[ Proceedings Contents ] [ Schedule ] [ Abstracts ] [ WAIER Home ]

A learning environment study of tertiary classrooms

Chenicheri Sid. Nair and Darrell L. Fisher
National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics
Curtin University of Technology
The purpose of this study was to modify and validate a new form of the Colleges and Universities Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), and to then use it to compare students' and instructors' actual and preferred perceptions of their science classroom learning environments at the tertiary level of education. The modifications to the CUCEI included personalising the items before it was used to assess the perceptions of students and adding two new scales, namely, Cooperation and Equity. The reliabilities of the scales of the modified CUCEI ranged from 0.73 to 0.94. Students perceptions of their classrooms at the tertiary level indicated a preference for a more favourable learning environment in all areas measured by the seven scales in the CUCEI. Female and male students perceived their classroom environments similarly. Mature students in the classes perceived their classroom more positively on two scales, Task Orientation and Equity. Instructors in all the science classes generally perceived their environment more favourably than their students.

Introduction

Research over the last four decades has recognised that students' and teachers' perceptions are important parameters of the social and psychological aspects of the learning environments of school classrooms (Fraser, 1994, 1998). Considerable work has been done on the assessment and investigation of classroom environments in primary and secondary schools with a variety of instruments (Fraser, 1994, 1998).

Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, and Tobin, (1987) reported that despite the existence of strong traditional classroom environment research at the primary and secondary level, surprisingly little work had been done at the higher education levels because of the shortage of suitable instruments (e.g., Pace & Stern, 1958; Halpin & Croft, 1963; Stern, 1970). However, there has been considerable work on trying to predict students' academic success at the university level (e.g., Killen, 1994; Larose & Roy, 1991). Killen's (1994) work suggested that instructors' perceptions of students failure in succeeding in university work was primarily due to irregular attendance at lectures, poor literacy skills, too much reliance on direction from lecturers, lack of self discipline, insufficient effort, lack of academic ability, failure to realise that the depth of understanding required at university is different from that required at school, lack of maturity and the lowering of entrance requirements. Whereas, students perceived their failure in university studies was caused by lecturers who are out of touch with students' needs, too many demands on students' time, boring presentations by lecturers, assignments for which expectations are not clear, inappropriate assessment procedures, heavy course workload and lecturers with unrealistically high expectations of students. Similar findings were also evident in a study by Booth (1997) when he investigated experiences and expectations of students in transition from high school to university studies.

The College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) was developed in 1986 to fill this void (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986). The CUCEI was specifically designed for small class sizes of about 30 students for upper secondary and tertiary levels utilising either seminar or tutorials as the mode of delivery. The seven-scale, 49 item instrument was designed with both a student and instructor version for the actual and preferred classroom environment. The seven scales in the CUCEI are Personalisation, Involvement, Student Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, Task Orientation, Innovation and Individualism. The CUCEI is available in the actual and preferred versions. The actual version measures the participants actual perception of their classroom learning environment whereas the preferred form measures perception of the classroom learning environment preferred by the students in a study. The instrument was also adapted and validated in higher education institutes in the USA and Spain (Marcelo, 1988; Winston, Vahala, Nichols, Wintrow, & Rome, 1994). Recently, the instrument has been utilised by Yarrow, Millwater and Fraser (1997) to assess student perceptions of their actual and preferred environments to identify actual-preferred discrepancies and guide improvements in a second year university education program in Australia. In a similar study utilising the original CUCEI, though for the first time in an undergraduate nursing program, Fisher and Parkinson (1998) showed that the classroom environment could be improved with feedback from student perceptions thus changing the environment toward that preferred by the students. One interesting revelation in this study was of the students lack of satisfaction and the approaches related to the lecture overload they were exposed to each day.

Fraser, Treagust, and Dennis, (1986) utilised the CUCEI in evaluating alternative high schools which catered for adult learners. Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, and Tobin, (1987) had completed a similar study utilising a comparative approach with respect to adult learners in two alternative high schools with three control situations involving the following scenarios: technical colleges where adults can attend the evening classes out of interest; conventional grade 11 or 12 classes with adult learners enrolled and integrated in the conventional classes; conventional grade 11 or 12 classes with no adult learners; and senior colleges that cater for the adult learners. The study showed that the most favourable environment was evident in the evening technical college, followed by the senior colleges, high school catering for adolescents only and finally, the high school where the adults, were integrated with adolescents. The only exception to this trend was in student cohesiveness where it was most favourable in the high school environment.

Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, and Tobin, (1987) also revealed that the classroom perceptions of students and teachers yielded results which were similar to prior research completed in secondary and primary levels, both in the USA (Moos, 1979) and Australia (Fisher & Fraser 1983; Fraser 1984). Both students and instructors preferred a more positive environment. However, instructors tended to perceive their classes more favourably on several of the environment scales than did their students. Such a trend was also evident in a study by Villar (1994) which focused on tertiary student teachers in a college of education in Spain. Villar (1994) found that a cooperative teacher-centred model was what students preferred in all classes and students also wanted to have a greater say in the evaluation process.

Walberg's theory on educational productivity indicates nine factors which contribute to the variance in students' cognitive and affective outcomes. The nine factors being student ability, maturity, motivation, the quality of and quantity of instruction, the psychological environment at home, the classroom social group, the peer group outside the classroom and the time involved with the video/television media (Walberg, 1981, 1984). The model was successfully tested as part of a national study showing that student achievement and attitudes were influenced jointly by these factors (Walberg, Fraser, & Welch, 1986). An interesting outcome from these studies was the finding that classroom and school environments were important influences on student outcomes. These findings lend support to Getzels and Thelen's (1960) theoretical model which describes the class as a social system in which group behaviour can be predicated from the personality needs, role expectations and classroom environment. Studies have also shown that learning environments are accurate predictors of the quality of learning that students receive (Fraser, 1991; Ramsden, 1991; Templeton & Jensen, 1993).

Recent studies now indicate that a personalised measurement, that is the student's personal perception in his or her role in the classroom yields greater feedback from participants in the study whereas the former approach makes the student provide perceptions of the class as a whole (Fraser, Fisher, & McRobbie, 1996).

Gender influence on the classroom environment

As described earlier, research over the years have shown that appreciable learning can be attributed to the environment in which students are exposed to in their classrooms (Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Studies in the classroom have also shown that both girls and boys differ in their perceptions of their of classroom environment (e.g., Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997; Ferguson & Fraser, 1996; Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 1998; Riah & Fraser, 1999; Rickards, Fisher, & Fraser, 1997; Suarez, Pias, Membiela, & Dupia, 1998).

Studies have shown consistently that female students perceive their teachers in a more positive way than do the male students (Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 1998; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; Fraser, Giddings, & McRobbie, 1992, 1993; Lim, 1995; Riah & Fraser, 1999; Rickards, Fisher & Fraser, 1997; Suarez, Pias, Membiela, & Dupia, 1998; Wong & Fraser, 1994). Wong and Fraser (1994) also found that male students learning in a science laboratory had more favourable perceptions of open ended activities which point towards a more constructivist approach to learning. Research in general has suggested that boys and girls do react differently to science laboratory activities (Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997; Tobin & Garnet, 1987). Lim (1995) in his study of secondary school students found that male students perceived their classrooms as allowing greater opportunities for working at their own pace and time while female students viewed their classrooms as opportunities to participate and have control of their own learning. Parker, Rennie, and Harding (1995) reinforced research done by Johnson and Johnson (1991) showing that learning in science classrooms takes on a competitive nature and, boys prefer competitive and individualised learning, whereas, girls prefer learning which involves cooperative models and mutual assistance. Similar findings were reported by Owens and Straton (1980) and Byrne, Hattie, and Fraser (1986). Johnson and Johnson (1991), however, showed that as students progressed to higher grades both male and female students seemed to gain more interest in competitive learning. Ferguson and Fraser (1996), as well reported a similar finding in their study involving transition of students from elementary schools to high schools in that the perceptions of both sexes moved closer together as they moved into higher level studies. This study, however, also revealed that boys were generally negative with their perceptions of the environment at the elementary level in comparison to females. Female students' perceptions of the classroom generally deteriorated as they entered high school science classes.

In a study in The Netherlands involving the perceptions of students in a reality centred environment involving both Mathematics and Physics, some interesting findings were reported (Terwel, Brekelmans, Wubbels, & Eeden, 1994). In the mathematics environment, it was noted that the more girls there were in a class the lower the mean perception of cooperation. In other words, there was less cooperation and more distraction in classes with more girls than in classes with fewer girls. Girls perceived both the mathematics and physics classes as less reality-centered than the boys. Girls also perceived less participation of students in general in the lessons. This was explained in terms that girls hold a higher standard in judging classroom participation in comparison to their male counterparts. Interestingly, data from the physics project revealed that girls perceived less cooperation and closeness between teachers and students than do boys. These data add support to the different behaviour that has been reported of teachers with the different sexes (Goddard & Spear, 1987; Kahle, 1996). The work by Midgley, Eccles, and Feldlaufer (1991) however, show that both boys and girls seem to be equally affected by the perceived warmth, friendliness and fairness of their teachers.

