understanding students' changing perceptions of their learning environments in four fe colleges...

This article was downloaded by: [Lakehead University]On: 08 December 2014, At: 10:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

Understanding students' changingperceptions of their learningenvironments in four FE colleges inEnglandKeith Postlethwaite a & Wendy Maull aa School of Education and Lifelong Learning , University ofExeter , UKPublished online: 09 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Keith Postlethwaite & Wendy Maull (2007) Understanding students' changingperceptions of their learning environments in four FE colleges in England, Educational Review, 59:4,429-449, DOI: 10.1080/00131910701619332

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910701619332

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00131910701619332

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910701619332

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Understanding students’ changing

perceptions of their learning

environments in four FE colleges in

England

Keith Postlethwaite* and Wendy MaullSchool of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, UK

As part of the Transforming Learning Cultures in Further Education (TLC) project, questionnaire

data were collected from three consecutive cohorts of students in a wide range of learning sites,

initially four in each of four Further Education (FE) colleges in England. This paper focuses on

changes in perceived learning environment as mapped by these questionnaire items and seeks to

relate these changes to changes in the circumstances of the students and the site, as understood

from the extensive qualitative data also collected by the project.

Although we make no suggestion that there were simple causal relationships, there is evidence

that students’ perceptions of their learning environment may have been affected by student and

tutor disposition, curriculum, resources, broad aspects of college policy and by details of the

overall FE framework. We argue that change in perception is particularly likely where there is

synergy amongst two or more of these aspects within a site. On the basis of these findings we

suggest that although change can be within the control of the tutor, the degree of control available

will be affected by the broader circumstances in which the tutor and their students operate.

Introduction

The Transforming Learning Cultures in Further Education (TLC) project studied

learning across 17 learning sites in four different Further Education (FE) colleges in

England to explore the complexity of the relationships between teaching, teachers,

learning, learners, learning situations, and wider historical, economic, social and

political influences. The sites were deiliberately varied in character, including

classrooms, workshops, drop-in centres, virtual learning and workplaces. We used

the term ‘site’ as a neutral way of including all of these. A list of the sites is provided

in the Appendix.

*Corresponding author: School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Exeter, St

Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. Email: [email protected]

Educational Review

Vol. 59, No. 4, November 2007, pp. 429–449

ISSN 0013-1911 (print)/ISSN 1465-3397 (online)/07/040429-21

# 2007 Educational Review

DOI: 10.1080/00131910701619332

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

One of the aims of the project was to identify principles of procedure for the

enhancement of learning cultures in order to improve student learning and

achievement (James & Biesta, 2007). In part, this meant studying the impact of

planned interventions in the learning sites on the learning cultures of those sites

(James & Wahlberg, in this issue); in part it meant trying to understand how learning

cultures changed under broader influences which, if planned at all, were often

planned without improvement of learning cultures directly in mind (see Hodkinson

et al., and Hodkinson, Biesta and James, both in this issue, for further details about

learning cultures).

One way to gain insight into (changing) learning cultures is to map students’

(changing) perceptions of their classroom learning environments. This was done by

asking students to complete learning environment scales as part of a questionnaire

which was administered at least twice during their period of study, and by a series of

semi-structured interviews with students. Where significant differences were

detected in a site on the basis of the questionnaire data, the qualitative data for

that site were interrogated to construct an understanding of the changes. It is this

work that is reported here.

The focus on classroom environment

Our choice of Bourdieu’s work as a major theoretical framework for the project as a

whole was critical to our notion of learning culture, and provided a range of

conceptual tools which gave us a ‘way of thinking and a manner of asking questions’

(Mahar et al., 1990). These tools included the notions of habitus and field (James &

Biesta, 2007) which informed the collection of the qualitative data.

Briefly, habitus is ‘a durable but transposable set of dispositions, representing the

physical and mental embodiment of the social but at the same time offering choices’

(James & Bloomer, 2001). We took a student’s habitus to include such things as

their expectations of what teaching and learning in their site would be like, how they

would engage with the learning situation, what they expected to be the outcomes. A

student’s habitus is affected by their gender, social class, and ethnicity, as well as

their previous history as learners and their broader life history, so we argued it was

necessary to explore such issues as we collected our data. We recognized that a

tutor’s habitus has similar elements and similar influencing factors, and that both

tutor and student habitus would be influential in a site.

Field is ‘a structured system of social relations at micro and macro level, rather like

a field of forces in which positions are defined relationally, that is, in relation to each

other’ (James & Bloomer, 2001). We took key aspects of field to be the power

relationships within the learning site, and within the college and FE context within

which that site existed, and the ways in which power was operationalized at these

micro- and macro-levels, e.g. through ways in which the nature and status of the

subject being taught affected the power relationships between students and the

tutor, through site teaching and assessment regimes and links with external agencies

and employers, through the nature of resource allocation decisions at site, college

430 K. Postlethwaite and W. Maull

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

and national level, and through the policy context of the college and of the FE

system nationally.

A major source of project data was repeated interviews with tutors and students in

each learning site. These attempted to explore this complex socio-cultural landscape

in depth and in breadth. As explained in the introduction, this paper does not report

the findings from these interviews in full; instead it uses relevant interview data to

develop an understanding of the changes in student perception that were revealed

through repeated use of a questionnaire. In the questionnaire research we had to

take a more limited view of learning culture in order, appropriately, to operationalize

the concepts. Lorsbach and Tobin (1995) argue that a learning environment is ‘a

construction of the individuals in a given social setting; an individual’s socially

mediated beliefs about the opportunities to learn and the extent to which the social

and physical milieu constrains learning’. This is well matched to the broader notion

of learning culture outlined earlier. Learning environment is also an area in which

there has been considerable activity resulting in ‘a rich array of validated and robust

instruments’ (Aldridge et al., 2000). Therefore we agreed to focus the questionnaire

on mapping the students’ perceptions of their learning environments.

