and, for some items, it was necessary to modify the original English version, the Chinese translation, or both. For example, difficulties finding an equivalent word for ‘inventing’ in the context of “I learn that science is about inventing theories” led to a modification to “I learn that science is about creating theories”. In some cases, the back-translations appeared more accurate than the original version, leading to further modifications. For example “I explain my ideas to other students” was changed to “I explain my understandings to other students”.
The English version of each scale was tried out with several Australian grade 7–9 science classes, and this was followed by some of the researchers interviewing students about the readability and comprehensibility of items and checking whether students were responding to survey items on the basis intended by the researchers. Similar interviews were conducted in Taiwan, leading to some further modifications to survey items. For example, the item “I help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on activities” was modified to make the item more explicit, “I help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on learning activities”.
The CLES and the attitude scale were administered to a sample of 1081 grade 8 and 9 general science students from 50 classes in 25 schools in Western Australia and 1879 grade 7-9 students from 50 classes in 25 schools in Taiwan. Of the classes sampled in Western Australia, 38 were selected from within the metropolitan area of the capital city, Perth, and the remaining 12 classes were from rural schools. The sample in Taiwan was selected from three areas, northern Taiwan (Taipei), central Taiwan (Changhua) and southern Taiwan (Kaohsiung). In Taiwan, 25 classes were biology classes and 25 were physics classes. In Australia, all 50 classes were general science classes. The samples from both countries were drawn from government, coeducational schools that could be considered typical and representative of science classes in each country.
Despite efforts to ensure that the samples were comparable, it is to be acknowledged that inevitable differences arise when samples are drawn from quite different educational systems. A fundamental difference, is the different completion rate in each country. Taiwan has a lower proportion of students who complete high school than does Australia. In addition, junior high school science classes in Taiwan teach science as separate strands, (i.e physics or biology) whereas science classes in Australia are taught as integrated or ‘general’ science. Factors such as these create inherent differences in the samples, that should be considered when comparing the data.
The quantitative data collected with the surveys were analysed to provide information regarding the reliability and validity of the surveys in each country. The data also informed researchers of the differences and similarities between students’ perceptions in each country, as well as guiding the collection of qualitative data described below.
Qualitative Data Collection
The data from the surveys were used not only to provide a parsimonious and economical view of learning environments in each country, but also were used to guide the collection of qualitative data. Qualitative data were gathered in each of Australia and Taiwan using classroom observations and interviews with teachers and students. The collection of qualitative data enabled researchers to interpret the survey data more meaningfully and provide richer insights into the results from each country.
Observations were carried out in the classes of four teachers in each of Australia and Taiwan. The selection of these teachers was based on their willingness to be involved in the study. At least three students from each of the eight classes were interviewed about the observations made. They were asked to comment on various actions that took place during the observations and about aspects of the classroom environment. In addition, student responses to selected survey items were used to form part of an interview schedule. Two items from each scale were selected. The interviews were used to clarify whether items had been interpreted consistently by students and to help to explain between-country differences in survey scale means.
The teacher of each of the eight classes was also interviewed. The interviews sought the teachers’ reasons for various actions and whether the classroom environments created by different teachers were influenced by socio-cultural factors.
Findings
From Quantitative Data
Validation of the CLES
Data collected from the 50 classes in Taiwan and the 50 classes in
Australia were analysed in various ways to investigate the reliability and
validity of the CLES in both countries. Principal components factor analysis
followed by varimax rotation confirmed the a priori structure of the instrument
comprising 30 items with 6 items in each of the five scales (see Appendix 1).
Nearly all items had a loading of at least 0.4 on their a priori scale and no other
scale (see Table 1). The percentage of the total variance extracted and
eigenvalue associated with each factor are also recorded at the bottom of Table
1.
Insert Table 1 About Here
Table 2 reports the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha coefficient) of each of the five six-item scales for two units of analysis (individual and class mean). Using the class mean as the unit of analysis, scale reliability estimates ranged from 0.87 to 0.97 in Australia and from 0.79 to 0.98 in Taiwan.
Insert Table 2 About Here
The mean correlation of a scale with other scales was used as a convenient index of discriminant validity and is reported in Table 2. In Australia, the mean correlation of a scale with the other scales varied between 0.31 and 0.44 for the individual as the unit of analysis and between 0.37 and 0.60 for the class mean as the unit of analysis. In Taiwan, the mean correlation of a scale with the other scales varied between 0.32 and 0.42 with the individual as the unit of analysis and between 0.49 and 0.61 with the class mean as the unit of analysis.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the ability of each CLES scale to differentiate between the perceptions of students in different classes. The eta2 statistic was calculated to provide an estimate of the strength of association between class membership and the dependent variable (CLES scale). Table 2 presents the ANOVA results for Taiwan and Australia. Each scale differentiated significantly between classes (p<.01) in both Taiwan and Australia. The amount of variance in scores accounted for by class membership (i.e. eta2) ranged from 0.14 to 0.18 in Australia and from 0.08 to 0.27 in Taiwan for different CLES scales.
