[ Proceedings Contents ] [ Forum 1997 Abstracts ] [ WAIER Home Page ] Examining science classroom environments in a cross-national study Jill M. Aldridge and Barry J. Fraser Science and Mathematics Education Centre Curtin University of Technology

This study combined qualitative and quantitative research methods in examining the learning environments of science classrooms in Taiwan and Australia. To provide a parsimonious view of the learning environments in each country, the What Is Happening In This Classroom (WIHIC) questionnaire was administered to 50 lower secondary school science classes in Taiwan (1879 students) and Australia (1081 students). The questionnaire provided data regarding students' perceptions of the seven dimensions of Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity. The data from the questionnaires were used to guide the collection of qualitative data. Dimensions on which larger differences between Taiwan and Australia occurred were examined more closely using observations, interviews and stories. The findings contributed towards explaining differences in student perceptions and tentatively suggest: that students perceptions of their learning environment are influenced by socio-cultural factors; the need for caution when using a questionnaire framed in a Western context in a different culture; and implications for future research involving cross-national studies.

Introduction

This study forms part of a larger, ongoing study that is examining the nature, determinants and effects of learning environments of science classrooms in Taiwan and Australia. This aspect of the study examines seven dimensions of the learning environment as assessed using the What Is Happening In This Classroom (WIHIC) questionnaire.

Background

Building on the findings of Lewin, Murray (1938) identified a Needs-Press Model of interaction in which personal needs, or "motivational personality characteristics", represent the tendency for individuals to move in the direction of goals, whereas the environmental press is the external situational counterpart that either supports or frustrates the expression of these needs. Murray's Model suggests that situational variables found in the classroom environment can account for behavioural variance. Whilst his Needs-Press Model of interaction was more applicable to the study of personality than the teaching-learning process, researchers have sought ways to identify the situational variables recognised in the Needs-Press Model (Anderson & Walberg, 1974; Moos, 1974).

Based on Murray's Needs-Press Model, Stern (1970) formulated a Person-Environment Congruence Theory, which proposes that, when personal needs and environmental press are more congruent, student outcomes are enhanced. Also following the work of Murray's Needs-Press Model, Getzels and Thelen (1960) put forward a model that describes the class as a social system and suggests that group behaviour can be predicted from the interaction of personality needs, expectations and the classroom environment.

Walberg's theory of educational productivity (Walberg, Fraser & Welch, 1986) provides a more sophisticated multi-factor model of learning which extends the models of Lewin and Murray. Walberg identified nine productivity factors that need to be optimised to increase affective, behavioural and cognitive learning. These productivity factors fall into three groups: student age, ability and motivation; the amount and quality of instruction; and the psychosocial environments of the home, school and peer group outside the school (Walberg, Parscarella, Haertel, Junker & Boulanger, 1981).

Development of the What Is Happening In This Classroom (WIHIC)

Over the past 20 years, a number of instruments have been developed to measure classroom environments (Fraser, 1991; Fraser, 1994). Each of these instruments is valuable in its own right, has been used extensively in research and has demonstrated reliability in comprehensive field trials. Collectively, however, there is some overlap in the dimensions which they measure.

Also some instruments developed in the past exclude dimensions and items that are most pertinent in today's school settings. According to Fraser, McRobbie and Fisher (1996), earlier instruments, including the Learning Environment Instrument (LEI; Anderson & Walberg, 1974; Fraser, Anderson & Walberg, 1982) and Classroom Environment Scale (CES; Moos & Trickett, 1974), contain items that are more relevant to teacher-centred classrooms than to the student-centred settings that are more common today.

The WIHIC measures a wide range of dimensions which are important to the present situation in classrooms. It includes relevant dimensions from past questionnaires and combines these with dimensions that measure aspects of constructivism and other emphases relevant to the environment of contemporary classrooms (Fraser, McRobbie & Fisher, 1996). A description for each scale in the WIHIC is presented in Table 1.

The present study involved the use of a 'personal' form of the WIHIC. This form uses the same scales and items as the 'class' form, but is worded to elicit the student's perception of his or her individual role within the class room, as opposed to the student's perception of the class as a whole (Fraser, 1994; Fraser, McRobbie & Fisher, 1996; Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie, 1995; Fraser & McRobbie, 1995).

The need for a 'personal' form of classroom environment questionnaires was identified by Fraser and Tobin (1991) and Tobin and Fraser (1997) when they remarked on the inability of existing questionnaires to identify subgroups (e.g. based on sex or culture) within a class. The use of a 'personal' form, as opposed to a 'class' form, provides a useful tool for research involving case studies of individual students (Fraser & McRobbie, 1995). The personal form was used in this study to provide information about particular subgroups and individual students whom were interviewed.

