within-class analysis of ninth-grade science students' perceptions of the learning environment

Within-Class Analysis of Ninth-Grade Science Students’ Perceptionsof the Learning Environment

Douglas Huffman, Frances Lawrenz, Mark Minger

College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota,159 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0208

Received 3 June 1996; revised 29 April 1997; accepted 6 May 1997

Abstract: This study examined perceptions of the learning environment among different subgroups ofstudents within science classes. The purpose was to identify variables that can promote effective sciencelearning environments for all students. Specifically, comparisons were made between the perceptions ofmale and female students and of black and white students within the same classes. In addition, perceptionsof the learning environment were compared for students in classes taught by male and female teachers aswell as black and white teachers. A diverse sample of over 1800 ninth-grade science students who attend-ed 13 different high schools across the country participated in this study. Results indicated there were dif-ferences between subgroups of students in the same classes concerning perceptions of involvement anddifficulty of the class. The implications of these results for science teaching are discussed, as well as rec-ommendations for future science learning environment research. J Res Sci Teach 34: 791–804, 1997.

Introduction

Creating a positive classroom learning environment is a key requirement of meeting the Na-tional Science Education Standards [National Research Council (NRC), 1995] and withoutquestion, an educationally desirable end in its own right. All science teachers desire a classroomin which the subject matter is personally relevant, where students are actively engaged in learn-ing, and where the discourse is focused on inquiring about important scientific problems. Theemphasis in the science standards on the learning environment is based on a long history of re-search on the topic. Over 30 years ago, Getzels and Thelen (1960) proposed a conceptual frame-work for the classroom as a social system. The main elements include three dimensions: (a) so-ciological dimension of action, (b) personal dispositions, and (c) balance between institution andindividual. The sociological dimension of action includes the institution, role, and expectations,where roles are defined as established institutional expectations. The personal dimension per-tains to unique features of people and includes the individual, personality, and dispositions. Thebalance between the institution and the individual includes the class, climate, intentions, and be-havior. This dimension pertains to the interaction between institutional expectations and the in-dividual personality needs. This framework was supported by Bloom’s (1964) work on the en-

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 34, NO. 8, PP. 791–804 (1997)

© 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/97/080791-14

Correspondence to: D. Huffman

vironment as a predictor of performance and Maslow’s (1970) assertion that human behavior isintrinsically related to the situation and to other people. In other words, the classroom environ-ment is a mediator that foster positive scientific behaviors and attitudes.

Not only is the learning environment described in the National Science Education Stan-dards (NRC, 1995) critical for modeling the nature of scientific inquiry, but an overwhelmingbody of research clearly establishes that such a learning environment is associated with a vari-ety of desirable educational outcomes (Fraser, 1994). The research on learning environments inscience indicates that the learning environment is a significant predictor of positive student out-comes. In a comprehensive meta-analyses involving 12 different studies on 823 classes, it wasfound that learning posttests were consistently and positively associated with classes perceivedas having more student cohesiveness, satisfaction, difficulty, formality, democracy and goal di-rection, and negatively associated with classes perceived as having more disorganization, clique-ness, apathy, and friction (Haertel, Walberg, & Haertel, 1981). Two other more recent meta-analysis have confirmed the link between the learning environment and achievement (Fraser,1986; Fraser, Walberg, Welch, & Hattie, 1987).

The learning environment has also been shown to be a sensitive indicator of differences be-tween curricula. In Welch and Walberg’s (1972) benchmark national evaluation of Harvard Pro-ject Physics using the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), they reported that the classroomsusing an experimental curriculum were viewed by the students as having more diversity, lessfavoritism, and less difficulty. More recently, Fraser, Williamson, and Tobin (1987) assessedteachers’ and students’ perceptions of the learning environment as part of a study of alternativehigh schools that specifically attempted to create a positive ethos. They found more student in-volvement, satisfaction, innovation, and individualization in the alternative schools. Using morequalitative research methods, Tobin and Fraser (1990, 1991) compared learning environmentsbetween classes taught by exemplary and nonexemplary teachers. They reported that studentsin classrooms with exemplary teachers perceived their classrooms as having more involvement,teacher support, order, and organization. Overall, the large body of research on learning envi-ronments spanning several decades clearly establishes the learning environment as an importantfeature of science classes that is strongly associated with positive educational outcomes (Fraser, 1989).