Analysis of the 10-item Attitude Scale supported its reliability (also reported in Table 2). The internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha coefficient) for the Australian data was 0.91 for the individual student and 0.96 for the class mean as the unit of analysis, and for the Taiwanese data it was 0.92 for the individual student and 0.98 for the class mean as the unit of analysis.
Differences between Australia and Taiwan
In order to investigate the differences and similarities in students’ perceptions of the constructivist approaches present in their science class, we examined the mean scale scores for each country. A plot of the mean scale CLES scores are reported in Figure 1, which reveals that students from Taiwan perceived the scales of Personal Relevance, Uncertainty and Shared Control as occurring more frequently in their science class and that students in Australia perceived the scales of Critical Voice and Student Negotiation as occurring more frequently. The mean scores for both countries were close to three (reported in Table 3), suggesting that each of the constructivist dimensions measured by the CLES occurs ‘Sometimes’ in each country. The differences between the mean scores are noteworthy as the larger differences, such as for Uncertainty and Critical Voice, were more than a standard deviation.
Insert Figure 1 About Here
In order to estimate the magnitude of the differences (in addition to its statistical significance), effect sizes were calculated as recommended by Thompson (1998a, 1998b)Effect sizes and t tests were calculated to investigate the differences between students perceptions in Australia and Taiwan (Table 3). The effect sizs for each scale of the CLES ranged between approximately a third of a standard deviation (0.38) and one and two thirds standard deviation (1.76) for class means. These effect sizes suggest a substantial difference between countries on all learning environment scales with the possible exception of Personal Relevance. T tests for independent samples, using the class as the unit of analysis, were used to investigate whether differences in scale scores between Australia and Taiwan were statistically significant. The results showed that there was a statisticaly significant difference (p<.05) between countries for all five scales of the CLES (see Table 3).
The mean score for the Attitude scale indicates that students in Taiwan had a more positive attitude towards their science class than did students in Australia (Table 3). The effect size for student attitudes was approximately one half of a standard deviation (0.46) for class means, suggesting large difference between countries. Whilst the results of a t test showed that there was a significant difference (p<.01) between the attitudes of students in the two countries.
Insert Table 3 About Here
Overall, the data for students’ perceptions in Taiwan and Australia
would appear to indicate that science classrooms in each country have a similar
overall emphasis on constructivism, although different aspects are emphasised
more or less in each country.
Associations Between Student Attitudes and the Constructivist Learning
Environment
In order to investigate associations between student attitudes and the five CLES scales in each of Taiwan and Australia, the simple and multiple correlation analyses shown in Table 4 were conducted. The results of simple correlation analysis for Taiwan and Australia (Table 4) indicate that all five of the CLES scales were statistically significantly associated with student attitudes towards their science class (p< 0.001) at both the individual and class mean levels of analysis. Correlations between student attitudes and the CLES scales for Taiwan ranged between 0.27 and 0.51 for the individual as the unit of analysis and between 0.50 and 0.88 for the class mean. For Australia, the correlations ranged between 0.27 and 0.50 with the individual as the unit of analysis and between 0.47 and 0.71 for the class mean. The results of the simple correlation suggest that improved student attitudes are associated with more emphasis on all aspects of constructivism assessed by the CLES.
The multiple correlation (R) reported in Table 4, for the set of five CLES scales in Australia was 0.54 and 0.77, respectively, for the individual class mean as the unit of analysis. In Taiwan the multiple correlation was 0.55 and 0.85 for the individual and class mean as the unit of analysis, respectively. The results were statistically significant (p<0.01) in all cases. The value of the multiple correlations for Australia and Taiwan confirms the findings of past studies, cited by Fraser (1994), that indicate associations between student attitudes and dimensions of the classroom environment.
To identify which classroom environment scales contribute most to the variance in student satisfaction, the standardised regression weight (b) were examined (Table 4). When using the individual as the unit of analysis, three CLES scales were significantly, positively and independently related to student attitudes when all other scales were mutually controlled (p<0.01) in both Taiwan and Australia: Personal Relevance, Shared Control and Student Negotiation. The remaining two scales, Critical Voice and Uncertainty of Science, appear to have a small and statistically nonsignificant independent association with student satisfaction. For the class mean as the unit of analysis, only Personal Relevance was significantly (p<0.01) and positively related to students’ attitudes.