Better achievement in classrooms have been relates to classrooms with greater cohesiveness, satisfaction and less disorganisation and friction, (Fraser, 1989). Tamir and Caridnin (1993) using the findings of Fraser (1989) reported in their investigation of Arab schools that there were no significant differences between males and females in their perceptions of their learning environments. Forgasz (1995) also reported that teacher quality including support to individual students, especially in females to be important variables that relate to students achievement and learning in the science course, mathematics. The study also revealed that the teacher's personal interest in the students encouraged active participation and installed investigative skills.

Studies that have been carried to date, have shown that different sexes perceive their classroom environments whether actual or preferred differently. However, there is a dilemma faced by teachers with the different perceptions when the classes are coeducational. This being, to make the learning environment to be more in line with the preferred environment when both sexes are present could in fact not be equally advantageous for male and female students as both sexes have different perceptions of a preferred classroom (Fraser, Giddings, & McRobbie, 1993; Fraser & Tobin, 1991).

Method

Student and instructor perception of their classroom learning environment were measured using the seven scale, 49-item modified and personalised College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). The CUCEI in this study was modified in three ways. First, the actual and preferred versions of the questionnaire were personalised and secondly, only five of the seven original scales were used and two new scales included; the Cooperation and Equity scales (Fraser, Fisher & McRobbie, 1996). Finally, the existing four response alternatives were replaced with a five-point Likert Scale. The number of scales was maintained at seven with each scale having seven items. Table 1, below shows the seven scales in the final version of the modified CUCEI along with sample items.

Table 1: Descriptive information for the modified CUCEI
Scale NameDescriptionSample Items

PersonalisationExtent of opportunities for individual students to interact with the instructor and of concern for students personal welfare.The instructor goes out of his/her way to help me.
InnovationExtent to which the instructor plans new, unusual activities, teaching techniques and assignments.The instructor often thinks o f unusual activities.
Student
cohesiveness
Extent to which students know, help and are friendly towards each other.I make friends easily in this class.
Task
orientation
Extent to which class activities are clear and well organised.Class assignments are clear and I know what I am doing.
IndividualisationExtent to which students are allowed to make decisions and are treated differently according to ability, interests and rate of working.I am allowed to choose activities and how I will work.
CooperationExtent to which students cooperate rather than compete with one another on learning tasks.I work with other students in this class.
EquityExtent to which students are treated equally by the teacher.I am treated the same as other students in this class.

Qualitative data

Volunteers were sought in the qualitative component of this study to take part in an interview regarding their perceptions of the classroom environment. Three students were picked from the volunteers and interviewed. Three instructors at the tertiary level from the different science disciplines were also interviewed. In addition to the interviews, the researcher was involved in classroom observation at the tertiary level.

The sample

A total of 504 students participated in the study which covered a variety of science subjects. 205 participants were from Canadian institutions and the remaining, 299 students Australian institutions. Twenty four instructors took part in this study. Both students and teachers completed both forms of the instrument, the preferred and actual.

Reliability and validity of the instruments

Internal consistency

The Cronbach alpha reliability using two units of analyses for each of the seven scales in the CUCEI, for the actual and preferred versions are presented in Table 2. The Cronbach alpha reliability figures using the individual student as the unit of analysis ranged from 0.73 to 0.93 and 0.76 to 0.94 for the actual and preferred versions respectively. With class means as the unit of analysis, all alpha reliability values were higher, ranging from 0.84 to 0.97 for the actual version and 0.87 to 0.98 for the preferred. Good alpha reliability figures was also apparent for instructor versions, ranging from 0.72 to 0.90 for the actual version and from 0.72 to 0.93 for the preferred version.