For at least 30 years, there has been significant interest in this ‘important but

subtle concept of learning environment’ (Aldridge et al., 2000). Early in its

development, its importance was confirmed by Haertel et al. (1981) who conducted

a meta-analysis of 12 studies, based on 10 sets of data from 17,805 students in 823

classes. This analysis showed that positive cognitive, affective and behavioural

learning outcomes were related to ‘positive’ perceived learning environments (ones

characterized by, ‘cohesiveness, satisfaction, task difficulty, formality, goal direction,

democracy and environment’) and that ‘negative’ perceived environments (ones

characterized by ‘friction, cliqueness, apathy, disorganization and favouritism’) were

associated with negative outcomes. Haertel et al. (1981) also demonstrated that

these relationships were not dependent on subject area, suggesting that the concept

of learning environment would be useful across the range of learning sites in which

we were interested. The broader significance of classroom learning environment,

and a possible explanation of some of its impact on learning, is indicated by Williams

and Burden (1997) who emphasized its importance in relation to student

motivation. This is reinforced by Dornyei (2001) who argues that the relationship

between the individual, their immediate environment and their broader socio-

cultural context is of great importance in understanding motivation (Ng, 2006).

Given, then, that perceived learning environment appears to be important, key

questions are: how stable are students’ perceptions of their learning environment,

and how (if at all) might these perceptions be changed? The potential for ‘individuals

in a given setting’ to effect such change is supported by Talmage et al. (1984).

Similarly, (Haertel et al., 1981) argued that students’ perceptions of classroom

environment could be influenced by factors such as training experienced by their

teacher, by the nature of the curriculum and by specific initiatives designed to

promote change. However, Lorsbach and Tobin (1995) emphasized that perceived

learning environments are influenced by the ‘social and physical milieu’, raising the

Understanding students’ changing perceptions 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

possibility that they may change under the influence of local or larger scale social

factors. This is reinforced by Tobin and Fraser (1998) who suggest that it is

important to take account both of participants’ habitus and of ‘interactions with the

community and its constituent cultures’, therefore also drawing attention to the

importance of Bourdieu’s notion of field. The issue of the competing effects of

habitus and field in affecting perceptions of learning environments was the area we

chose for investigation in this paper. We were therefore interested in questions such

as: ‘If perceived learning environments are open to change, what aspects of habitus

(e.g. students’ and tutors’ attitudes and expectations) affect this change? How much

is any change within the deliberate and planned control of teachers? How is change

affected by external influences from the field which may or may not have been

designed to change the learning environment in a positive way?’

Methodology

The overall methodology of the project is documented elsewhere (Postlethwaite, in

this issue; James & Biesta, 2007). Here we are concerned with insights gained first by

analysis of the questionnaire results, and then deepened by exploration of related

qualitative data.

The questionnaire research was conducted in the period 2001–2004. The

questionnaire was administered at the start of each academic year, and at the end of

the year (or at the point at which the student left the site). Thus we had data at the

start and end of the site for 1 year sites (or sites that students entered and left in less

than a year) and data at the start, mid-point, and end for 2 year sites. Data were

collected for two consecutive cohorts of students for 2 year sites and three cohorts

for 1 year sites.

The key part of the questionnaire for the purposes of the current paper was the

section which sought to measure perceived classroom environment. To do this we

used scales selected from the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)

(Fraser & Treagust, 1986; Taylor et al., 1997). This was partly because this

instrument most closely matched the socio-cultural view of learning that was central

to the project (Aldridge et al., 2000). We therefore reproduced (with permission) the

already well validated CLES scales Critical Voice (CV), Shared Control (SC) and

Student Negotiation (SN). These are set out in Figure 1. We did not use the two

CLES scales that were specifically related to science—the area in which CLES was

first developed.

A high CV score indicates that the individual felt free to express negative thoughts

or feelings about the course, not that they necessarily did express them in practice.

Also, three of the four questions could be taken to mean that the student could be

critical of the teaching in discussions with peers. High scores do not necessarily

mean that the student engaged in constructive critical debate with the tutor.

SC might be seen as slightly ambiguous in relation to perceived learning

environment: on the one hand, it may express a relationship with the tutor that made

it possible or impossible to negotiate, but on the other hand, it may reflect an


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

understanding that there were external factors (e.g. an externally imposed

curriculum) that promoted or limited the possibility of influencing the teaching

and assessment in any way.

SN also has two interpretations: the degree of contact between students and the

relationship between them: i.e. negotiation might be limited by geographical

isolation (e.g. when students were placed in different workplace learning

environments) or negotiation might be limited by attitudes, dispositions or learning

cultures that promoted isolation.

These alternative interpretations of the scales are, where appropriate, reflected in

the analysis later.

A key issue highlighted by using the ‘range of conceptual tools’ provided by

Bourdieu, and the relational thinking that lies at their heart, was that understanding

should first be sought at the level of the site. This required analysis of each learning

site separately. Since small numbers were then involved, the range of available

statistical techniques was small—usually focussing on tests for difference between

groups (see Postlethwaite & Maull, 2003) or, as in this paper, tests for differences

between repeated measures. Sites where differences in perceived classroom

Figure 1. Scales from the CLES


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

environment scores were identified through quantitative analysis were then searched

for qualitative data that helped to generate tentative explanations of these

differences.