Insert Table 4 About Here
Overall, the factor structure and internal consistency reliability of the CLES were supported for the Australian and Taiwanese samples. Whilst the qualitative data collected in the second phase provide a precautionary note about the interpretation of data (particularly when making comparisons between and drawing conclusions from two different countries), the analysis of the quantitative data for two units of analysis clearly supports the cross-cultural validity of the CLES.
Findings
From Qualitative Data
The second phase of the study involved the collection of qualitative data to provide further evidence to support the validity of the CLES and to determine socio-cultural factors that influence the learning environments in different countries. Findings related to the qualitative data are reported in three parts: observations; interviews; and cross-cultural viability of the CLES.
Observations
Observations took place in four classes in each of Australia and Taiwan. The observation data revealed that classes in both countries ranged in the extent to which constructivist approaches were used. In some cases, particularly those classes where teacher-centred approaches were more apparent, there appeared to be little, if any, evidence of the use of critical constructivist pedagogy, whilst in others it was obvious.
During observations, we were able to note examples which illustrated students’ responses to the CLES. A prime example was for the scale of Student Negotiation, for which students were asked to indicate how often they have opportunities to discuss, explain and talk about their learning with other students. The quantitative data indicated that between-country differences in mean scale scores for Student Negotiation were statistically significant (Table 3), with Australian students perceiving Student Negotiation as occurring more often. Observations in both countries confirmed that, in most cases, students in Australia indeed have more opportunities to discuss ideas and explain their learning to peers than students in Taiwan, where science classes tend to be more teacher-centred with fewer opportunities for student negotiation.
Whilst observations supported some of the quantitative data, there were also some examples for which observations were not consistent with mean scores obtained from the CLES, such as the for Shared Control. To make meaningful interpretations of students’ responses to the CLES, we found that it was necessary to interview students and teachers.
Interviews
At least three students from each of the four classes observed in each country were interviewed about the observations made. Students were selected either by the researchers during observations or by the teacher; in both cases, an attempt was made to select a representative sample (in terms of ability) of the class. Students were asked to comment on activities that took place during the observation and student responses to selected survey items were used to form part of an interview schedule. The interviews were used to identify aspects of the constructivist learning environment that could not be gleaned through observations and surveys alone.
Two teachers from each country were also interviewed after observations of their classes. Based on the observations, the interviews sought explanations for the teachers’ actions. The interviews provided information regarding a range of possible influences on the degree to which critical constructivist pedagogy was employed by the teacher.
During the analysis of the interviews, we identified factors which could affect students’ responses to the CLES. These were grouped together and discussed under the following headings: Critical Voice and students’ respect for the teacher; opportunities for Shared Control and the nature of the curriculum; competition and Student Negotiation; and student attitude and Personal Relevance. Finally, the last subsection discusses the viability of the CLES survey in terms of these influences.
Critical Voice and Students’ Respect for the Teacher
The Critical Voice scale of the CLES measures the degree to which students are able to question the teacher’s pedagogical plans and methods and voice their concerns about impediments to their learning. The quantitative data collected using the CLES (see Figure 1) indicate that students in Taiwan perceived less Critical Voice in their science classes than did students in Australia. Interviews with teachers and students suggested that this dimension of the CLES could be influenced by the degree of respect which students in each country have for teachers.
Interviews with teachers in Taiwan revealed that they are highly respected within the community. According to these interviews, teachers in Taiwan hold a professional status within the community and are respected as experts in their field. In contrast, teachers in Australia felt that their position in the community was viewed more as a service than a profession and has relatively low status.
Interviews from each country suggest that there were also differences in the ways in which teachers are regarded by students, with students in Taiwan appearing to have more respect for teachers than students in Australia. During interviews with students in Taiwan, it was claimed that the teacher's knowledge was never questioned and the teaching methods or the lesson content were rarely complained about. It appears that this lack of criticism is reflected in students’ responses to the Critical Voice scale and such items as “Its OK for me to question the way I’m being taught.” Students in Taiwan responded to items as occurring less frequently because generally they do not criticise their teachers: “The teacher plans the lessons very well. I can’t think of anything better. ... So, I just listen to what she teaches” (Taiwanese student D, Item 68). Interviews led us to conclude that students preferred to express their critical voice to peers whom they would question or speak to about problems after the lesson: “I don’t ask the teacher [questions], I prefer to ask classmates” (Taiwan Student E, Item 63).
In contrast, the Australian students interviewed were more likely to complain about their teachers or the teaching methods. Some Australian students found science lessons boring and would choose to have them taught differently. In these cases (especially for students in lower-ability classes), students viewed science and their science teachers as something to be endured because the subject was compulsory. “Science lessons are boring ... I would prefer to have more experiments” (Australian Student B, Item 66). These students were more vocal regarding their complaints about the teacher and other students in the class. They were generally more prepared to approach the teacher about problems or concerns which they had than were the students whom we interviewed in Taiwan.