Table 2: Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient) for Two Units of Analysis for the CUCEI and Discriminant Validity (Mean Correlation with Other Scales) and the Ability to Differentiate between Classrooms (ANOVA) for Two Units of Analysis
CUCEI ScalesUnit of AnalysisReliabilityMean Correlation with other scalesANOVA
eta2
ActualPreferred ActualPreferred ActualPreferred

PersonalisationIndividual
Class
0.87
0.95
0.84
0.87
0.790.720.34
0.30
0.45
0.30
0.23**
Student
cohesiveness
Individual
Class
0.82
0.96
0.83
0.88
0.770.750.20
0.38
0.47
0.43
0.28**
Task
orientation
Individual
Class
0.77
0.92
0.79
0.92
0.640.740.27
0.33
0.44
0.44
0.27**
Cooperation Individual
Class
0.92
0.96
0.93
0.94
0.840.870.25
0.29
0.45
0.38
0.11*
Individualisation Individual
Class
0.82
0.93
0.80
0.94
0.850.900.15
0.34
0.25
0.35
0.22**
Equity Individual
Class
0.93
0.97
0.94
0.98
0.900.900.30
0.38
0.42
0.45
0.09*
Innovation Individual
Class
0.73
0.84
0.76
0.93
0.720.930.22
0.35
0.43
0.39
0.13**

** p< 0.001  * p< 0.01The sample consisted of 504 students in 26 classes and 24 instructors

Discriminant validity

The discriminant validity is described as the extent to which a scale measures an unique dimension not covered by the other scales in the instrument. Table 2 indicates that the mean correlations of the scales in the CUCEI ranged from 0.15 to 0.38 for the actual version and from 0.25 to 0.47 for the preferred form. From the values, the CUCEI appears to measure distinct although somewhat overlapping aspects of classroom environment, but maintaining distinctions between each scale in each of the seven dimensions in the instrument.

Capability of differentiating between classrooms

The characteristics of differentiating between perceptions in different classes was investigated for each scale using a one-way ANOVA with class membership as the main effect and using the individual as the unit of analysis. Table 2 above indicates that each CUCEI scale differentiated significantly (p<0.001) between classrooms.

Learning environments

Perceptions of students

At the tertiary level, students were generally more in agreement to what was expected in their preferred classroom environment as the standard deviation in the preferred versions were generally lower (see Figure 1). All seven scales were statistically significant at this level (see Table 3). This suggest at the tertiary level students perceived a greater degree of difference between their actual and preferred environments. The greatest statistical difference was observed in the Individualisation scale.

Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for the Preferred and Actual
Forms of the CUCEI for Students in their Tertiary Level of Studies
Scales MeanDifferenceStandard Deviation
Actual (A)Preferred (P)(P-A) ActualPreferred

Personalisation 3.564.19+0.63** 0.780.59
Student cohesiveness 3.363.82+0.46** 0.760.79
Task orientation 3.944.28+0.34** 0.520.53
Cooperation 3.383.93+0.55** 0.950.89
Individualisation 2.104.23+2.13** 0.710.53
Equity 4.424.61+0.40** 0.640.58
Innovation 3.293.48+0.19** 0.690.71

**p<0.05  n=130

Figure 1: Mean profile for the seven scales in the Actual and Preferred
forms of the CUCEI for students in their tertiary level of study

Perception based on the gender of students

All female students perceived differences in all the scales between the actual and preferred environments (see Table 4). However, statistically significant differences were observed in only five of the seven scales in male students perceptions (see Table 5). The scales being Personalisation, Student Cohesiveness, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Individualisation. However, both male and female students appeared to have a varied perception of the degree of cooperation in their actual classroom. This is indicated by the relatively large standard deviations, 0.92 and 1.00 for female and male students respectively. With the exception of the Cooperation scale for male students which has a standard deviation of 1.02, both male and female students were generally in agreement about what their preferred classroom should be like, though the mean scores for the female students were very slightly higher than those of the male students in all scales except for Individualisation and Student Cohesiveness. Female students appeared to want less of a decision making role in the classroom. Female students also indicated a greater preference for cooperation than the male students in their classrooms. This is similar to findings in other research (Johnson & Johnson, 1991; Owens and Straton, 1980; Rennie & Harding, 1995).

Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for the Actual and Preferred
Forms of the CUCEI for Female Students
Scales MeanDifferenceStandard Deviation
Actual (A)Preferred (P)(P-A) ActualPreferred

Personalisation 3.644.26+0.62** 0.820.55
Student cohesiveness 3.383.78+0.40** 0.760.81
Task orientation 3.934.34+0.60** 0.520.53
Cooperation 3.444.08+0.64** 0.920.68
Individualisation 2.042.94+0.90** 0.660.82
Equity 4.344.67+0.33** 0.670.49
Innovation 3.233.56+0.33** 0.600.74

**p<0.05  n=99

Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for the Actual and Preferred
Forms of the CUCEI for Male Students
Scales MeanDifferenceStandard Deviation
Actual (A)Preferred (P)(P-A) ActualPreferred

Personalisation 3.444.09+0.66** 0.750.63
Student cohesiveness 3.333.84+0.51** 0.750.76
Task orientation 3.944.23+0.29** 0.550.54
Cooperation 3.373.76+0.39** 1.001.02
Individualisation 2.143.04+0.90** 0.740.87
Equity 4.454.58+0.13 0.630.63
Innovation 3.373.40+0.03 0.770.69

**p<0.05  n=106  Note: Statistically non significant differences are represented on the respective Figures as the average of the means (actual and preferred) and appears as the same point on the figure.

As indicated in Table 6, both males and females perceived their environment almost identically, Table 6. This similarity in perceptions replicates findings in other studies, that both male and female students perceptions moved closer together as they moved into higher level studies (Fraser 1989; Ferguson & Fraser, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1991). One other possible reason for the closeness of the perceptions could be attributed to the same students from the high schools going to the local community college. This observation could therefore lend further support to the observations of the instructors at the local community college who have found students in their cliques from their local high schools and take college life as an extension of their high schools. However, the findings here also contrast against findings that show that there are significant difference in the perceptions between male and female students (e.g., Burkam, Lee, & Smerdon, 1997; Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 1998; Rickards, Fisher, & Fraser, 1997; Ferguson & Fraser, 1996; Suarez, Pias, Membiela, & Dupia, 1998; Waldrip & Fisher, 1999). Though female and male students did not perceive any difference in the level of cooperation in their actual classroom environment, female students indicated that they preferred greater cooperation in their preferred classroom environment. This was the only scale that showed a significant difference in the preferred form.

+ 0.07
Table 6: Comparison of Means and Differences for the Actual and Preferred
Forms of the CUCEI for Male and Female students
Scales ActualDifferencePreferredDifference
Male (M)Female (F)(M-F) Male (M)Female (F)(M-F)

Personalisation 3.433.64- 0.21 4.104.26- 0.16
Student cohesiveness 3.333.38- 0.05 3.903.78+ 0.12
Task orientation 3.943.93+ 0.01 4.254.34- 0.09
Cooperation 3.373.443.774.34- 0.57**
Individualisation 2.142.04+ 0.10 3.102.94+ 0.08
Equity 4.454.34+ 0.11 4.594.67- 0.08
Innovation 3.373.23+ 0.14 3.413.56- 0.15

**p<0.05 *p<0.1  n=99

An interesting feature of the results depicted in Table 6 below was that both male and female students were in agreement that there was hardly any difference in the way they were treated by their instructors as measured by the Equity scale. This was clearly echoed by the students when they stated without reservations the following:

Our work is pretty much judged equally.
Everyone is very much treated the same.
No, I have not seen any discrepancies.

Age of students

Mature students are defined in this as students who have started to attend tertiary studies at the age of 19 and above. Studies have shown that older students perceive their classroom environment differently from younger students (Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, & Tobin, 1987). The results as profiled in Table 7 and Figure 2 show that older students in the classes of this study also preferred a more positive environment.

Statistically significant differences were however only found in four of the seven scales. The four scales were Personalisation, Task Orientation, Individualisation and Innovation. Mature students seemed also to generally greater innovation in the teaching approaches at the tertiary level. This is indicated by the mean values, 3.13 for the actual and 3.44 for the preferred form respectively. Mature students also indicated that they were treated equally and that they did not perceive any difference in equity. The standard deviations also indicate that mature students were in general agreement in their perceptions of their actual classroom environment, and of their preferred classroom environment.

Table 7: Means and Differences for the Actual and Preferred Forms of
the CUCEI Mature Age Students at the Tertiary Level
Scales MeanDifferenceStandard Deviation
Actual (A)Preferred (P)(P-A) ActualPreferred

Personalisation 3.783.98 0.20** 0.470.54
Student cohesiveness 3.403.560.16 0.960.77
Task orientation 3.934.220.29** 0.520.49
Cooperation 3.323.630.31 0.940.99
Individualisation 2.152.800.65** 0.580.68
Equity 4.514.40- 0.11 0.540.66
Innovation 3.133.440.31** 0.580.68

**p<0.05  n=45  Note: Statistically non significant differences are represented on the respective figures as the average of the means (actual and preferred) and appears as the same point on the figure.