These qualitative data were drawn from repeated semi-structured interviews with

students (usually near the start and end of each year). At whole team meetings we

agreed what, in light of our theoretical position, the sequence of interview schedules

should contain. These schedules were then developed to suit the context of each

partnership in local team meetings. Interviews were tape recorded and fully

transcribed. Given the enormous amount of original data from the interviews it was

impractical, for the purposes of this paper, to go back to these original sources, so

instead the qualitative insights for this paper were obtained through study of internal

documents summarizing the qualitative findings: in particular a document analysing

deliberate interventions made by tutors and/or college managers in the sites, and

documents for each site reporting and summarizing the overall qualitative analysis of

that site. These site documents were written by the research fellows familiar with

each site, to a common schedule and a common format across all sites. They were

produced without any intention of ‘explaining’ the quantitative findings. To confirm

ideas gathered from these core qualitative papers, we also exchanged written

information between the quantitative and qualitative teams in which the statistically

significant changes in sites were identified and the qualitative teams were asked to

respond with possible explanations based on their in-depth knowledge of the sites. In

addition, substantial discussions of findings were held within the entire team at

regular team meetings.

During the analysis, we strove to avoid premature closure once a plausible

explanation for a finding in a particular site had been revealed. Alternative

explanations were explored, informed by analysis of other sites where these emerged

more clearly; multiple explanations were advanced, recognizing that some

individuals in a site might be more influenced by one possible cause, others by

another; no claim was made that the explanations that we advanced were the only

possible ways of interpreting our data.

Once this site level analysis was complete it was still important to recognize that

the explanations advanced for the quantitative differences in a site were bound to be

tentative and likely to be incomplete. We did not wish to conclude that intervention

X was a likely cause of difference Y in site Z. However, we could sensibly conclude

that the range of influences identified through all the individual site analyses was

likely to give a (partial) picture of the range of factors that relate to change in

perceived learning environment. Mapping this range of factors therefore enabled us

to provide some answers to the questions raised earlier in this paper.

Results

What is reported here are statistically significant differences in each of the CLES

scales (CV, SC, SN) in each of the sites, and qualitative insights which help to

identify possible factors that may have influenced these changes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

In 2 year sites we explored differences between scores at the start and at the end of

Year 1, at the start and at the end of Year 2 and at the start of Year 1 and end of Year

2. These three comparisons, made using related t-tests, could be interpreted as

mapping a sequence of change through three points roughly 1 year apart. Each

comparison can only use data from students who replied to the questionnaire at both

points in the comparison. The student numbers therefore vary in the different parts

of the analysis. Data were available for two cohorts of students in most of the 2 year

sites. In 1 year sites, comparisons between the start and end of the year were made

(again using related t-tests). Data were available for three cohorts of students in most

of the 1 year sites.

Identifying sites showing statistically significant change in student perceptions

Tables 1 and 2 show the sites for which statistically significant difference were found

for 2 year, and 1 year sites, respectively.

Out of the 140 tests considered in preparing this paper, 19 were significant, and of

these 19, eight had p,0.01. This is much greater than the seven that might be

expected by chance from a group of 140 independent tests. This therefore suggests

that the differences detected were not simply an artefact arising from the large

number of statistical tests conducted.

Exploring sites showing statistically significant change in student perceptions

The next section of this paper considers the individual sites where statistically

significant change was detected, and seeks to relate the changes to the circumstances

of the sites as mapped by the qualitative data.

Child Care and Education Diploma (CACHE). This is a 2-year level three course,

formerly known as ‘nursery nursing’; Cohort 1 n515; Cohort 2 no questionnaire

data collected; Cohort 3 n518.

The changes in this site are illustrated in Figure 2.

The Cohort 1 CACHE students began their first year with quite low shared

control scores. The qualitative team reported that perhaps this reflected the

powerful influence of an externally-driven curriculum which the tutor had to deliver,

and the younger, slightly dependent nature of this group of learners. (Internal

document)

However, these shared control scores rose steadily over the 2 years, with the overall

difference reaching significance, suggesting an increasing tendency, over the period

of the course, for students to negotiate with their tutor in order to plan activities and

contribute to their own assessment. For Cohort 1, the tutor intervened a great deal

in the students’ learning and organized tutorials whenever they were facing

difficulties, reflecting

the idealized culture of feminised, self-sacrificing care which pervades nursery nursing

(and in which [the tutor] still felt steeped as a recent practitioner. (Internal document)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table 1. Mean scores and significant differences in 2 year sites—data from Cohorts 1 and 2 (and CACHE Cohort 3)

Site CV SC SN

Year 1

start/end

Year 2

start/end

Entry/

end

Year 1

start/end

Year 2

start/end

Entry/

end

Year 1

start/end

Year 2

start/end

Entry/

end

CACHE C1 2.98 2.64 2.58 2.83 2.98 2.83 1.76 2.02 2.00 2.46 1.76 2.51 * 2.77 2.48 2.36 2.28 2.78 2.38 *

CACHE C3

Year 1 only

2.91 3.23 1.84 2.61 * 2.95 3.08

14–16 Tas C2 2.68 2.45 2.45 2.89 ** 2.67 2.79 1.52 1.23 1.23 2.23 ** 1.52 2.23 * 2.39 2.22 2.22 3.05 ** 2.38 3.03 **

BTECHlth C2 2.90 2.94 2.94 3.11 2.90 3.11 2.08 2.06 2.06 2.50 2.08 2.50 * 3.30 3.04 3.04 3.20 3.30 3.20

Engineer C1 2.78 2.49 2.39 2.75 * 2.74 2.67 1.65 1.28 ** 1.27 2.02 ** 1.64 1.92 3.16 3.00 2.99 3.33 * 3.30 3.32

Engineer C2 2.71 3.06 * 2.84 2.64 2.75 2.67 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.52 1.58 1.50 2.97 2.95 2.95 2.94 3.19 2.94

Note: Differences were tested using the repeated measures t-test on the parametric scale scores. No statistically significant differences were found for:

Voc pathways C1; AVCE T&T C1 and C2; BTEC Health C1.

