pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

9
PUPILS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SCIENCE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. 1 Richard P. Tisher and Colin N. Power Introduction A variety of observation schedules have been developed (Simon & Boyer 1967) to assist teachers and especially researchers in their attempts to describe and measure classroom activities. Many of the schedules have been used with moderate degrees of success in the task of associating classroom activities with educational outcomes, for example pupil achieve- ment (Rosenshine & Furst 1971) and pupil creative growth (Denny 1968), Although it is generally accepted that these preceding endeavours have been valuable ones, some concern has been expressed that observational schemes for classifying activities do not measure the psychological significance of a classroom activity. Most schemes measure the relative fre- quency with which various behaviours (activities) occur, but this frequency is not necessarily a measure of the psychological significance that an activity has on the pupils. An important question, then, for the researcher, is, how to determine the significance which classroom events have for individual pupils? One way, according to several writers, is to ask pupils. Recently this has been done in the U.S.A. by measuring pupils' perception of their learning environments. The following discussion deals with some similar attempts in Australia. Actually, the research reported here is part of a major project designed to study the effects of teaching strategies. As an integral part of this study it was decided to measure the changes which occurred in pupils' perceptions of their learning environments. However, as analyses are still underway, we can at this stage, report on only a small segment of the data and the analyses. Instruments to measure pupils' perceptions At the present time there are two main approaches to the assessment of classroom learning environments. One of these is based on Murray's (1938) concept of environmental press and the other on Getzels' and Thelen's (1960) model of the class as a social system. The former has resulted in the development of an instrument designated the Class Activities Questionnaire (Steele, House & Kerins 1971) and the latter in an instrument designated the Learning Environment Inventory (Walberg 1969(a); Anderson & Walberg 1972). Both instru- ments have been used with some success in the U.S.A. and recently have been employed in Queensland in projects on the effectiveness of teaching strategies. These last mentioned pro- jects studied classes where self-paced curriculum materials were being used. This feature is being highlighted because the Class Activities Questionnaire (CAQ) and Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) appear to have been used only in more conventional classes in the U.S.A.: the LEI, for example, was used extensively in lessons on Harvard Projects Physics (Walberg 1969(b) ). The CAQ, more so than the LEI, was designed specifically for group or traditional methods of instruction. It does not seem, according to its designers, "appropriate for use in programs of independent study". To use the CAQ and LEI in lessons where self-paced mater- ials are followed, may be considered, by some, to be an illegitimate application of the instru- ments, yielding invalid information. On the other hand, the ASEP curriculum materials which were the ones used in our researches, foster group and conventional methods of instruction as well as encouraging pupils to work independently. We assumed that the LEI and CAQ could

Upload: richard-p-tisher

Post on 19-Aug-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

PUPILS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR SCIENCE LEARNING

ENVIRONMENTS. 1

Richard P. Tisher and Colin N. Power

Introduction

A variety of observation schedules have been developed (Simon & Boyer 1967) to assist teachers and especially researchers in their attempts to describe and measure classroom activities. Many of the schedules have been used with moderate degrees of success in the task of associating classroom activities with educational outcomes, for example pupil achieve- ment (Rosenshine & Furst 1971) and pupil creative growth (Denny 1968), Although it is generally accepted that these preceding endeavours have been valuable ones, some concern has been expressed that observational schemes for classifying activities do not measure the psychological significance of a classroom activity. Most schemes measure the relative fre- quency with which various behaviours (activities) occur, but this frequency is not necessarily a measure of the psychological significance that an activity has on the pupils. An important question, then, for the researcher, is, how to determine the significance which classroom events have for individual pupils? One way, according to several writers, is to ask pupils. Recently this has been done in the U.S.A. by measuring pupils' perception of their learning environments. The following discussion deals with some similar attempts in Australia. Actually, the research reported here is part of a major project designed to study the effects of teaching strategies. As an integral part of this study it was decided to measure the changes which occurred in pupils' perceptions of their learning environments. However, as analyses are still underway, we can at this stage, report on only a small segment of the data and the analyses.