Opportunities for Shared Control and the Nature of the Curriculum
The Shared Control scale of the CLES measures the extent to which students are invited to share control with the teacher over the design and management of the learning activities, the determining and applying of assessment criteria, and the articulation of their own learning goals. Quantitative data collected using the CLES suggest that students in Taiwan perceived statistically significantly more (p<0.001) Shared Control in their science classes than did students in Australia. Observations and interviews with teachers and students, however, generally did not reflect this result and revealed that students in Taiwan rarely, if ever, experience Shared Control in their science classes.
Teachers whom we interviewed in Taiwan revealed that the examination-driven nature of the curriculum was a major influence on the degree to which constructivist pedagogy was employed in their science classes. The science curriculum in Taiwan (for both biology and physics) is presented to students in the form of textbooks, and examinations are based on the content of these textbooks. Therefore, it is important for teachers to cover all areas and, according to teachers' interviews, classes in Taiwan tend to be teacher-centred to enable them to cover the content of the textbook. Time constraints allow few diversions and fewer opportunities for students to exercise control over what they learn.
None of the students whom we interviewed in Taiwan were able to give an example of when Shared Control occurred in their science class. When asked about their responses to items related to the Shared Control scale, at least one third of the students had not understood the items completely. In some cases, students in Taiwan had interpreted items differently from students in Australia. For example “I help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on learning activities” was considered by some Taiwanese students to be an indication of how fast they would complete set tasks. On the whole, interviews revealed that students in Taiwan did not expect or want to be involved in lesson planning. The general consensus of the students whom we interviewed in Taiwan was that the teacher, as an expert, is more able to make decisions regarding teaching, planning and evaluation than the student.
It could be argued that Australia also suffers from an examination-driven curriculum. Generally, however, these pressures usually appear to be left until senior high school. At the junior high school level, Australian students are still subject to tests and assessments in the form of assignments, but not to the same degree as students in Taiwan. Like the science curriculum in Taiwan, the curriculum in Western Australia also includes set content that needs to be covered by teachers. Unlike Taiwan, where the content is defined by a textbook, teachers in Australia have more freedom in the ways in which they deliver the content. There does not appear to be the same depth of content that is expected to be covered in Australia and this would appear to allow teachers more time for alternative teaching methods (such as library research) and more opportunities to invite students to share control with the teacher, including the articulation of learning goals and the design of learning activities. Whilst shared control was not evident in all the classes that we observed in Australia, there appeared to be more opportunities than in Taiwan. In addition, most of the students whom we interviewed in Australia were able to provide examples of shared control in their class even though they had responded ‘sometimes’ or ‘seldom’ to most items (often indicating that they would prefer more Shared Control).
The interviews with students’ regarding the Shared Control scale raised some questions about the applicability of this construct (originally devised in a Western context) for Taiwan schools. In doing so, they highlight the importance of combining multiple methods to gain meaningful insights into students’ responses to a questionnaire.
Student Negotiation and Competition in the Education System
The Student Negotiation scale measures the extent to which opportunities exist for students to explain and justify to other students their newly developing ideas and to reflect on the viability of their own and other students’ ideas. According to the results of the quantitative data collection (see Table 3), students in Taiwan perceived statistically significantly less opportunities for negotiation than did students in Australia. Observations and interviews with students and teachers generally reflect this result. Analysis of the interviews indicates that the degree of competitiveness in the education system could be a contributing factor in the amount of student negotiation that takes place in science classes.
In Taiwan, good examination results are of paramount importance. If students attain good results, it increases the likelihood of being allocated a position in a ‘star’ school (a school with outstanding results as measured by the number of students who enter university). The interviews with teachers in Taiwan highlighted the competitive nature of teaching. The test scores of the different classes often were displayed for other teachers to read and teachers are under a considerable amount of pressure from the principal and home-room teachers to ensure that grades don’t slip and that students improve their performance if their results are lower than those of other teachers.
According to teachers in Taiwan, social mobility is available to students of any status through education. Because the expectation of many parents is that their child will attend university, they exert pressure on students to perform well in examinations. According to the teachers whom we interviewed, the competitive nature of education in Taiwan affects the type of learning environment that is created. Teaching in Taiwan is often centred on developing academic ability as efficiently as possible and diversions from teacher-centred methods can be viewed as off-task by parents and students. The competitive nature of the education system in Taiwan often forces teachers to use more teacher-centred methods, thus providing few opportunities for activities which include student negotiation. In addition, it was felt that, in terms of academic achievement, teaching methods which are not teacher-centred could be less effective.