*p,0.05; **p,0.01.

Table 2. Mean scores and significant differences in 1 year sites (data from Cohorts 1, 2 and 3)

Site C1 C2 C3

CV SC SN CV SC SN CV SC SN

SLDD/EBD 2.83 2.98 2.63 2.92 3.00 3.05 2.48 2.43 2.55 2.35 2.93 2.74 3.01 2.97 2.79 2.43 2.86 2.55 *

C&GIT(C1)

GNVQ IT (C2&3)

3.00 3.41 2.80 3.16 2.65 2.74 2.21 2.64 1.54 1.60 2.30 2.72 ** 3.30 2.64 2.05 2.28 2.90 2.95

GNVQ Bus 3.00 3.00 2.29 2.81 * 2.78 3.25 2..86 2.68 2.11 2.45 2.92 2.80 2.20 2.48 1.93 2.22 2.40 2.42

AdSupMS 3.25 3.67 * 3.25 3.17 2.17 3.31 2.50 1.96 2.13 2.13 3.42 3.25

Note: Differences were tested using the repeated measure t-test on the parametric scale scores. No statistically significant differences were found for:

AS French Cohort 2 and Cohort 3; Yng Prnt Cohort 1 and Cohort 2; WkbsdAss (but very small numbers). In AdSupMS there were very small

numbers (Cohort 1 n53; Cohort 2 n52).

*p,0.05; **p,0.01.

436

K.

Postleth

waite

and

W.

Maull

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

This approach, grounded in these tutor dispositions, would be expected to lead to a

rising sense of shared control through the first year, as the students experienced this

site ethos.

In addition, in Cohort 1, the CACHE site was one which recruited students on the

basis of experience rather than qualification, so many students had relatively low

prior qualifications. This contextual factor, reflecting recruitment policy within the

department at that time, may have interacted with tutor disposition making the

frequent tutorials necessary for, and acceptable to, the students.

Partly in light of her engagement in the TLC project, the tutor began to recognize

that she was doing too much for her students. This was causing her stress and was

also seen as limiting their responsibility for their own learning—running contrary to

the common FE sector rhetoric of developing student autonomy to prepare students

for their place in a context of lifelong learning. The tutor was, perhaps, particularly

Figure 2. Changes in the CACHE site Cohort 1. In this, and similar figures, scores from Table 1

have been used in the following way: the mid course score is the mean of Year 1 End and Year 2

Start; the end of course score is the mean of Year 2 End and End


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

sensitive to the need to develop learner autonomy as this coincided with notions of

academic respectability: something for which she was striving for the CACHE

programme. She deliberately chose to introduce a year planner spelling out the

deadlines for each assignment, and to expect the students to use this to take more

control of their own learning—seeking help when they needed it rather than being

called in to a tutorial at the behest of the tutor. The tutor saw this to be a great

success. It is therefore interesting that in Cohort 3 the SC scores still rose

significantly—indeed more sharply than for Cohort 1. Perhaps the underlying ethos

of the site had not changed that much; perhaps the planner (together with the

tutorials which were still available when sought) gave a structure that students could

use to share control of their work with their tutor.

In parallel with the rising SC scores, there was a fall over the 2 years in SN scores,

i.e. students’ tendency to discuss work with each other. The fall in SN in the first

year was almost four times as great as that in the second year.

The qualitative team reported that:

The students were all from working class backgrounds. However, they rapidly divided

into two sub-groups based on their own perceptions that some were ‘nice’ (upper

working class, stable family backgrounds, suburban homes) and some ‘rough’ (lower

working class, separated parents or living independently, inner city homes. Open

hostility broke out between the ‘nice’ group and the ‘rough’ group. (Internal document)

In such circumstances low SN scores would be expected—especially where students

had ready access to support from their tutor, suggesting that the SN and SC

trajectories may have been inter-linked.

In an earlier paper we argued (Postlethwaite & Maull, 2003) that isolation was an

important factor in helping to characterize learning environments. We identified

isolation by geography (students in one site never met as they were based in different

work places), by time (students in one ‘drop in’ site rarely met as there were no fixed

class times but students attended the site to work with tutors when they needed to)

and by language (students in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

site could not communicate easily with one another as they were speakers of

languages other than English and this, their one shared language, was one in which

they lacked competence). Here, in this paper, we see isolation by choice—the

establishment of cliques which then reduced opportunities for sharing amongst the

students.

The emergence of these subgroups was of concern to the tutors who placed

responsibility on the groups to ‘sort the problem out amongst themselves’. This was

achieved with some success. Some ‘rough’ students left and although the groups did

not achieve any significant emotional re-bonding, they did become far more tolerant

of each other—which may account for the partial stabilization of the SN score during

Year 2.

The apparently attitudinal/class-based separation of students into subgroups also

reflected different attitudes towards the CACHE course itself. Some students had a

clear commitment to nursery nursing while others in Cohort 1 were involved in it

because, at that time, it had low entry requirements and they had failed to achieve


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

the grades necessary to follow their preferred courses such as General National

Vocational Qualification (GNVQ) Advanced Health and Social Care. These

different perspectives on the course may have contributed to the falling SN scores

for Cohort 1. A deliberate decision to raise the entry requirements for the CACHE

programme (and thus produce a cohort of more similar students) may partly explain

the lack of any fall in SN scores during the first year of Cohort 3.