WIHIC Scale	Description: The extent to which...
Student cohesiveness	...students are friendly and supportive of each other.
Teacher support	... the teacher helps, befriends, and is interested in students.
Involvement	... students have attentive interest, participate in class and are involved with other students in assessing the viability of new ideas.
Investigation	... there is emphasis on the skills and of inquiry and their use in problem-solving and investigation.
Task orientation	... it is important to complete planned activities and stay on the subject matter.
Cooperation	... students cooperate with each other during activities.
Equity	... the teacher treats students equally, including distributing praise, question distribution and opportunities to be included in discussions.
The WIHIC uses a five-point Likert-type response scale and requires students to signify how often they perceive a classroom practice is occurring. The responses of 'Almost Never', 'Seldom', 'Sometimes', 'Often' and 'Almost are scored on a five-point scale.

Methodology

Quantitative data collection

The questionnaire was then administered to 1879 students in 50 junior high school science classes in Taiwan and 1081 students in 50 junior high school science classes in Australia. The data were analysed to check the internal consistency and a priori factor structure. The data were also used to determine the means and standard deviations of the seven scales in each of the countries.

Qualitative data collection

Three classrooms were observed on at least two separate occasions. The focus of the observations were guided by specific scales in the questionnaire. Video tapes, field notes and audio recordings were made of each observation for later reference. The observations were made by a researcher from Taiwan and Australia and used to help explain differences in means of particular scales.

Student responses to individual questionnaire items were used to form an interview schedule. The interviews were used, firstly, to determine whether items had been interpreted in similar ways to the researchers, as it is well documented that students may interpret the same items differently, according to past experiences (Lemke, 1985). Secondly the interviews were used to help to explain differences in questionnaire scale means between countries. Interviews were conducted with three students from two of the classes observed in each of Australia and Taiwan. During the interviews, students were asked questions related to observations made in the class and questions related directly to the students' responses to the questionnaire. Students were asked to explain the reasons for their responses and, wherever possible, back their statement with an example. The responses were later analysed to clarify whether students interpretations of the questionnaire items differed from those of the researchers.

Interviews were conducted with the teachers of those classes that were observed. The teacher interviews were based on observations and attempted to explain particular actions of the teachers during the lesson. Interviews with teachers and students were conducted in Mandarin and translated into English, for the benefit of the Australian researcher.

Finally, stories were used in an attempt to determine the cultural differences that the researchers brought to the project. The use of anecdotes (or stories) has become an increasingly popular source of insight into human nature (Carter, 1993; Casey, 1995; Shulman, 1992). Anecdotes have the ability to convey meaningful insights into the perceptions of the writers and can be used to determine factors that could influence the learning environment (Wallace, 1997). After each observation (made by two of the researchers, one from Taiwan and one from Australia), each researchers wrote a story about a specific incident. Stories were written in the native language of the respective researchers, to capture the essence of the observation and preserve as much detail as possible. Stories written in Mandarin were later translated onto an audio tape and transcribed by the Australian researcher.

The stories provided commentaries regarding the similarities and differences between interpretations of the incident which were analysed to: determine cultural influences on the researchers' perspectives of what they observed; provide a more complete picture of what occurred during the incident; and help to explain the differences in means between the two countries.

Results

Quantitative data collection

The resulting 56-item version had eight items in each of the seven scales. The results confirmed strongly the a priori factor structure in both Taiwan and Australia (see Table 2). The alpha reliability (Cronbach alpha reliability), using the class mean as the unit of analysis, ranged from 0.87 to 0.97 in A ustralia and from 0.90 to 0.96 in Taiwan (reported in Table 3). The eta2 statistic was calculated to provide an indication of the degree to which each scale could differentiate between the perceptions of students in different classes. The eta2 statistic (representing the amount of variance accounted for by class membership), reported in Table 3, ranged from 0.09 to 0.15 for Australian classes and between 0.07 and 0.36 for Taiwanese classes. For both Australia and Taiwan, every scale, was capable of differentiating significantly between classes (p<0.05).

Factor loadings
	Student cohesiveness		Teacher support		Involvement		Investigation		Task orientation		Cooperation		Equity
Item No.	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw	Aust	Taiw
1	.62	.59
2	.47	.56
3	.53	.68
4	.68	.60
7	.60	.71
8	-	-
9	.64	.63
10	-	.59
11			.64	.67
12			.68	.65
13			.65	.75
14			.56	.55
15			.63	.62
16			.68	.70
17			.62	.59
19			.43	-
21					.65	.53
22					.77	.65
23					.46	-
24					.58	.50
25					.47	.41
26					.49	.45
27					-	-
29					-	-
32							.65	.61
33							.58	.64
34							.71	.70
35							.63	.61
36							.64	.68
37							.63	.66
39							.66	.66
40							.61	.64
42									.65	.49
44									.58	.49
45									.55	.59
46									.62	.51
47									.71	.54
48									.65	.58
49									.67	.62
50									.63	.58
51											.55	.44
52											.59	.40
53											.58	.53
54											.63	.47
55											.65	.47
56											.67	.54
57											.62	.58
58											.52	.56
61													.68	.56
63													.70	.60
64													.69	.67
65													.71	.66
66													.72	.71
67													.74	.58
69													.63	.60
70													.68	.64
Note: Loadings smaller than .4 omitted