Teachers in Australia did not appear to feel that the education system in Australia at the junior high school level was as competitive and therefore students were not under such a great deal of pressure. Student interviews revealed that the parents of students in the higher-ability classes, such as the academic extension classes, were more likely to expect their children to attend university than students in lower-ability classes. Many of the interviews of students in the lower-ability classes did not indicate that they aspired to attend university and, for the most part, were interested in pursuing a career involving a trade such as carpentry. Certainly, teachers in Australia did not indicate that there was pressure from the parents for students to succeed in the same way as in Taiwan.
It appears that the reduced competition in Australian schools allows teachers more time for classroom activities which include opportunities for student negotiation. Many of the science classes that were observed in Australia moved away from the teacher-centred lesson that was so prominent in Taiwan and included various group activities that provided the opportunities for students to be involved in negotiation at different levels.
Student Attitudes and Personal Relevance
The Personal Relevance scale is concerned with the connectedness of school science to students’ out-of-school experiences. According to the results from the CLES, students in Taiwan perceived significantly more personal relevance in their science classes than did students in Australia. The results also indicate that students in Taiwan have a significantly more positive attitude towards their science classes than do students in Australia (see Table 3). Statistically significant associations were found between students’ attitudes and students’ perceptions of the extent to which teachers make the science program personally relevant to them (Table 4). Interviews with students and teachers appear to support these data.
Students whom we interviewed in Taiwan generally had a positive attitude towards their science class. Despite the competitive nature of the examination-driven curriculum in Taiwan (discussed in the previous two sections), students felt that teachers go out of their way to make science classes relevant to their everyday lives. Students gave exmples of teachers taking the time on weekends to walk in the mountains to help them to learn biology, or of students helping the teacher to collect specimins from around the school after class. Teachers whom we interviewed did not consider the seemingly inflexible curriculum as a barrier to making science relevant and the students in their class were apparently appreciative of this. “The teacher always plans interesting lessons that are related to everyday life” (Taiwan Student F, Item 68) “Most of the content of biology [that she teaches us] is about everyday life, and so we find it useful” (Taiwan Student D, Item 63).
The interviews of the students in Australia indicate that their attitude towards science classes could depend on their ability level. Unlike Taiwan, where junior high schools students generally are randomly allocated to classes, many schools in Western Australia ‘stream’ students according to ability. This varies in different schools, with higher-ability students being placed in academic extension classes in some cases, with student selection of subjects dictating the classes which the students attend in other cases, and with schools randomly selecting students in still other cases.
Students whom we interviewed in higher-ability classes appeared to have more positive attitudes towards their science class than students in lower-ability classes. The interviews suggest that students in higher-ability classes were more likely to be given activities that students refer to as ‘enjoyable’, such as experiments or investigations conducted outside the classroom (which they also agreed made science more meaningful). In contrast, students in the lower-ability classes were inclined to find science lessons boring and unnecessary for their future.
Cross-Cultural
Viability of the CLES
The interviews with students from Taiwan and Australia helped us to interpret the quantitative data. Through these interviews, it was possible to ascertain the reasons for students’ responses to survey items and their feelings about various aspects of their classroom environment. During this process, the interviews highlighted the strong points and pitfalls associated with using a survey framed in a Western context in a different culture.
Students’ interviews were generally reflective of their perceptions as described by the CLES, with the exception of the Shared Control scale. Therefore, the survey data provided a good starting point for measuring students’ perceptions of the constructivist learning environment in both countries.
One pitfall which was highlighted through students’ interviews was that, despite the accuracy of the back translations, the Chinese version of the survey did not always capture the full or literal meaning of the original survey. In some cases, the survey items were outside the realm of students' experience, as with the item “I help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on learning experiences”. Some Taiwanese students had never been involved in class decision-making in the Western sense, and therefore interpreted the item to involve the speed with which they completed set tasks. An important point which emerged was that students were unlikely to be able to describe, with any degree of accuracy, a dimension of the classroom environment with which they have had no experience. Shared control was one such concept with which many students were unfamiliar and therefore they interpreted items differently from those students who had experienced shared control.
At the end of gathering the qualitative data, two important points emerged for the researchers from both countries. Firstly, whilst the classroom environments are different in the two countries, CLES scores do not necessarily reflect the overall quality of education. Students in Taiwan perceived that the activities encompassed by the scales Critical Voice and Student Negotiation occurred less frequently than did their Australian counterparts. In a Western sense, this could be considered as ‘less favourable’ perceptions of scales, but this has to be considered in terms of the survey and whether the scales reflect what is considered to be educationally important in the countries and cultures where the data were collected. Secondly, comparisons of quantitative data from different countries should be made with caution because we found that there were some items for which students in one country consistently interpreted items slightly differently from those in another country (as with the Shared Control scale).