A vocational ‘taster’ course for Key Stage 4 school students (14–16 Tas). This site

provides for 14–16 year old (Key Stage 4) school students, replacing one of their

academic school courses with a college course in Administration/Information

Technology (Cohort 1 n511; Cohort 2 n510).

The changes in this site are illustrated in Figure 3.

For Cohort 2, the consistent pattern in this site was that CV , SC and SN scores

all fell (though not significantly) during Year 1, then rose significantly in Year 2. The

Figure 3. Changes in the 14–16 Tas site Cohort 2


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

second year rise in SC and SN was large enough to make the increase from the start

of Year 1 to the end of Year 2 statistically significant.

There were no statistically significant changes in these scores in Cohort 1.

In the first year of the Cohort 1 14–16 Tas course, their administration work

(i.e. about half their whole workload) was based in the ‘business office’—a

resource in which students fulfilled office functions on behalf of staff of their

college. At the end of the first year (and therefore just before the start of the

Cohort 2 course) this business office was dismantled. After this, the administration

teaching involved ‘sitting in a classroom just like school’ (Internal paper). At the

same time, the tutor was moved to a more managerial role and was only able to

teach Cohort 2 on rare occasions, substitute teaching having sometimes to be

arranged at quite short notice. For Cohort 1 there were only marginal changes in

CV, SC and SN scores during the first year but a rise in CV in Year 2 (from 2.80

to 3.13) which nevertheless failed to reach statistical significance (not least because

only five students returned the two questionnaires which were necessary for this

analysis). This could be seen as suggesting a slight downturn in the experiences of

Cohort 1 during their second year. The picture provided, in Figure 3, of the

trajectories for Cohort 2 shows small falls in all scores over the same time period—

which was their first year. After the start of their second year, (and in contrast to

Cohort 1) Cohort 2 students expressed a lack of satisfaction with the

administration sessions and with the predominance of information technology

(IT) teaching. They also regretted the lack of a supportive relationship with one

tutor. In this context, two ‘rather extrovert students’ complained about the course

and asked to change to another. Their complaint was received constructively—

itself a source of insight for the other students. Although nothing could be done to

reverse the decision to dismantle the business office, this student intervention did

encourage the tutor to identify another member of staff who could take over her

teaching and work consistently with the students. This new tutor introduced more

small group work, more work experience days within the college, a gradual build

up of telephone skills and a required presentation involving teamwork. These

changes were reflected in significant increases in CV, SC and SN scores during

that second year and in

the students’ much more positive demeanour during the presentation that they gave

near the end of their course. The contrast with an observation six months earlier was

striking. Then students had been sullen and uncooperative. (Internal document)

The factors at play in this site were very varied. It was the merging of the College

with others to become part of a large county-wide college corporation that gave the

tutor her increased managerial role, first as 14–16 Manager, and later as 14–19

Manager for the whole corporation. This offered her professional opportunities that

were very positively received. However, it gave her less time to teach and to prepare

for teaching. Her sense that the group were, in her words, ‘getting a raw deal’

reinforced her view that there was a growing gap between what should be happening,

and what was being achieved. In addition to this values-based concern, she argued

that, in the changed circumstances of the loss of the business office, different


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

pedagogic skills were required for the group. Together these factors led to the

decision to hand over the teaching to a different tutor. The new tutor’s availability,

and her teaching style matched the circumstances of the site. Another factor was the

TLC project itself. Appropriate feedback from interviews and observations

reinforced the original tutor’s analysis of the site and its needs.

BTEC National Diploma in Health Studies (BTECHlth). This 2 year course led to

BTEC (Business and Technical Education Council) National Diploma in Health

Studies (Cohort 1 n514; Cohort 2 n58).

The main feature of this site was that Cohort 1 showed no significant differences

in CV, SC or SN scores but that in Cohort 2 gradually rising SC scores generated a

significant difference between these scores at the start and the end of the 2 year

course.

The site was within a college that had undergone a merger, an internal re-

organization and the preparations for an OfSTED inspection. (OfSTED is the

Office for Standards in Education whose official inspections of the quality of

educational provision result in reports that can have significant impact on the

reputation of institutions.) In addition, the site needed to respond to changing

structures for the BTEC National Diploma. In consultation with her colleagues, the

tutor decided to introduce opportunities for more individualized learning that

included investigative tasks. She felt this would address what she perceived as

‘failings’ in her own teaching in relation to differentiation and attention to student

learning styles. This was particularly significant because of the tutor’s role as a

College Advisory Teacher, her perceptions of OfSTED’s likely interest in

differentiation and her determination to have the quality of her own teaching

recognized through the OfSTED process. This change would also be consistent with

the experiential learning approach that was part of the BTEC philosophy. This

change was made at the end of the first year for Cohort 1 students—the beginning of

the course for Cohort 2.

The changes outlined earlier might well be expected to lead to increased shared

control scores as students negotiated their individualized learning with their tutor.

This did indeed happen with Cohort 2 (but not until the second year). Cohort 1

scores showed no significant changes. This is consistent with findings from

interviews in which the tutor stated that she

found the groups differed in their responses: most of the second years (Cohort 1) were

always cheerful, happy, up-to-date with work but did not respond well to the

intervention; the first year students (Cohort 2) were a smaller group, quieter in

demeanour, and they were more willing to undertake research activity but less willing to

undertake presentations of outcomes for their peers. (Internal document)

Also, when interviewed at the end of their second year, students in Cohort 2 showed

evidence of frustration with the tutor for expecting them to explain things to each

other, which may reflect the lack of change in SN scores. As the qualitative team

noted, the students ‘‘… had become oriented to the production and assessment of

assignments’’.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

An interesting issue in this site was the interaction between the characteristics of

the students and the nature of the intervention—resulting in different outcomes for

the different cohorts.