Table 3: Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and discriminant validity (mean correlation with other scales) for two units of analysis and ability to differentiate between classrooms for the WIHIC

	Alpha reliability				ANOVA Eta2		Mean correlation with other scales
	Australia		Taiwan		Australia	Taiwan	Australia		Taiwan
	Class mean	Individ	Class mean	Individ	Individ	Individ	Class mean	Individ	Class mean	Individ
Scale	N=50	N=1081	N=50	N=1879	N=1081	N=1879	N=50	N=1081	N=50	N=1879
Student cohesiveness	0.87	0.81	0.91	0.86	0.11**	0.07**	0.44	0.33	0.45	0.41
Teacher support	0.95	0.88	0.95	0.87	0.14**	0.34**	0.57	0.43	0.53	0.47
Involvement	0.88	0.84	0.90	0.85	0.09*	0.11**	0.54	0.45	0.69	0.49
Investigation	0.95	0.88	0.96	0.90	0.15**	0.22**	0.51	0.41	0.72	0.55
Task orientation	0.52	0.43	0.96	0.88	0.94	0.86	0.14**	0.36**	0.69	0.55
Cooperation	0.93	0.89	0.92	0.87	0.15**	0.28**	0.55	0.45	0.66	0.58
Equity	0.97	0.93	0.95	0.90	0.15**	0.24**	0.59	0.46	0.64	0.53
Note: N=1081 students in 50 classes in Australia and 1879 students in 50 classes in Taiwan *p<.05  ** p<.01

		Mean				Standard deviation
		Australia		Taiwan		Australia		Taiwan
Scale	No of items	Individ	Class mean	Individ	Class mean	Individ	Class mean	Individ	Class mean
		N=1081	N=50	N=1879	N=50	N=1081	N=50	N=1879	N=50
Student cohesiveness	8	31.68	31.61	31.41	31.29	4.64	1.54	5.33	1.39
Teacher support	8	24.69	24.68	24.15	23.99	6.53	2.79	6.93	2.96
Involvement	8	24.58	24.76	22.27	22.88	5.59	1.89	6.48	2.13
Investigation	8	23.67	23.56	22.69	22.61	6.35	2.54	7.33	2.42
Task orientation	8	31.74	31.75	30.87	30.70	6.14	2.50	5.58	1.88
Cooperation	8	30.39	30.43	29.47	29.42	6.29	2.24	6.31	1.81
Equity	8	31.77	31.68	30.02	29.72	7.24	2.82	7.27	2.32
Attitude	8	23.53	23.59	26.34	26.43	7.91	3.67	8.18	4.41

The means for each scale, reported in Table 4, were calculated for Taiwan and Australia and these were used as a basis for comparing the nature of the classroom environment in each country. Whilst the magnitudes of the differences were small, Australian students consistently perceived all scales more favourably than did Taiwan students. The scales with the largest mean difference for each country were Involvement and Equity. In contrast, however, students in Taiwan were more satisfied with science classes than were students in Australia (see Table 4). Qualitative examinations of learning environments in each country were made to identify possible reasons for student perceptions and cultural differences.

Qualitative data collection

Student interviews provided anecdotes based on questionnaire items. These anecdotes conveyed socio-cultural aspects of the learning environment that could not be gleaned through observations, including: the degree of respect for teachers and the level of student motivation to learn the content of the subject:

• The degree of respect for teachers. In general, the students regarded the teacher as knowing what they need to learn and how best to teach the subject. This respect for the teacher's knowledge meant that students would rarely question teaching methods or the lesson content. In some cases, the students' respect for teacher meant that, even if they had difficulty understanding the content, they still wouldn't ask questions.

• Level of student motivation to learn the content of the subject. There was a high level of motivation among the students interviewed in Taiwan. Their anecdotes indicated that the competitive nature of the education system and expectations of parents and teachers provided incentives for them to stay on task in class and to learn.

• Students' ideal classroom learning environment. Anecdotes of students would appear to suggest that students in Taiwan have a different perception from students in Australia of what constitutes a positive learning environment. In part, this could be because students have not experienced the more student-centred teaching strategies sometimes used in Australia.