Instruments to measure pupils' perceptions

At the present time there are two main approaches to the assessment of classroom learning environments. One of these is based on Murray's (1938) concept of environmental press and the other on Getzels' and Thelen's (1960) model of the class as a social system. The former has resulted in the development of an instrument designated the Class Activities Questionnaire (Steele, House & Kerins 1971) and the latter in an instrument designated the Learning Environment Inventory (Walberg 1969(a); Anderson & Walberg 1972). Both instru- ments have been used with some success in the U.S.A. and recently have been employed in Queensland in projects on the effectiveness of teaching strategies. These last mentioned pro- jects studied classes where self-paced curriculum materials were being used. This feature is being highlighted because the Class Activities Questionnaire (CAQ) and Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) appear to have been used only in more conventional classes in the U.S.A.: the LEI, for example, was used extensively in lessons on Harvard Projects Physics (Walberg 1969(b) ). The CAQ, more so than the LEI, was designed specifically for group or traditional methods of instruction. It does not seem, according to its designers, "appropriate for use in programs of independent study". To use the CAQ and LEI in lessons where self-paced mater- ials are followed, may be considered, by some, to be an illegitimate application of the instru- ments, yielding invalid information. On the other hand, the ASEP curriculum materials which were the ones used in our researches, foster group and conventional methods of instruction as

well as encouraging pupils to work independently. We assumed that the LEI and CAQ could

Page 2: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

162

yield valid measures of pupils' perceptions of their environments. Furthermore, we believed that the two devices had to be tested in the special conditions of ASEP classes. Some of our successes and failures with the two instruments are reported below in the hope that other re- search workers wil l use them also, and wil l assess their reliability and validity in Australian conditions.

The Class Activities Questionnaire

The CAQ was designed to assess four major dimensions of instructional climate, name- ly, lower thought processes, higher thought processes, classroom focus and classroom climate. Sixteen logical factors were postualted to provide measures on these dimensions. Eleven of the factors were categorized by two test items each and five by one item each. On twenty-five of the test items, pupils are asked to agree or disagree on a four point scale to statements describing general kinds of activities which characterize their class. For example:

"Most class time is spent doing other things than listening" "Pupils are excited and involved wi th class activities" "There is very l itt le joking or laughing in this class".

The remaining two items deal wi th statements relating to teacher-talk and homework. Steele, House and Kerins established conventions and conditions for the administration

and scoring of the CAQ with the classroom group as the unit of analysis. One of their con- ditions, for example, was " i f two-thirds of the class show consistency of response, half the class or more must hold the same opinion about a factor for it to be scored as characteristic of the class" (p. 453). In our exploratory analyses we used the class and the pupils as units of analyses.

Factor Structure of the CAQ

To ascertain the degree of which empirical data supported the logical structure they had postulated for the CAQ, Steele, House and Kerins (1971) undertook a principal components analysis of the first 25 items of the instrument. They state that varimax rotation produced 10 components accounting for 62 percent of the variance in the sample studied (N = 2071 ). Their findings are presented, in summary, in Table 1 : their report only provides information on 21 of the 25 items.

We decided to check the factor structure under the conditions pertaining to our major project. The CAQ was administered, in 1972 and 1973, to pupils in Grade 8 and Grade 9 classes in Brisbane. In the 1972 sample the 21 classes tested were studying the ASEP unit "L ight Forms Images". The results in Table 1 are based on the data obtained from this last mentioned sample (N = 304). A principal components analysis was undertaken and the results compared with those reported for Illinois (USA). A varimax rotation (eigen-value cut off 1.0) produced eight components accounting for 54.6 percent of the variance.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 1. Column 1 in the table contains the names assigned to the Brisbane factors plus the percent of variance accounted for by each one. Column 2 lists the items loading on each factor with their item number, varimax loading and the key wnrds contained in the item. Column 3 contains information from the Illinois analysis and shows the Illinois factors on which the items loaded, plus their varimax Ioadings. Thus, item 14 which was associated with the Factor I in Brisbane is associated with Ill inois' factor I. For the Brisbane sample the varimax loading of the item was 0.69 whereas for the Illinois sample the loading was 0.57.