Discussion and Conclusions
This cross-national study of science classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia combined quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative data, collected using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES), supported the reliability and validity of both an English and Mandarin version. The a priori factor structure was replicated with nearly all items loading on their own factor and no other factor. Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient) for two units of analysis, ability to differentiate between classrooms and discriminant validity were found to be acceptable.
A comparison of CLES scale mean scores in two countries revealed that Australian students perceived more Critical Voice and Student Negotiation and less Personal Relevance, Uncertainty and Shared Control than students in Taiwan. Also, the attitudes of Taiwanese students towards their science classes were more positive than for students in Australia.
Simple correlations revealed that a positive and statistically significant correlation between students’ attitudes and each of the five scales of the CLES for both Taiwan and Australian data. A multiple regression revealed positive and statistically significant independent associations between attitude, Personal Relevance, Shared Control and Student Negotiation for both Australia and Taiwan with the individual as the unit of analysis.
In a second phase of the study, data were collected through classroom observations and interviews with students and teachers in each country. This qualitative information was used to help make meaningful interpretations of quantitative data by taking into account the background, culture and situation of individuals.
Whilst initially observations appeared to conflict with some of the quantitative data, interviews helped the researchers to make sense of these incongruencies. In some cases, the qualitative data supported the quantitative data. Australian students perceived Critical Voice and Student Negotiation as occurring more often than Taiwanese students and interviews and observations confirmed that this was generally the case. We found, however, that there were cultural factors which affected responses to these scales. For example, students in Taiwan appeared to have a higher regard for their teachers than did Australian students and were therefore less likely to criticise them. We also found that students in Taiwan were more likely to include instances outside the science class (such as discussions with peers for the Student Negotiation scale) which could have increased the mean score for this scale.
Students in Taiwan indicated that the Personal Relevance scale occurred more frequently than did students in Australia. Interviews revealed that this could, in part, be due to students’ attitude towards science. Students in Taiwan generally agreed that science was required for their future and felt that their teachers went out of their way to ensure that lessons were relevant to their everyday life. In contrast, Australian students, particularly those in lower-ability classes, felt that science classes were less relevant to their out-of-school life.
Quantitative data indicated that Shared Control occurred more frequently in Taiwan than Australia. This was not reflected in the qualitative data and interviews revealed that many students in Taiwan had not experienced shared control as expressed in the CLES. Students’ interpretations of items were, therefore, more likely to differ to those of the Australian students. This was a poignant factor that researchers felt noteworthy, as it serves as a reminder that quantitative data on its own can be open to misinterpretation.
By combining qualitative and quantitative data, it was possible to determine not only that the learning environments in each country were different, but also some explanations of why they were different. It was found that, by weaving survey data with observations and interviews collected from the participants, we could gain a more complete picture and better explain differences and similarities between scale scores of the two countries.
Interviews with teachers, students and researchers revealed that the CLES has proven to be a useful method for providing important insights into the key characteristics of teaching epistemologies in science classes in both Taiwan and Australia. As such, this study suggests that the CLES is a useful tool for examining the transformation of teaching and learning practices in accordance with a constructivist perspective.
The findings provide a precautionary note regarding the use of surveys framed in a Western context. The interpretation of data which measures constructivist approaches from a Western viewpoint, could be limited if socio-cultural factors are not considered. Hence, comparisons of the results of surveys administered in different countries should be done with caution.
References
Brislin, R. W., 1983, Cross-cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 363-400.
Burden, R. L.,
& Fraser, B. J., 1993, Use of classroom environment assessments in school
psychology: a British perspective. Psychology in the Schools, 30,
232-240.
Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J., 1983, A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environments as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 55-61.
Fraser, B. J., 1981, Test of science-related attitudes handbook (TOSRA) (Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research).
Fraser, B. J., 1986, Classroom environment (London: Croom Helm).
Fraser, B. J., 1993, Incorporating classroom and school environment ideas into teacher education programs. In T. A. Simpson (ed.), Teacher educators’ annual handbook 1993 (Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology), 135-152.
Fraser, B. J., 1994, Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (New York: Macmillan), 493-541.
Fraser, B. J., 1996a, NARST’s expansion, internationalization and cross-nationalization: History in the making. Presidential address at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (St Louis, MO).
Fraser, B. J., 1996b, Grain sizes in educational research: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Paper presented at the seminar on Research Methods in the Study of Science Classroom Environments (Taipei, Taiwan).
Fraser, B. J., 1998, Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (eds.), The international handbook of science education (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 527-564.
Fraser, B. J., Dryden, M., & Taylor, P. C., 1998, April, The impact of systemic reform efforts on instruction in high school science classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (San Diego, CA).
Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L., 1983, 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. & 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 (London: Pergamon), 271-292.