Based largely on observations of lessons, the interviews with Taiwanese teachers sought explanations for their actions. The anecdotes from the interviews provided information regarding the following range of socio-cultural influences on the types of classroom environments which the teachers' created:

• The examination-driven nature of the curriculum. The content of the science curriculum (for both biology and physics) is presented in the form of textbooks. The examinations are based on these textbooks and, therefore, it becomes important for teachers to cover all areas. According to teachers' anecdotes, there simply isn't sufficient time to cover the entire textbook, unless classes concentrate purely on covering the content.

• Pressure exerted by parents, schools and other teachers. The importance of good examination results cannot be underestimated. For most families in Taiwan, the results are of paramount importance. Good results mean being allocated a position in a "star" school (a school with outstanding results and with the most students entering the university level).

• The competitive nature of teaching in Taiwan. Teachers' anecdotes highlighted the competitive nature of teaching in Taiwan. Scores achieved by different classes are often displayed for teachers to see. Pressure to do better is then exerted on teachers whose classes are not achieving as highly as other teachers' classes.

These influences helped to explain the classroom environment in context in this country.

• Good Teaching Practices. The researchers discussed teaching and good teachers without realising that there were possibly some fundamental differences in what each perceived as a good teacher. Culturally bound as a result of what they are used to, the researcher from Taiwan and Australia each held a slightly different view of a good teacher. When listing the characteristics of good teachers in order of priority, it was found that the researcher from Taiwan viewed comprehensive content knowledge as the most important characteristic and the researcher from Australia viewed positive students-teacher interactions as the most important.

• Active Participation. Discussions about active participation led to misunderstandings. There was a fundamental difference between the Australian and Taiwanese view of what constituted active participation. The Australian perceived this as "hands-on" with classes being more student-centered and involving students physically maneuvering, touching and investigating. The Taiwan perception, however, was more "mind-on". The student not only pays attention to what is taught, but includes the process of assimilating the new information with different or similar information that has been learned.

Discussion and conclusion

The anecdotes brought to light that the researchers from two different countries held perceptions of the qualities of good teaching, active participation and a positive learning environment that had as many differences as similarities. These perceptions appeared to be linked to the backgrounds of the researchers, including their culture and society.

Finally, the findings provide a precautionary note regarding the use of questionnaires framed in a Western context. The interpretation of data which measures a Western idea of what constitutes a positive learning environment could be limited without consideration of socio-cultural factors that influence the classrooms from which the data were taken.

Commentaries provided by the researchers' stories revealed further explanations for the differences in scale means between countries. They also exposed that there are underlying assumptions that researchers bring with them, depending on their backgrounds and cultures (such as the notion of what constitutes a good teacher), which will effect not only what they read into the data but also what they observe.

Interviews were conducted with eight students to provided insights into how students from an Eastern culture interpreted individual items and the reasons for their responses. The interviews provided explanations for some of the discrepancies between observations and student responses. The Western notion, to "discuss ideas in class" brings images of students challenging ideas in the class, possibly led or guided by the teacher. There was no evidence of classroom discussions in the Taiwan classes that I observed, yet students had indicated, on the questionnaire, that it often happens in class. Interviews revealed that students discussed ideas with classmates (not involving the teacher) after lessons or one-on-one during the lesson.

The interviews highlighted precautions that need to be taken when applying Western ideas directly to another culture. In some cases, students' interpretations and the reasons for their responses demonstrated the need for caution when comparing the scale means of two different cultures.

References

Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5-12.

Casey, K. (1995). The new narrative research in education. In M. W. Apple, Review of Research in Education, 21. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom research. In B. J. Fraser and H. J. Walberg (Eds.) Educational Environments: Evaluati on, Antecedents and Consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

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.

Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J. & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of Learning Environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd version). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.

Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J. & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of and personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 399-422.

Fraser, B. J. & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Science laboratory classroom environments at schools and universities: A cross-national study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(4), 1-29.

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

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. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Getzels, J. W. & Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom as a unique social 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.

Kawasaki, K. (1996). The concepts of science in Japanese and Western education. Science and Education, 5, 1-20.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principals of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw.

Lemke, J. (1985). Using Language in the Classroom. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.

Moos, R. H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: An Overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moos, R. H. & Trickett, E. J. (1974). Classroom Environment Scale Manual (1st ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in Context: Measuring Person-Environment Congruence in Education and Industry. New York: Wiley.

Shulman, L. (1992). Towards a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case Methods in Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. J. (1997). 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.

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

Wallace, J. & Chou, C. Y. (1997). Sociocultural influences on the classroom learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research into Science Teaching, Chicago.

Walberg, H. J., Pascarella, E., Haertel, G. D., Junker, L. & Boulanger, F. D. (1981). Probing a model of educational productivity with National Assessment samples of early adolescents. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 233-249.

Please cite as: Aldridge, J. M. and Fraser, B. J. (1997). Examining science classroom environments in a cross-national study. Proceedings Western Australian Institute for Educational Research Forum 1997. http://www.waier.org.au/forums/1997/aldridge.html