However, previous research on learning environments has primarily relied upon the use ofeither the class or the individual as the unit of analysis. This type of analysis is predicated onthe assumption that the psychosocial environment in the classroom is something unique to theentire classroom, and that these factors are perceived by all students as a whole. In terms of Get-zels and Thelen’s framework (1960), this type of analysis assumes that the balance between theinstitution and the individual is the best predictor of behavior. If this assumption is true, it makessense to use the class mean score as a representation of the entire classroom learning environ-ment. On the other hand, it is also plausible that different subsets of students within a class mayhave different perceptions of the learning environment. This perspective assumes that the per-sonal disposition dimension may also be important. If different subgroups do exist within aclassroom, using the average view of the learning environment may mask real differences be-tween groups of students. To better understand the science learning environment, it is importantto examine results by subgroups within classes. Such information can also help teachers betterunderstand how to respond to unique subgroups of students and help maximize the outcomes ofall students.

The issue of subgroups within a class was raised by Tobin and Gallagher (1987), who re-ported that there appear to be some students who experience a learning environment differentfrom that of other students in the same class. They found that some students perceived the learn-

792 HUFFMAN, LAWRENZ, AND MINGER

ing environment differently from their classmates, partly because the teacher treated them dif-ferently. In their study, these students tended to perceive more involvement and greater rule clar-ity in their classes than did the other students in the classroom. Fraser (1994) pointed out thatthese findings bring into question the common practice of using the class mean as the unit ofanalysis in learning environment research and highlight the need for more research on the dif-ferences in perceptions of individuals or subgroups within the same class.

Two subgroups within many science classrooms are male and female students. The field ofscience is traditionally viewed as a masculine subject, and as a result, female students may forma different culture within the science class (Sjoberg & Imsen, 1988). A significant body of re-search supports the view that male and female students can have differential perceptions of thelearning environment. Simpson and Oliver (1990) reported that girls tend to have a more posi-tive perception of their science classrooms than boys, and Kahle (1988) indicated that femalestudents tend to be less involved in science classrooms than male students. In addition, the sexof the teacher can significantly affect students’ perceptions of the learning environment.Lawrenz (1987) found differences in the perceptions of boys and girls across classes, whereclasses taught by female teachers were perceived as more difficult and where girls with maleteachers viewed their classes as more cohesive.

Other possible subgroups within many science classes are students of different ethnic orracial backgrounds. Over the past decade, U.S. schools have become more and more diverse[National Science Foundation (NSF), 1994]. In terms of science classrooms, there has also beena noticeable increase in the diversity of students enrolled in science courses, with black and His-panic students completing more science courses than in previous years (Educational Testing Ser-vice, 1994). Exacerbating the differences within classrooms is the recent emphasis on keepingcultures intact within our society rather than promoting a melting pot where all cultures fuseinto a new whole (Crichlow, Goodwin, Shakes, & Swartz, 1990; Allen & Seumptewa, 1988).All in all, these statistics indicate that the chances of one shared cultural background contribut-ing to one unique view of the classroom learning environment is less and less likely.

Given the possibility of subgroups of students within classes who possess different per-ceptions of the learning environment, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptionsof the learning environment among students within classes. By identifying variables that canbe controlled by teachers, it is possible to help science teachers promote the creation of effec-tive science learning environments for all students. Specifically, differences in perceptions ofmale and female students and of black and white students within the same classes were com-pared. In addition, the differences in the perceptions of the learning environment were com-pared for students in classes taught by male and female teachers, as well as black and whiteteachers.

Sample

A representative sample of over 1800 ninth-grade science students participated in this study.The students attended 13 different high schools throughout the United States that were locatedin California, Montana, Iowa, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, DC, and New York. Theschools were all volunteers in a national teacher enhancement effort. They were selected by theNational Science Teachers Association to include schools from urban, suburban and rural areasand to include students with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The schools included over50 ninth-grade teachers who taught over 100 science classes.