Fraser, B. J. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. London: 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., & Ellett, C. D. (Guest Editors), 1997, Advances in research on educational learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 267-354 (whole issue).
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.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J., 1997, Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: an overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79 (1), 14-21.
Taylor, P. C., 1994, Collaborating to reconstruct teaching: The influence of researcher beliefs. In K Tobin (ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 267-298.
Taylor, P. C., 1996, Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151-173.
Taylor, P. C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J., 1995a, 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., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J., 1995b, A constructivist perspective on monitoring learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA).
Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J., 1991, 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, 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).
Thompson, B., 1998a, Review of ‘what if there were no significance tests?’. Educational and Psychlogical Measurement, 58(2), 334-346.
Thompson, B., 1998b, Five methodology errors in educational research: The pantheon of statistical significance and other faux pas. Invited address presented at the annual meeting ot the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (eds.), 1998, Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (eds.), The international handbook of science education (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers) 623-640.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (eds.), 1990, Windows into science classes: Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning (London: Falmer Press).
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.
Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (eds.), 1993, Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education (London: Falmer Press).
Appendix 1
Items
in Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)
Learning about the world
1. I learn
about the world outside of school.
2. My new
learning starts with problems about the world outside of school.
3. I learn
how science can be part of my out-of-school life.
4. I get a
better understanding of the world outside of school.
5. I learn
interesting things about the world outside of school.
6. What I
learn has nothing to do with my out-of-school life.
Learning about science
7. I
learn that science cannot provide perfect answers to problems.
8. I
learn that science has changed over time.
9. I
learn that science is influenced by people's values and opinions.
10. I
learn about the different sciences used by people in other cultures.
11. I
learn that modern science is different from the science of long ago.
12. I
learn that science is about creating theories.
Learning to speak out
13. It's
OK for me to ask the teacher "why do I have to learn this?"
14. It's
OK for me to question the way I'm being taught.
15. It's
OK for me to complain about teaching activities that are confusing.
16. It's
OK for me to complain about anything that prevents me from learning.
17. It's
OK for me to express my opinion.
18. It's
OK for me to speak up for my rights.
Learning to learn
19. I help the
teacher to plan what I'm going to learn.
20. I
help the teacher to decide how well I am learning.
21. I
help the teacher to decide which activities are best for me.
22. I
help the teacher to decide how much time I spend on learning activities.
23. I
help the teacher to decide which activities I do.
24. I
help the teacher to assess my learning.
Learning to communicate
25. I get the
chance to talk to other students.
26. I
talk with other students about how to solve problems.
27. I
explain my understandings to other students.
28. I
ask other students to explain their thoughts.
29. Other
students ask me to explain my ideas.
30. Other
students explain their ideas to me.
Scoring
Items are scored a 1, 2,
3, 4, and 5, respectively, for the responses Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes,
Often and Almost Always, with the exception of item 6 which is scored in
reverse. Omitted or invalid responses scored a 3. To obtain the total score for
each scale, add the scores for the six items in each scale.
Table 1. Factor Loadings for the CLES Items in
Taiwan and Australia
|
|
Factor Loading |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Item No |
Personal
Relevance |
|
Uncertainty |
|
Critical
Voice |
|
Shared
Control |
|
Student
Negotiation |
|||||||||||
|
|
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
1 |
.75 |
.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
2 |
.75 |
.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
3 |
.72 |
.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
4 |
.77 |
.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
5 |
.75 |
.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
6 |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
7 |
|
|
.58 |
.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
8 |
|
|
.67 |
.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
9 |
|
|
.63 |
.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
10 |
|
|
.58 |
.71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
11 |
|
|
.70 |
.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
12 |
|
|
.59 |
.56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
.75 |
.45 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
.73 |
.46 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
.77 |
.74 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
.66 |
.70 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
.60 |
- |
|
|
|
.44 |
||||||||||
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
.65 |
- |
|
|
|
.41 |
||||||||||
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.75 |
.71 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.74 |
.79 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.85 |
.83 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.84 |
.81 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.84 |
.78 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.77 |
.74 |
|
|
||||||||||
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.53 |
.53 |
||||||||||
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.76 |
.70 |
||||||||||
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.79 |
.71 |
||||||||||
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.81 |
.71 |
||||||||||
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.76 |
.65 |
||||||||||
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.78 |
.56 |
||||||||||
% Variance |
6.5 |
6.7 |
5.0 |
7.4 |
7.4 |
5.2 |
30.5 |
30.7 |
11.2 |
10.1 |
|
||||||||||
Eigenvalue |
1.96 |
2.02 |
1.5 |
2.22 |
2.21 |
1.57 |
9.16 |
9.20 |
3.37 |
3.02 |
|
||||||||||
Factor loadings smaller than 0.40 have been
omitted.