Table 1 indicates some similarities and differences between the findings in Brisbane

Page 3: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

163

TABLE 1

Component Analysis of the Class Activities Questionnaire

C o m p o n e n t and per- Item numbers, key words and varimax Loadings Factor Number and Load- cent of variance ing ( I l l inois data)

I, Independent Inquiry (10.4)

II. Enthusiastic Discussion (R) (5.8)

III. Humour (5.4)

14. Independently explore (.69)

17. Discover many solutions (.65)

23. Invent, design, compose (.64)

18. Ideas more important than grades (.61)

13. Practice skills in problem solving (.50)

19. Excited and involved in class (.48)

24. Do not enjoy ideas studied (.72)

15. L i t t le oppor tun i ty for part ic ipat ion (.59)

I ( ,57)

(not reported)

I ( .71)

(excluded)

i ( .45)

IV (-.65)

(excluded)

IV

IV. Cramming (R) (7.7)

V. I nterpretet ion (R) (6.5)

VI. Part icipation

25, L i t t le joking or laughing (-.72)

2. Make judgments o f Good/Bad (-.46)

22. Great concern for grades (-.68)

10. Emphasis on memorizing (-.62)

26. (Amount of) Teacher Talk (-.63)

12. Thinking through complicated problems (-.42)

4. Do other things than listening (.40)

6. Go beyond in format ion given (-.74)

16. Find trends and consequences (-.61)

11. Build to produce something new (-.42)

5. Act ive ly part icipate in discussion (.69)

( ,69)

Vl (.96)

IX (.83)

I I ( .64)

II (.73)

(excluded)

V (.72)

VI I I (.93)

III (-.71)

I I I ( - .80)

I ( .64)

IV (-.78) (5.5)

V I I . Translat ion (R ) (7.1)

VII I. In format ion Processing (6.3)

15. Li t t le oppor tun i ty fo r discussion (-.33)

9. Restate ideas (-.60)

21. Explaining and summarizing (-.65)

8. Know the one best answer (-.44)

20. Judge the value o f ideas (-.45)

3. Put methods and ideas to use (.65)

1. Remember and recognize in format ion (.61)

7. Logical reasoning and analysis (.52)

IV (.69)

VII (-.80)

V I I (-.45)

II (.64)

X (.69)

I ( .56 )

II (.53)

V (.73)

NOTE: R in parenthesis indicates the reverse o f the factor. Thus factor IV could be more accurately, if somewhat clumsily, designated as "De-cramming".

Page 4: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

164

and Illinois. For example, the first component obtained in the Brisbane study has similar char- acteristics to the first factor extracted by Steele, et. al. Independence, divergence, invention, involvement and problem solving are stressed in the various items loading on the factor. Con- sequently, we prefer to call this factor "Independent Inquiry" rather than splitting it into the components 'Independence', 'Divergence' and 'Synthesis' devised by Steele et. al. For the remaining factors it is more di f f icul t to make comparisons with the Ill inois Factor Structure. There are so many corresponding features, e.g., items 6 and 16 load on our factor V and the Illinois factor IV, but, then, items 11 which also loads on our factor V is associated with Ill in- ois factor I. What is probably needed are more factor analyses with Australian data and where different eigen-value cut offs are used. We plan to use the data obtained in our 1973 study for some of these additional analyses. However, in 1972, we were encouraged by the fact that we could, rationally, attach meaningful names to the factors we extracted, and that these names characterized activities in ASEP and conventional classrooms. We proceeded to use these factors as measures of pupils' perceptions of their ASEP learning environments and to associate the perceptions with outcomes.

At the time of writ ing additional test statistics were being computed. In particular, some calculations were being made to test whether significant changes had occurred in the per- captions of our 1973 sample before and after some classes used ASEP materials. Some of our findings are reported later. In the section which follows, we report on associations between pupils' perceptions and outcomes. These findings are based on the data collected in our 1972 studies (Tisher & Power 1973).

(a) Pupils" perceptions and achievement

Steele, House and Kerins (1971) suggest that the CAQ could be used to explore re- lationships between pupils' perceptions and learning. Undoubtedly, the success of their instrument is to be judged, in part, on whether CAQ measures are associated with learning out- comes. Table 2 shows some of the associations noted in the Brisbane sample. The table lists correlations between the CAQ factors and, achievement and attitude measures. The achieve- ment measure was obtained from a criterion-referenced test based on the curriculum material covered in the core of the ASEP unit, "L ight Forms Images". The attitude measure was derived from a special test which was designed to measure pupils' attitudes to the ASEP learning exper- iences. The second, third and fourth columns of Table 2 contain significant values of the cor- relations calculated with the class as the unit of analysis. As a matter of interest we also cal- culated values with the pupil as the unit of analysis. These correlations are shown in the last column. Only those CAQ factors and outcome variables which correlated significantly are in- cluded in the table.

Table 2 indicates that only a few CAQ dimensions correlated significantly with the measures on the criterion tests. In classes where the learning environment was seen as one where pupils can invent and design, independently explore and become excited and involved (Independent Inquiry); and, where there is litt le concern for grades and memorization, and a chance to think through complicated problems (Cramming (R)), attitude to science was high (column 3 Table 2). But, between these classes there was also greater variability in their achievement scores. There were no significant correlations between the CAQ dimensions and achievement gains - a somewhat disappointing, but not entirely unexpected result. It may be that the CAQ is not completely suited to ASEP classes or, that we allowed insufficient time for the pupils to become settled with the ASEP materials. On the other hand, a number of other

Page 5: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

165

TABLE 2

Pupils' Perceptions and Attitude and Achievement

Pupi ls ' Perceptions

Independent Inquiry

Enthusiastic Discussion (R)

Humour

Cramming (R)

I nterpretation (R)

Achieve- merit (S.D.)

38

41

Outcome Measures

U n i t o f Ana lys i s : Class* U n i t o f Ana lys i s : P u p i l * *

Attitude Achievement Att i tude

65

44

Attitude (S.D.)

52

(-11)

(11)

48

22

54

31

40

"* r > 0 . 1 1 ; ** r < 0 . 1 5 ;

* r > 0 .37 s ign i f i can t at .05 level. " r < 0 . 5 0 s ign i f i can t at .01 level.

studies have shown that the measures which relate most consistently with perceptions are variation (S.D.) in attitude and achievement.

(b) Changes in Pupils" Perception

Undoubtedly, there is the need to check the usefulness of the CAQ in many other Australian settings, and in particular, in more "conventional" teaching situations. We have begun todo this. In June 1973 the CAQ was administered to 866 Grade 9 pupils in 60 classes in the Brisbane metropolitan area. These pupils comprised approximately half the number of the pupils in each class. They were randomly selected from within each class, and the mean score for these pupils on each of the eight Brisbane scales of the CAQ are shown in Table 3; pre-test column. In August-September 1973 twelve of the classes studied the core section of the ASEP curriculum unit "How many people". At the conclusion of their study the CAQ was administered as a post-test. The mean scores for these pupils (N = 302) on the eight Brisbane scales are shown in the "Post-test" column in Table 3.

It is intriguing to note that pupils' perceptions of their learning environment changed significantly on only four factors, namely factors II (1% level of significance), III (1% level), Vl (5% level) and VII (10% level). That is, after their experience with the ASEP unit the pupils perceived the ASEP learning environment as one which involved more enthusiastic discussion, more humour, greater participation by pupils and less translation than their conventional sci- ence learning environment. There was no significant change on Factor I, "independent Inquiry". That is, according to the pupils the ASEP learning environment did not appear to be character- ised by more independent inquiry than their conventional science environment I

The Learning Environment Inventory

The other instrument which was used in the 1973 Brisbane study was the Learning

Page 6: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

166

TABLE 3

Class Activities Questio.naire Means, Standard Deviations

Scale

I ,Independent Inquiry (6 items)

II Enthusiastic Discussion (R) (2 items)

II I Humour (2 items)

IV Cramming (R) (5 items)

V Interpretation (R) (3 items)

VI Participation (1 item)

VII Translation (R) (4 items)

V l l l Information Processing (3 items)

Mean

14.49

4.93

4.42

Pre-Test (N=866)

Standard Deviation

13.35

7.87 1.73

2.42 0.91

10.67 1.90

8.18 1.44

Post-Test (N=302)

Mean Standard Deviation

2.87 3.00 14.78

1.46 4.53

1.26 5.45

2.36 13.15

1.32

1.24

2.60

7.79 1.61

2.56 0.83

10.45 2.04

8.25 1.68

Environment Inventory (Anderson 1971). This device was designed to measure pupils' per- ceptions of the social climate of learning within a class. The social climate is defined by certain properties (Anderson 1971) which include "the inter-personal relationships among pupils, relationships between pupils and their teacher, relationships between pupils and both the subject matter studied and the method of learning, and finally, pupils' perceptions of the structural characteristics of the class" (p. 1).