Data were collected by the authors from all regular ninth-grade science classes of the teach-ers who volunteered to participate in the enhancement project. To examine male and female stu-

PERCEPTIONS OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 793

dents views of the same class, only classes which had at least four male and female studentswere used. Likewise, only classes with at least four black and white students were used for theanalysis by race. Classes which were primarily one sex or one race were not included in thisstudy. This yielded a total of 88 classes for the analysis by sex, 37 of which were taught by femaleteachers and 51 of which were taught by male teachers. For the analysis by race, a total of 12classes were available. These classes were taught by 10 white teachers and 2 black teachers.

Instrument Development

The Science Class Inventory (SCI) used in this study was developed by the authors to as-sess students’ perception of their science classroom learning environment. The instrument wasdesigned to measure the science learning environment described in the National Science Edu-cation Standards (NRC, 1995). The instrument was composed of two scales that have been usedin previous research and four new scales that were developed by the authors. The two existingscales were Critical Voice and Relevancy, which were taken intact from Taylor, Fraser, andWhite’s (1994) Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). The Relevancy scale wasdesigned to measure the perceived relevance of school science to students’ out-of-school expe-riences, and the Critical Voice scale was designed to measure the extent to which students be-lieve it is acceptable and beneficial to question the teacher’s pedagogical plans and methods(Taylor et al., 1994).

The four scales developed by the authors were Difficulty, Involvement, Sequence, and Ex-perimental Design. These scales included items modified from existing learning environment in-struments and new items written by the authors. The existing instruments included the Learn-ing Environment Inventory (LEI), the Classroom Environment Survey (CES), and the ScienceLearning Environment Inventory (SLEI) (Table 1). The Difficulty scale was designed to mea-sure the students’ perception of the academic difficulty of their classroom. The InvolvementScale was designed to assess students’ perceived personal involvement in the classroom. The


Table 1Example SCI items and their origins

Example items Origin of item

DifficultyI find the work hard to do. Modified LEI (Fraser et al., 1982)

RelevanceI learn interesting things about the world CLES (Taylor et al., 1994)

outside of school.Critical Voice

I feel unable to complain about anything. CLES (Taylor et al., 1994)Involvement

I am included in class discussions. Modified CES (Moos & Trickett, 1987)Sequence

Before we do any experiments, my teacher SCI Authorsexplains what will happen.

Experimental DesignI am allowed to go beyond the regular lab Modified SLEI (Fraser, Giddings,

activity and do some experimenting on & McRobbie, 1992)my own.

Sequence scale was designed to measure the perceived sequence of instruction that the teacherused in the classroom—for example, whether the teacher used hands-on activities before lec-turing to the class. The Experimental Design scale was developed to measure the students’ per-ception of the degree of open-endedness in the design of the experiments that were conductedin the classroom. In addition, all items were written in the personal form as recommended byFraser and Tobin (1991), to more accurately elicit students’ personal perceptions of the class-room learning environment. See Table 1 for examples of items from each of the scales, as wellas their origins.

The reliability and validity of the SCI was established by the authors using an expert re-view panel, reliability analyses, and factor analyses. The expert review panel consisted of sci-ence education professors, graduate students in science education, and science teachers. Theitems were also pilot-tested by the authors with eighth- and ninth-grade science students tocheck for readability and meaningfulness. A large pool of items was developed for each scale.These items were then pilot-tested in a science class and the final items were chosen using fac-tor analyses and reliability analyses for each scale. Alpha reliabilities were calculated after eachof two pilot tests and the final items were selected to reflect the highest possible reliability. Thereliability data for the final items selected for the six scales used in this study are presented inTable 2.

The SCI was administered by the classroom teachers in April with the assistance of the au-thors who were also at the school. Instruments were returned to the researchers to assureanonymity of students. A standardized administration protocol was developed by the authors andread to all students. The instrument took approximately 20 min for students to complete.

Results

Class Mean Analysis

In the past, many classroom environment studies have used the class mean as the unit ofanalysis, assuming that different students within a science class more or less perceive the samelearning environment. For this study, both class means and subgroups within classes were ana-lyzed. The overall class means were calculated for this study using a five-point Likert-type fre-quency response scale which included the following choices: almost never (1 point), seldom (2points), sometimes (3 points), often (4 points), and almost always (5 points). These data are pre-sented for the six different scales from the SCI in Table 3.