Figure 2: Scale mean profiles for mature students for the CUCEI.

Difference in perception between mature and first time students

When the classroom environments of the mature students were compared with those that have come fresh from the senior secondary schools, two out of the four statistically significant scales were perceived more favourably by the mature students (see Table 8). Mature students perceived the scales of Task Orientation and Equity more favourably whereas those below 19 years of age perceived the scales of Personalisation and Individualisation more favourably. This comparison is limited because of the limited sample size, with only 45 mature students used in the paired t-test analysis. Though both mature and younger students preferred a more positive classroom environment, the younger students had a greater preference for a more positive environment.

Table 8: Comparison of Means and Differences for the Preferred and Actual Forms
of the CUCEI between Mature and First Time Students at the College
Scales ActualPreferred
Mature
(M)
First Time
(FT)
Difference
(FT-M)
Mature
(M)
First Time
(FT)
Difference
(FT-M)

PersonalisationActual 3.784.000.22** 3.984.230.25**
Student cohesivenessActual 3.403.30- 0.10 3.563.960.40**
Task orientationActual 3.932.57- 1.36** 4.224.350.13
CooperationActual 3.323.330.01 3.634.050.42**
IndividualisationActual 2.153.431.28*** 2.803.080.28
EquityActual 4.513.83- 0.68*** 4.404.750.35**
InnovationActual 3.133.440.31 3.443.34- 0.10

**p< 0.05  ***p< 0.0001  n=45 pairs Note: Statistically non significant differences are represented on the respective figures as the average of the means (actual and preferred) and appears as the same point on the figure.

Younger students also perceived their classes to be less equitable than did the mature students and the difference in the actual perceptions can be gauged from the mean scores which are 4.51 for the mature students and 3.83 for the younger students. The findings here contrast with the findings of Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, and Tobin (1987) in which the least favoured classroom environment were those where adults were integrated with adolescents. However, the findings by Fraser, Treagust, Williamson, and Tobin (1987) were replicated in this study with respect to the low mean scores by mature students in the Individualisation and Personalisation scales. When the preferred environments were compared, younger students had a greater preference for changes in the four scales that were observed to have statistically significant differences in the mean values. These four scales were namely Personalisation, Student Cohes iveness, Cooperation and Equity.

Instructors' perceptions of their classrooms

Table 9 and Figure 3 report the results of the perceptions of instructors at the tertiary level. Once again, as shown in Figure 3, the preferred scores were generally higher than the actual scores with the exception of the Task Orientation scale. This suggest that instructors would prefer less structured classes.

Table 9: Means and Standard Deviations for the Actual and Preferred
versions of the CUCEI for Tertiary Instructors
Scales MeanDifferenceStandard Deviation
Actual (A)Preferred (P)(P-A) ActualPreferred

Personalisation 3.674.020.35** 0.600.48
Student cohesiveness 3.953.81- 0.14 0.440.70
Task orientation 4.614.22- 0.39** 0.330.46
Cooperation 3.163.440.28* 0.630.66
Individualisation 1.731.91- 0.18 0.710.91
Equity 4.084.680.60** 0.470.44
Innovation 2.342.930.59 0.130.35

**p<0.05  *p<0.01  n=9  Note: Statistically non significant differences are represented on the respective figures as the average of the means (actual and preferred) and appears as the same point on the figure.

Table 9 also indicates that of the seven scales, only four had statistically significant differences in the mean values. These scales are Personalisation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity scales. The standard deviation figures also reveal that the instructors at the tertiary level were in greater agreement as to their actual classroom environment but had somewhat differing perceptions of what their preferred classroom should be like.

Figure 3: Scale mean profile for tertiary instructors in
the Actual and Preferred Form of the CUCEI.

When a comparison of perceptions were made between instructors and students, the following were observed. The same pattern observed in previous research that is, instructors always perceiving their classroom more positively, was less apparent at the tertiary level, (see Figure 4). Tertiary instructors clearly perceived their environment more favourably in only three of the seven scales; Personalisation, Student Cohesiveness and Task Orientation. A possible explanation could be that at the tertiary level, instructors are more in tune with student preferences and the instructors seem to be accommodating to the changes that students undergo in their environment after transition.

Figure 4: Comparison of Actual classroom environment scales
between instructors and students at the tertiary level.