To obtain measures of these preceding properties 105 statements, which describe typical school classes, were constructed. Pupils express their agreement or disagreement with each on a four-p0int scale. The statements were clustered, by four independent judges, into 15 groups (or scales) of seven items each, with each group representing a dimension of the social climate. For example, Scale 3, designated "Formal i ty" was intended to measure the extent to which behaviour within a class was guided by formal rules and well established class- room procedures. The names of the 15 scales appear in Table 4 and generally "dictionary meanings" are assigned to them. This has been done to facilitate interpretation by teachers and research workers (Anderson 1971).

The LEI had been used successfully in studies involving Harvard Project Physics, and consequently, it was decided to use the instrument in the Brisbane studies on teaching strategies. The LEI was administered, initially, to a representative sample of grade 9 pupils

Page 7: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

167

in Brisbane metropolitan (state) schools. The instrument was divided into two parts and each part randomly assigned to the pupils in each class. This procedure was followed to reduce testing time in the schools, but at the same time, to provide valid measures of pupils' per- ceptions of their learning environment on the 15 scales. All classes tested were following a conventional grade 9 science programme and had not had experience with ASEP materials or other self-paced curriculum units. Testing occurred in June-July, 1973. Subsequently, several of the classes tested became the experimental classes in the major study.

The findings reported below deal only with the information obtained in the pre-test- ing in June-July and with information available from the U.S.A. studies. As the LEI has not been normed for Australia conditions, our findings will be compared with those from senior science classes in the U.S.A.

TABLE 4

Learning Environment Inventory Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients

Scale

1. Cohesiveness

2. Diversity

3. Formality

4. Speed

5. Environment

6. Friction

7. Goal Direction

8. Favouritism

9. Diff iculty

10. Apathy

11. Democratic

12. Cliqueness

13. Satisfaction

14. Disorganization

15. Competitiveness

Brisbane Data N=852 (Scales 1-10) U.S.A. Data N=866 (Scales 11-15) (N=1048)

I Standard Standard Alpha Mean Deviation Alpha Mean Deviation

19.74 3.02 0.51 17.71 3.14 0.69

19.90 2.67 0.43 20.23 2.32 0.54

18.14 3.03 0.51 18.00 3.44 0.76

18.40 3.36 0.53 17.33 3.41 0.70

15.84 3.60 0.59 16.77 3.06 0.56

19.60 3.61 0.62 16.82 3.33 0.72

16.76 3.45 0.67 17.96 3.80 0.85

16.49 3.59 0.59 14.18 3.81 0.78

19.97 3.12 0.52 18.72 2.80 0.65

15.90 3.42 0.61 17.80 3.74 0.79

18.82 3.82 0.70 17.53 3.16 0.82

18.67 2.75 0.43 1 9.33 2.94 0.64

18.77 3.82 0.72 16.77 3.65 0.82

15.79 3.09 0.50 16.43 4.18 0.67

17.69 3.15 0.56 17.04 3.33 0.78

Admittedly these comparisons must be treated with some caution, particularly as the two samples are not comparable, and since the science curricula followed by the two groups differ markedly.

We speculated that some differences should occur between the two groups as a con-

Page 8: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

168

sequence of several differences between the pupils and their learning environments. For ex- ample, since the pupils in the U.S.A. were older than their Australian counterparts, were apparently more socially mature, were working in a more flexible educational environment and were fol lowing a curriculum regarded as more self-paced or individualised than Queensland Grade 9 science, we expected the U.S.A. classroom climate to be characterised by higher levels of diversity, satisfaction and democracy and lower levels of apathy, disorganisation and fr ict ion than the Australian one. The findings, which are related to these conjectures are summarised in Table 4 which shows the means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients for each of the scales of the LEI for the Brisbane and U.S.A. samples.

Comparisions between the U.S.A. and Australian Data

In Australia the first ten scales of the LEI were administered to 852 pupils and the remaining five to 866 pupils in the same grade 9 classes. The U.S.A. results were based on the responses from 1048 pupils who were fol lowing Harvard Project Physics.

When comparisions were made between the means for both groups on each of the scales, only one difference between the means was not significant at the 1% level. This occurr- ed for Scale 3, "Formal i ty" . In contrast, for Scale 4, "Speed", the mean for the Australian sample was significantly higher than the U.S.A. value. That is, in the Brisbane Grade 9 classes the pupils perceived the teacher as one who covered the work at a faster rate than that at which American pupils perceived their teacher working.

With respect to our speculations it was interesting to note that the U.S.A. learning environments were perceived as ones which were characterized by greater diversity and by less fr ict ion between class members than the Australian learning environments. However, contrary to our expectations, the Australian pupils compared to the U.S.A. ones, perceived their learn- ing environments to be characterized by greater satisfaction, greater democracy, less apathy and less disorganization. Why this was so is not clear from the data available. Other studies would have to be conducted to provide definitive explanations. Perhaps one explanation for the greater satisfaction in the Australian group may be associated wit l l the perception of greater cohesiveness and less "cliqueness" that the Brisbane pupils had of their learning environment. Of course, we have to f ind an explanation for the greater cohesiveness and lesser "cliqueness"!! Nevertheless, the differences noted stimulate some intriguing questions which can be followed up by other researchers. Hopefully, someone wil l initiate a project to examine whether the differences noted here exist between comparable Grade 9 samples in the two countries. Also, i t may be appropriate to check whether the similar differences in perceptions exist between Grade 9 and Grade 11 pupils in Australia. Is it the case, for example, that as pupils proceed through the secondary school, their science learning environment is perceived as increasingly less democratic, more disorganised, less cohesive, more apathetic and less diff icult?

Concluding comments

In the preceding pages we have outlined some of the successes and failures experienced with some of our uses of the CAQ and LEI. The information about the instruments was re- ported with the hope that other Australian research workers would use the two tests, in our studies of teaching strategies we have used the instruments as pre and post tests to measure variations and teaching strategies and achievement. The analyses are still being completed and wil l be reported in future issues of local journals.

Page 9: Pupils' perceptions of their science learning environments

169

Notes

1. The research reported in this paper is part of a larger project which was funded by the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education.

R eferences

AN D E RSON, G.J. The Assessment of Learning Environments: A Manual for the Learning Environment Inventor]/and the My, Class InventorF, Halifax, Atlantic Institute of Education, 1971.

ANDERSON, G.J. & WALBERT, H.H. "Class size and the social environment of learning: A replication", Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 18: 277-286.

DENNY, D.A. "Identification of teacher - classroom variables facilitating pupil creative growth", American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 5: 365-383.

GETZELS, J.W. & THELEN, H.A. "The classroom as a unique social system" in Henry, M. (ed.), National Society for the StudF of Educational Yearbook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

MUR RAY, H.A. Explorations in Personality, New York, Oxford University Press, 1938. ROSENSHINE, B. & FURST, N. "Research on Teacher Performance Criteria" in Smith, B.

(ed.), Research in Teacher Education, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1971. SIMON, A. & 8OYER, G. (eds.). Mirrors for Behaviour, Philadelphia, Research for Better

Schools, Inc., 1967. STEELE, J., HOUSE, E., & KERINS, T. "An Instrument for Assessing Instructional Climate

Through Low-Inference Student Judgments", American Educational Research Journal, 1971, 7: 447-466.

THELEN, H.A. "Educational dynamics; Theory and research", Journal of Social Issues, 1950, 6: 5-95.

TISHER, R.P. & POWER, C.N. The Effects of Teaching Strategies in Mini-Teaching and Micro- Teaching Situations where Australian Science Education Project Materials are used, research report, duplicated, Faculty of Education, University of Queensland, 1973.

WALBERG, H.J. "Predicting class learning: An approach to the class as a social system", American Educational Research Journal, 1969, 6: 529-542(a).

WALBERG, H.J. "Social environment as a mediator of classroom learning", Journal of Edu- cational PsychologF, 1969, 60: 443448(b).