Table 2Internal reliability of the six scales

Scale No. of items No. of cases Cronbach’s Alpha

Difficulty 6 1803 .78Relevance 7 1746 .72Critical Voice 7 1807 .73Involvement 6 1811 .71Sequence 4 1832 .59Experimental Design 5 1821 .55

Within-Class Analysis

The within-class analyses used paired means of subgroups by sex and race rather than themean of the whole class. The means were calculated only for classrooms whose sample sizeswere greater than or equal to four students in each identified subgroup. To control for runningmultiple comparison, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was run first, and only ifthis analysis was significant were the univariate ANOVA results of individual scale scores ex-amined. Because of the small number of classrooms eligible for the race comparisons (n 5 12),multivariate analysis could not be used. Instead, univariate analyses were conducted and the pvalues were corrected using the Bonferroni technique, thus yielding a more conservative resultsimilar to the multivariate test for the sex analysis.

Sex Analysis. The average paired within-classroom means and standard deviations for maleand female students are presented in Table 4. These data are presented for the six different scalesfrom the SCI. The possible scores for each item ranged from a low score of 1 to a high scoreof 5.

The multivariate analysis indicated an overall significant difference (F 5 2.28, p 5 .04)when testing for sex differences among students using within-class matched pairs. The follow-up univariate tests for each of the six scales indicated there were significant differences on twoscales: Difficulty (F 5 3.86, p 5 .05) and Involvement (F 5 6.57, p 5 .01). Female studentsperceived the classes as more difficult, and perceived themselves as more involved than malestudents in the same classes (Table 5).


Table 3Overall class means and SD of the scales on the SCI

Overall class means (n 5 88)

Scales M SD

Difficulty 2.9 0.3Relevance 3.4 0.2Critical Voice 3.6 0.3Involvement 3.6 0.2Sequence 2.4 0.3Experimental Design 2.4 0.3

Table 4Means and SD of male and female students within classes

Female Male

Scales M SD M SD

Difficulty 2.9 0.4 2.8 0.4Relevance 3.4 0.3 3.4 0.3Critical Voice 3.6 0.4 3.5 0.4Involvement 3.6 0.3 3.5 0.3Sequence 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.4Experimental Design 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.4

Using paired within-classroom means for sex, analyses were completed to test for the ef-fect of the sex of the teachers. These analyses involved using only those students who had maleteachers, 51 classes, and using only those students who had female teachers, 37 classes. Thedata for average paired within-classroom means and standard deviations for male and femalestudents in male and female classes are presented in Table 6. The possible scores for each itemranged from a low score of 1 to a high score of 5.

Looking at only the male teachers, the multivariate analysis showed a significant difference(F 5 2.50, p 5 .04). The follow-up univariate tests for the six scales showed a significant dif-ference only on the Difficulty scale (F 5 6.28, p 5 .02) with the female students viewing theirclasses as more difficult than the boys in the same classes. The multivariate analysis looking atonly the female teachers showed no significant differences (Table 7).

Race Analysis. The analyses by race of the student are based on the results of 12 class-rooms. Since the sample size was quite small, Bonferroni corrections were used with the univariate tests for each of the six scales of the SCI. Table 8 shows average paired within-classroom means and standard deviations for black and white students. The possible scores foreach item ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 5.


Table 5Results of multivariate and univariate, F-tests by sex of student

Variable F values (df 1,87) p

Overall SCI multivariate test 2.28 .04*Difficulty 3.86 .05*Relevancy 0.11 .74Critical Voice 3.17 .08Involvement 6.57 .01*Sequence 1.40 .24Experimental Design 0.23 .63

*p , .05.