BTEC National Certificate in Engineering (Electronics and Telecommunications)

(Engineer). This course led to a National Certificate in Engineering (Electronics

and Telecommunications). It was a 2 year course, which students attended through

day release (Cohort 1 n520; Cohort 2 n530).

As Figure 4 and Table 1 suggest, there was more change in this site in Cohort 1,

than in Cohort 2.

For Cohort 1, after a dip in all three learning environment scores during Year 1

there seemed to be a broadly based upturn in the character of the site in Year 2. This

may reflect the fact that, at the end of this first year, four students left (perhaps

easing the relationships within the student cohort), and in Year 2, more units were

taught in the telecommunications area—an area of particular relevance to the

students. The importance of this change in topic can be seen from the fact that a

clear finding from the student interviews was that the course itself had been

perceived as, at worst, entirely irrelevant to the needs of their day-to-day work and,

at best, ‘partially relevant sometimes’. Nevertheless, the majority of them persevered

with it and achieved the award. This student view articulates in an interesting way

with the tutor’s view that the current curriculum contrasted with past views of

engineering excellence which he held dear.

A further characteristic of the site was the tutor’s sense of the

almost whimsical nature of externally-imposed curriculum change, for example when

external tests were made compulsory and then abandoned. (Internal document)

Indeed, one aspect of the interventions the tutor made in the site was to protect

students from the impact of such imposed change—interventions which the students

did not notice and which he found very difficult to sustain.

It seems that both the students and the tutor were disenchanted with aspects of

the site. In such a circumstance an upturn for one (because of greater topic

relevance) might act in a virtuous circle to raise the perceptions of both.

In the final interview the tutor drew attention to changes in the future which

would further challenge the site—these included introducing a 1 year version of the

course. This was something he viewed with mixed emotions. On the one hand, he

felt that the 1 year course ‘presents some hope for the future’ whilst, on the

other hand, he and his colleague who would be teaching it had ‘grave reservations’

partly because they felt the course would run with no additional resources or

teaching time.

One year sites. As shown in Table 2, the 1 year sites in which statistically significant

differences were detected were an entry-level course for school leavers with learning

and behavioural difficulties (SLDD/EBD, Cohort 1 n510; Cohort 2 n55; Cohort 3

n57), GNVQ Business Studies Intermediate level (GNVQ Bus; Cohort 1 n57;

Cohort 2 n527; Cohort 3 n515), GNVQ Information Technology (GNVQ IT,

Cohort 2 n59 and Cohort 3 n58 only), and mature students support (AdSupMS,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Figure 4. Changes in the Engineering site Cohorts 1 and 2


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Cohorts 1 n55 and Cohort 2 n55 only). The last of these sites provided one-to-one

tutoring in a learning centre for students needing support in mathematics, English or

study skills in relation to dyslexia.

The quantitative data for these sites merely gave snapshots at the beginning and

end of the year so there is less of a ‘story’ to tell than in 2 year sites where mid-point

data were also available. However, some useful links to the qualitative data could

again be constructed.

In the SLDD/EBD site there was a statistically significant fall in SN score in

Cohort 3. CV and SC scores for Cohort 3 did not change significantly; there were no

statistically significant differences in either Cohort 1 or Cohort 2. The qualitative

data showed that in Cohort 3 only, students chose their programme from a wide

range of options and were taught with other groups for part of their time. As a note

from the qualitative team states ‘they lost the sense of ‘‘we are a group’’ and became

a group only for the register in the morning and all else was with shifting populations

of fellow students. Very unnerving for SLD (students)’.

For GNVQ Bus, the only statistically significant difference was a rise in shared

control in Cohort 1. An internal note from the qualitative team points out that ‘the

staff had a much greater sense of unity in Cohort 1 …The move to (another) campus

has seen the teaching team idea completely disappear … Relationships are more

transient and less solid’. The change in campus was also associated with a shift in

management style ‘from achievement to retention’ and from insisting on appropriate

qualification to ‘numbers at any price’. While it is difficult to assert a clear causal

link, it is certainly plausible that students in Cohort 1 with a consistent staff team,

strong relationships and a managerial focus on achievement might report an

increased sense of shared control for their learning during their year, and that

Cohorts 2 and 3 in the other environment would not.

For GNVQ IT, the only statistically significant difference was a rise in

student negotiation scores for Cohort 2. This group of students were the first to

be offered this course as previously the College had offered the City and Guilds

7621 IT programme. The change of course was based on figures for retention

for the 7621 programme (figures that were disputed by the teaching team) and

on the development, locally, of alternative provision outside the College that was

targeted at mature students. With this change came a change in student target

group, from a mix of full-time school leavers and part-time mature students, to

a concentration on school leavers who shared similar dispositions to their

learning:

These youngsters did not appear to have much sense of agency in their lives and several

seemed unwilling or unable to share any insight into their aspirations: a frequent

response to questions was a simple ‘I don’t know’. (Internal document)

In addition the tutor had been absent through illness for about half of the year. With

a more coherent student group and the lack of the key tutor, students may well be

expected to look to one another for support and this could have accounted for the

change in SN scores for this cohort.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

For AdSupMS, the only statistically significant difference was a rise in CV score

for Cohort 1. The best commentary on this finding comes from the qualitative team

in their internal note on this finding:

Well, this (CV.) is exactly what we might expect. The tutor was exactly focused on

achieving this—part of ‘enhancing self-esteem’ in her model.

and

The one-to-one relationship will … produce greater student confidence. That they felt

they could have CV may have been very different from actually having a CV.

Student engagement in this site was a reflection of the fact that they experienced

difficulty in learning. The site was intended to support them in developing their

approach to learning so that they could continue on their chosen path. In this

context we might indeed expect rising confidence and self esteem to lead to views

matching those included in the CV scale (e.g. ‘It’s OK for me to ask the tutor ‘‘Why

do I have to learn this?’’ or It’s OK for me to question the way I’m being taught’).

A change of campus, changing management views about the nature of one-to-one

support, a changing role for the tutor and a change in the nature of the students

involved in the research in Cohort 2 may all have contributed to the different

outcome in that year.

Discussion

It is clear from the earlier mentioned that there were statistically significant

differences in perceived learning environment scores during students’ lifetimes in

approximately 60% of the learning sites, and that specific factors were identified as

being relevant to the changes in each of these site. However, for any of the sites (and

especially for individual students in any of the sites) factors similar in kind to any of

these could have been influential. We may, for example, have concluded that a

management focus on achievement had an impact on students’ perceived learning

environment in the GNVQ Business Studies site, but management priorities may

well have affected any site. It is not the main purpose of this paper to argue that this

factor had this effect in this site, but rather to identify the range of influences that

appeared to affect learning cultures.

In summarizing this range of influences we would argue that the research provides

clear evidence of the impact of both habitus and field on perceived learning

environments. Examples of the effect of habitus include the impact of tutor

expectations (AdSupMS), of a high level of student dependence, student attitudes to

the course and the tutor’s disposition to provide unending support (CACHE) and of

the tutor’s dispositions towards the view of engineering promoted by the course

(Engineer). Examples of the effect of field include the impact of the maintenance of

a coherent teaching team with strong relationships and of a managerial focus on

achievement (GNVQ Bus), of the FE rhetoric about the development of

independent study skills (CACHE), of changed physical resources (14–16 Tas)

and of perceived OfSTED priorities (BTECHlth).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

We also argue that differences seemed especially evident where there was some

synergy between two or more factors that were operating in the site. A clear example

is CACHE where a young and rather dependent student group whose qualifications

were low for the level of course on which they were engaged found themselves taught

by a tutor disposed to offer a great deal of tutorial support. It is important to note

that synergy may not always produce positive effects; it could steer a site in an

unwelcome direction. Our point is simply that synergy may promote or support

change. This idea may also help to explain why some sites showed no significant

differences in perceived learning environment scores. It is unlikely that such sites

were unaffected by, for example, tutor and student characteristics, but it is possible

that in these sites these influences did not pull in the same direction to effect a

change.

This suggests that although tutors can make a difference, other factors outside

their control also make a difference. It follows that college managers and policy-

makers should be aware that decisions that are not specifically designed to impact on

learning environments (e.g. changing the location of a course, changing the entry

qualifications, emphasizing the importance of a particular institutional target) may

still do so by subtly affecting the learning culture of learning sites.

The effect of field challenges the assumption that when students fail to learn

effectively, the problem must be at the level of their teacher. Broader issues such as

management style, changing staff responsibilities, teaching team stability, the

development of alternative provision by other providers, student grouping policy,

course choice, admissions policy, resource changes or site location all had an effect.

Since tutors can make a difference, action research can be a useful approach to the

improvement of learning. However, in relation to such action research, our findings

suggest that, following Elliott (1991), careful reconnaissance is always needed, not

only to most appropriately conceptualize aspects of the problem as they present to

the teacher, but also to explore the broader field effects that may need to be taken

into account in the particular context. In such reconnaissance, identification of

possible synergies that could be exploited (or destructive ones that should be

countered) is essential. Simply working on a problem that is evident in one’s own

practice may not be enough—and a lack of attention to the importance of synergy

may well result in wasted effort.

Overall, these findings suggest that simplistic models of teacher effectiveness that

attribute learning outcomes to the actions of the tutor and ignore the web of other

influences may be unfair to teachers. In relation to change in the learning

environment, we challenge the implications of some of the common, older models of

change (Deal & Peterson, 1994; Stoll & Fink, 1996). Though these acknowledge the

unpredictable nature of the change process, they nevertheless tend to conceptualize

it as goal driven and managed, and achieved through deriving and sharing visions of

the future, and engineering consensus and coherence. They therefore fail to take

adequate account of the range of influences (such as those we have identified) to

which teachers and managers have to try to respond in some way. Our findings are

more consistent with the notion that change should be seen in terms of all six models


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

of change proposed by Kezar (2001). Some of these emphasize purposeful, planned

change (the teleological model), and others the complexities of environmental

change (responses to changing circumstances) or cultural change (responses to

change in the human environment). In this respect we see change as related to

complexity theory rather than simple models of cause and effect. We agree with

Fullan (1999) that ‘the link between cause and effect is difficult to trace’, that

‘change (planned and unplanned) unfolds in non-linear ways’ and that managing

change is about providing just enough structure to ‘stay poised on the edge of this

chaos’. In light of our findings, one way to navigate these uncertainties would seem

to be to seek for synergies and exploit those that enable positive changes to be made

or negative influences to be countered. The image that is in our minds is not of

setting and steering a course in calm waters but reacting to the opportunities and

risks offered by a rapidly changing stormy sea.

Acknowledgements

Transforming Learning Cultures in Further Education (TLC) was funded by the

Economic and Social Research Council within its Teaching and Learning Research

Programme (Award No. L139251025). We are grateful to the other members of the

TLC project team for their contributions to the development of this article. They

are: Graham Anderson, Gert Biesta, Helen Colley, Jenny Davies, Kim Diment,

Denis Gleeson, Phil Hodkinson, David James, Tony Scaife, Mike Tedder, Madeline

Wahlberg and Eunice Wheeler.

References

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J. & Taylor, P. C. (2000) Constructivist learning environments in a

crossnational study in Taiwan and Australia, International Journal of Science Education, 22(2),

37–55.

Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1994) The leadership paradox: balancing logic and artistry in schools

(San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Dornyei, Z. (2001) Teaching and researching motivation (New York, Longman).

Elliott, J. (1991) Action research for educational change (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Fraser, B. & Treagust, D. F. (1986) Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom

psychosocial environment in higher education, Higher Education, 15, 37–57.

Fullan, M. (1999) Change forces: the sequel (London, Falmer Press).

Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J. & Haertel, E. H. (1981) Socio-psychological environments and

learning: a quantitative synthesis, British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 27–36.

James, D. & Biesta, G. J. J. (Eds) (2007) Improving learning cultures in further education (London,

Routledge Falmer).

James, D. & Bloomer, J. M. (2001) Cultures and learning in further education, paper presented at

the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Leeds, 3–15

September.

Kezar, A. (2001) Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in the 21st Century,

ERIC Digest. Available online at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-2/21st.htm (accessed July

2006).

Lorsbach, A. W. & Tobin, K. (1995) Toward a critical approach to the study of learning

environments in science classrooms, Research in Science Education, 25, 19–32.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Mahar, C., Harker, R. & Wilkes, C. (1990) The basic theoretical position., in: R. Harker,

C. Mahar & C. Wilkes (Eds) An introduction to work of Pierre Bourdieu—the practice of theory

(Basingstoke, Macmillan).

Ng, S. (2006) A longitudinal investigation into the relationship between Malaysian students’ preferred

learning styles, their perceptions of their classroom environment and their academic achievement.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Exeter.

Postlethwaite, K. & Maull, W. (2003) Similarities and differences amongst learning sites in four

further education colleges in England and some implications for transformation of learning

cultures, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 55(4), 447–470.

Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996) Changing our schools. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement

(Buckingham, Open University Press).

Talmage, H., Pascarella, E. T. & Ford, S. (1984) The influence of cooperative learning strategies

on teacher practices, student perceptions of the learning environment, and academic

achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 163–179.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. & Fisher, P. A. (1997) Monitoring constructivist classroom learning

environments, International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.

Tobin, K. & Fraser, B. (1998) Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning

environments, in: B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds) International handbook of science education

(London, Kluwer Academic Publishers), 623–640.

Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997) Psychology for language teachers: a social constructivist approach

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Appendix

Learning sites: codes, nature of sites and number of cases for quantitative analysis

Sites covered a range of different types of course provision, at different levels of

qualification. As might be expected, there were some changes to sites during the life

of the project, which had the effect of increasing the overall number of cases within

the project. The resulting 19 sites were as follows:

N AdSupMS5additional support for mature students providing one-to-one tutoring

in a learning centre for students needing support in mathematics, English or study

skills in relation to dyslexia

(Cohorts 1 n55 and Cohort 2 n55)

replaced in Cohort 3 by

N SupptMS5‘individual tutoring for access students’

(Cohort 3 n520)

N GNVQ Bus5Business Studies GNVQ (General National Vocational

Qualifications) GNVQ Intermediate level—1-year, level two course;

(Cohort 1 n57; Cohort 2 n527; Cohort 3 n515)

N SLDD/EBD5an entry-level course for school leavers with learning and

behavioural difficulties;



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

N Yng Prnt5a re-engagement course for young parents;


N CACHE5Child Care and Education (CACHE) Diploma—a 2-year level three

course, formerly known as ‘nursery nursing’;

(Cohort 1 n515; Cohort 2 no questionnaire data collected; Cohort 3 n518)

N EL Drama5a 1-year or 2-year entry-level course in drama production for

students with learning difficulties, leading to an ASDAN Expressive Arts award;

(n58; note this site was not included in the statistical analysis as the students had

difficulty completing the questionnaire)

N AS Psych5Psychology AS (Advanced, supplementary) level (Cohort 1 only

n515);

replaced by

N AS French5Modern languages AS level in Cohort 2 (n514) and Cohort 3

(n512);

N on-line basic information technology (IT) skills (no quantitative data);

N Engneer5Engineering in Electronics and Telecommunications (National

Certificate, 2 years, day release)

(Cohort 1 n520; Cohort 2 n530);

N ESOL LS5ESOL Learning Services—English for Speakers of Other

Languages— (roll-on, roll-off) (Cohort 1 n59; no questionnaire data in

Cohorts 2 and 3);

N Photog5Photography BTEC+City & Guilds; 1 and 2 years full- or part-time


N WkBsdAst5Work-based NVQ assessment in administration, business and

technology (National Vocational Qualifications, levels 2/3)

(Cohort 1 n516; Cohort 2 n56, Cohort 3 n53);

N BTECHlth5Health Studies BTEC (Business and Technical Education Council)

National Diploma—a 2-year course


N C&G IT5IT by flexible learning (City & Guilds 7261) (Cohort 1 only n511)

replaced by

N GNVQ IT5GNVQ Information Technology

(Cohort 2 n59 and Cohort 3 n58);

N AVCE T&T5Travel and Tourism Advanced Vocational Certificate in

Education—a 1-year or 2-year course


N 14-16 Tas5a vocational ‘taster’ course for Key Stage 4 school students, replacing

one of their General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) with a college

course in Administration/Information Technology (Cohort 1 n511; Cohort 2

n510).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lak

ehea

d U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

30 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

understanding students' changing perceptions of their learning environments in four fe colleges...

Documents