The sample consisted of 1081 students in 50
classes in Australia and 1879 students in 50 classes in Taiwan.
Table 2. Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach
Alpha Coefficient), Discriminant Validity (Mean Correlation With Other Scales)
and Ability to Differentiate Between Classrooms (ANOVA Results) for Two Units
of Analysis for the CLES
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
Scale |
Unit of Analysis |
Alpha Reliability |
|
Mean Correlation with
other Scales |
|
ANOVA Eta2 |
|
||||||
|
|
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Personal Relevance |
Individual |
0.88 |
0.87 |
0.44 |
0.42 |
0.16** |
0.27** |
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.94 |
0.97 |
0.60 |
0.61 |
|
|
||||||
Uncertainty |
Individual |
0.76 |
0.83 |
0.40 |
0.32 |
0.14** |
0.09** |
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.87 |
0.94 |
0.55 |
0.49 |
|
|
||||||
Critical Voice |
Individual |
0.85 |
0.73 |
0.43 |
0.39 |
0.17** |
0.08** |
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.92 |
0.79 |
0.56 |
0.57 |
|
|
||||||
Shared Control |
Individual |
0.91 |
0.92 |
0.31 |
0.39 |
0.18** |
0.14** |
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.97 |
0.98 |
0.37 |
0.53 |
|
|
||||||
Student Negotiation |
Individual |
0.89 |
0.85 |
0.41 |
0.42 |
0.17** |
0.10** |
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.94 |
0.94 |
0.60 |
0.56 |
|
|
||||||
Attitude Scale |
Individual |
0.91 |
0.92 |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.96 |
0.98 |
|
|
|
|
||||||
** p<0.01
The sample
consisted of 1081 students in 50 classes in Australia and 1879 students in 50
classes in Taiwan.
The eta2 statistic (which is the ratio
of ‘between’ to ‘total’ sums of squares) represents the proportion of variance
explained by class membership.
Table 3. Mean,
Standard Deviation, Effect Size and t Test for Independent Samples for
Differences Between Taiwan and Australia in Perceptions of Classroom
Environment and Attitude with the Class Mean as the Unit of Analysis
Scale |
No.
of Items |
|
Mean |
|
Standard Deviation |
|
Difference Between
Countries |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
Effect Size |
t |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Personal Relevance |
5 |
3.17 |
3.30 |
0.34 |
0.35 |
0.38 |
1.93* |
|||||||||||||
Uncertainty |
6 |
3.28 |
3.67 |
0.26 |
0.27 |
1.47 |
6.88** |
|||||||||||||
Critical Voice |
6 |
3.25 |
2.73 |
0.36 |
0.23 |
1.76 |
-8.37** |
|||||||||||||
Shared Control |
6 |
2.28 |
2.54 |
0.41 |
0.38 |
0.65 |
3.23** |
|||||||||||||
Student Negotiation |
6 |
3.39 |
3.15 |
0.34 |
0.31 |
0.73 |
-3.79** |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Attitude |
8 |
2.35 |
2.64 |
0.44 |
0.37 |
0.46 |
3.55* |
|||||||||||||
*p<0.05 **p<0.01
Table 4. Simple Correlation and
Multiple Regression Analysis for Associations Between Student Attitude and
Dimensions of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)
Scale |
Unit of Analysis |
|
Simple Correlation (r) |
|
Standardised Regression
Coefficient (b ) |
|||||||||||||
|
|
Australia |
Taiwan |
Australia |
Taiwan |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Personal Relevance |
Individual |
0.50** |
0.51** |
0.39** |
0.40** |
|||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.71** |
0.85** |
0.57** |
0.83** |
|||||||||||||
Uncertainty |
Individual |
0.31** |
0.27** |
-0.01 |
0.04 |
|||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.54** |
0.50** |
-0.10 |
0.08 |
|||||||||||||
Critical Voice |
Individual |
0.34** |
0.27** |
0.05 |
0.02 |
|||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.59** |
0.57** |
0.18 |
0.03 |
|||||||||||||
Shared Control |
Individual |
0.27** |
0.37** |
0.09** |
0.15** |
|||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.47** |
0.57** |
0.18 |
-0.02 |
|||||||||||||
Student Negotiation |
Individual |
0.36** |
0.32** |
0.14** |
0.06** |
|||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
0.61** |
0.61** |
0.08 |
0.09 |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Multiple Correlation (R) |
Individual |
|
0.54** |
0.55** |
||||||||||||||
|
Class Mean |
|
0.77** |
0.85** |
||||||||||||||
**p<0.01
* |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
Fig. 1. A Comparison of Australian and Taiwanese Students’ Perception on the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey.