Constructivist Learning Environments in a Cross ...

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, Physics Department, National Kaohsiung Normal University 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.

International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55

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 personenvironment 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) International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55

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, 1994) 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 four 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; and the degree to which students are able to interact with each other to improve their understanding (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 Theory 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 teachers pedagogical plans and methods and to express concerns about any impediments to their learning).

There are six items in each scale with a total of 24 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.

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.

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.

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. Narrative methods (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996) were selectedto capture our impressions of classroom observations. It was felt that stories would represent a context-sensitive way of knowing and thinking (Carter, 1993; Casey, 1995) which are presented in the form of vignettes. The selection of the of classes and was based on the teacher’s 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 International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37-55

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 24 items with 6 items in each of the four 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 four 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