Conclusions

This study confirms the reliability and validity of the modified and personalised CUCEI. This study is distinct in that it is the first study utilising the modified CUCEI at the tertiary level. Instructors could find the modified and personalised CUCEI to be a valuable source of information, particularly for giving them an insight into their classroom environment via their students' perceptions. Studies have indicated that student perceptions of their classroom and instructor perceptions of their own classroom to be reliable indicators that can be utilised for improving teaching and learning (e.g., Fraser, 1994, 1998; Fraser & Fisher, 1994).

Generally, the same pattern observed in previous research that is, instructors always perceiving their classroom more positively, was less apparent at the tertiary level. Both male and female students however, perceived their classroom environment similarly when they moved from one level to the next. This is in step with findings in other studies, where both male and female students perceptions moved closer together as they moved into higher level studies (Fraser 1989; Ferguson & Fraser, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

References

Booth, A. (1997). Listening to students: experiences and expectations in the transition to a history degree. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 205-219.

Byrne, D. B., Hattie, J.A., & Fraser, B.J. (1986). Student Perceptions of Preferred Classroom Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 10-18.

Burkam, D.T., Lee, V.E., & Smerdon, B.A. (1997). Gender and Science Learning Early in High School: Subject Matter and Laboratory Experiences. American Educational Journal, 34(2), 297-331.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 55-61.

Fisher, D. L., & Parkinson, C-A. (1998). Improving nursing education classroom environments. Journal of Nursing Education, 37(5), 232-236.

Fraser, B. J. (1984). Difference between preferred and actual classroom environment as perceived by primary students and teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 336-339.

Fraser, B. J. (1989). Learning environment research in science classrooms. NARST monograph No. 2.

Fraser, B.J. (1991). Two Decades of Classroom Environment Research. In B.J. Fraser & A.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents, Consequences (pp.3-28) London:Pergamon.

Fraser, B.J. (1994). Classroom and School Climate. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. National Science Teachers Associations, Australia: Macmillan.

Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp.527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D.L. (1982). Predicting students' outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Psychology, 53, 498-518.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D.L. (1983). Assessment of classroom psychosocial environment: Workshop manual. Monograph in the Faculty of Education Research Seminar and Workshop Series, Western Australia Institute of Technology.

Fraser, B. & Fisher, D. (1994). Assessing and researching the classroom environment. In Fisher, D. L. (Ed.), The Study of Learning Environments (Vol. 8, pp. 23-38). Curtin University of Technology.

Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996, April). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G., & McRobbie, C. J. (1992, March). Science Laboratory Classroom Environments: A Cross-National Study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Education (NARST), Boston.

Fraser, B.J., Giddings, G.J., & McRobbie, C.J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory form of an instrument for senior high science laboratory classroom environments. Science Education, 77, 1-24.

Fras er, B.J., Treagust, D.F., & Dennis, N.C. (1986). Development of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in universities and colleges. Studies in Higher Education, 11(1), 43-54.

Fraser, B.J., Treagust, D.F., Williamson, J.C., & Tobin, K.G. (1987). Validation and application of the College & University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI), In B.J. Fraser (Ed.), The Study of learning Environments, 2, 17-30.

Fraser, B.J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B.J. Fraser & A.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents, Consequences (pp. 271-292) London:Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J. & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational Environments: Antecedents, Consequences and Evaluation. London: Pergamon Press.

Ferguson, P.D. & Fraser, B.J. (1996, April). The Role of School Size and Gender in Students' Perceptions of Science During the Transition from Elementary to High School. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.

Forgasz, H. J. (1995). Gender and the relationship between affective beliefs and perceptions of grade 7 mathematics classroom learning environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 28, 219-239.

Getzels, J.W. & Thelen, H.A. (1960). The classroom as a unique system. In N.B. Henry (ed.). The dynamics of instructional groups: Sociopsychological aspects of teaching and learning (Fifty ninth yearbook of the National society for the study of education, Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goddard Spear, M. (1987). The biasing influence of pupil sex in science marking exercise. In A. Kelly, (Ed.), Science for girls? (pp. 46-51) Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, T. R. (1991). Cooperative learning and classroom and school climate. In B. J. Fraser & A. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents, Consequences (pp. 55-74) London Pergamon.

Kahle, J. B. (1996). Equitable science education: A discrepancy model. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie and B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, Science and Mathematics (pp. 129-139) London: Kulwer Academic Publishers.

Larose, S., & Roy, R. (1991). The role of prior academic performance and non-academic attributes in the predication of success of high-risk college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 171-177.

Lim, T. K. (1995). Perceptions of classroom environment, school types, gender and learning styles of secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 161-169.

Killen, R. (1994). Difference between Students' and Lecturers' Perceptions of factors Influencing Students' Academic Success at University. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(2), 199-211.

Marcelo, C. (1988). Research of Psychosocial Environment Evaluation at University Classrooms: Adaptation of C.U.C.E.I. to the Spanish Educational Context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Midgley, C., Eccles, J.E., & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom Environment & the transition to junior high school. In B.J. Fraser & A.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents, Consequences (pp. 113-139). London:Pergamon.

Owens, L. C., & Straton, R. G. (1980). The development of a cooperative, competitive and individualised learning preference scale for students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 147-161.

Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., & Harding, J. (1995). In B. J. Fraser and H. J. Walberg, (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 180-210). Chicago: The National Society for Study of Education.

Ramsden, P. (1991). Study Processes in Grade 12 Environments. In B. J. Fraser & A. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents, Consequences (pp. 215-229) London: Pergamon.

Riah, H., & Fraser, B.J. (1999). Secondary school students' perceptions of learning environment: Gender Differences. In M.A. Clements & Leong Yong Pak (Eds.), Cultural and language aspects of science, mathematics and technical education (pp. 95-102). Brunei Darussalam: Universiti Brunei Darussalam.

Rickards, T. W., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1997, March). Teacher-student interpersonal behaviour, cultural background and gender in science classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, Illinois.

Suarez, M., Pias, R., Membiela, P. & Dapfa, D. (1998). Classroom Environment in the Implementation of an Innovative Curriculum Project in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 655-671.

Tamir, P., & Caridin, H. (1993). Characteristics of the learning environment in Biology and Chemistry classes as perceived by Jewish and Arab high school students in Israel. Research in Science Technological Education, 11(1), 5-14.

Templeton, R. A., & Jensen, R. A. (1993). How exemplary teachers perceive their school environments. In Fisher, D.L. (Ed.), The Study of Learning Environments, 7(8), (pp.94-105). Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Terwel, J. Brekelmans, M., Wubbels, T., & Eeden, P. V. D. (1994). Gender differences in Perceptions of the learning environment in Physics and Mathematics education. In Fisher, D.L. (Ed.), The Study of Learning Environments (Vol 8, pp. 39- 51). Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Tobin, K. G., & Garnett, P. (1987). Gender related differences in science activities. Science Education, 71 (1), 91-103.

Vahala, M.E. & Winston, R.B. (1994). College Classroom Environments: Disciplinary and Institutional-Type Differences and Effects on Academic Achievement in Introductory Courses. Innovative Higher Education, 19(2), 99-122.

Villar, L. M. (1994, April). Reflections on action by university teacher trainers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Waldrip, B. G., & Fisher, D. L. (July, 1999). Teacher-student interpersonal behaviours and classroom learning environments: Differences in country and city students' perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australian Science Education Association, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Walberg, H.J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Farley and N. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education. Berkely, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H.J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.

Walberg, H.J., Fraser, B.J., & Welch, W.W. (1986). A test of a model of educational productivity among senior high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 133-139.

Winston, R. B., Vahala, M. E., Nichols, E. C., Wintrow, M., & Rome, K .D. (1994). A measure of College Classroom Climate: The College Classroom Environment Scales. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 11-18.

Wong, A., & Fraser, B. (1994). Science laboratory classroom environments and student attitudes in chemistry classes in Singapore. In Fisher, D. L. (Ed.), The Study of Learning Environments (Vol. 8, pp. 52- 71). Curtin University of Technology.

Yarrow, A., & Millwater, J. (1995). Smile: Student Modification in Learning Environments - Establishing Congruence Between Actual and Preferred Classroom Learning Environment. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(1), 11-15.

Please cite as: Nair, C. S. and Fisher, D. L. (1999). A learning environment study of tertiary classrooms. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1999. http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1999/nair.html


[ Proceedings Contents ] [ Schedule ] [ Abstracts ] [ WAIER Home ]
Last revised 30 May 2006. This URL: http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1999/nair.html
Previous URL 30 July 2001 to 16 May 2006: http://education.curtin.edu.au/waier/forums/1999/nair.html
Previous URL from 31 Aug 1999 to 30 July 2001: http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/waier/forums/1999/nair.html
HTML: Roger Atkinson [rjatkinson@bigpond.com] and Clare McBeath [c.mcbeath@curtin.edu.au]