Table 6Means and SD of male and female students, by sex of teacher

Female teachers (n 5 37 classes) Male teachers (n 5 51 classes)

Female Male Female Malestudents students students students

Scales M SD M SD M SD M SD

Difficulty 2.9 0.4 2.9 0.4 2.9 0.4 2.8 0.4Relevance 3.4 0.3 3.3 0.3 3.4 0.4 3.4 0.3Critical Voice 3.6 0.3 3.6 0.3 3.5 0.4 3.6 0.4Involvement 3.6 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.6 0.3 3.5 0.3Sequence 2.4 0.4 2.5 0.4 2.4 0.4 2.5 0.3Experimental Design 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.4

Univariate tests on the six scales were conducted on paired classroom mean scores of blackand white students. Only the Involvement scale showed a significant effect by race (F 5 10.63,p 5 .05). Black students in these classrooms gave a significantly lower rating on the Involve-ment scale than did the white students. The remaining five scales showed no significant differ-ences between black and white students within classes (Table 9).

Socioeconomic Analysis. The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) was tested to determineif the race differences were confounded by SES. The SES was calculated by using the studentself-reported level of parents’ education as used by the National Assessment of EducationalProgress and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NAEP, 1992; NCES, 1992). Thestudents were asked to report the highest grade level in school that each of their parents hadachieved using the following choices: (1) did not finish high school, (2) graduated from highschool, (3) some education after high school, and (4) graduated from college, for a total possi-ble score of 4. The maximum reported score for either parent was used as the students’ SESscore. The average black student’s SES mean score was 3.1, with a standard deviation of 0.5;and the average white students’ SES mean score was 3.1, with a standard deviation of 0.5. SESwas not a significant covariate for any of the scales; however, with this adjustment the signifi-cant effect on the Involvement scale (F 5 9.57, p 5 .07) approached significance. Table 9 liststhe results of the analyses of race adjusted for SES.


Table 7Results of multivariate and univariate F tests, by teacher’s sex

Female teachers Male teachers

Scales F values (df 5 1,36) p F values (df 5 1,50) p

Overall SCI multivariate test .93 .49 2.50 .04*Difficulty .02 .89 6.28 .02*Relevancy .73 .40 0.11 .74Critical Voice .67 .42 2.70 .11Involvement 3.83 .06 2.73 .11Sequence .04 .84 3.05 .09Experimental Design .82 .37 0.0002 .99

*p , .05.

Table 8Means and SD of black and white students paired within classes (n 5 12 classes)

Black students White students

Scales M SD M SD

Difficulty 2.7 0.3 2.6 0.4Relevance 3.5 0.5 3.6 0.5Critical Voice 3.6 0.3 3.7 0.5Involvement 3.5 0.2 3.7 0.3Sequence 2.4 0.4 2.4 0.6Experimental Design 2.4 0.4 2.6 0.3

The average paired within-classroom means and standard deviations for black and whitestudents of only white teachers are presented in Table 10. These data are presented for the sixdifferent scales from the SCI, where the possible scores for each item ranged from a low scoreof 1 to a high score of 5.

The analyses of white teachers by race of the students are based on the results of 10 class-rooms. The multivariate and univariate tests revealed that there were no significant differencesbetween black and white students with white teachers on any of the SCI scales. There were toofew black teachers to complete the paired analysis using the classrooms of black teachers. Table11 shows the results of the multivariate and univariate tests.

Discussion

Although the results of this study showed that there were some differences in the percep-tions of the classroom learning environment for subgroups of students within the same scienceclassroom, most of the comparisons showed no difference. This suggests that the class meanscore may be an adequate unit of analysis for ascertaining effects on many aspects of the sci-ence classroom learning environment. The class mean scores for this group of science classes


Table 9Univariate tests, by race of student and race of student adjusted for SES

Race of studentRace of student adjusted for SES

Scales F values p F values p

Difficulty 0.67 1.0 0.61 1.0Relevancy 0.32 1.0 0.24 1.0Critical Voice 0.30 1.0 0.38 1.0Involvement 10.63 .05* 9.57 .07Sequence 0.01 1.0 0.02 1.0Experimental Design 2.30 1.0 1.93 1.0

*p , .05.

Table 10Means and SD of black and white students paired within classes, by teacher’s race

White teachers (n 5 10 classes)

Black students White students

Scales M SD M SD

Difficulty 2.6 0.3 2.5 0.4Relevancy 3.5 0.5 3.7 0.4Critical Voice 3.6 0.4 3.8 0.5Involvement 3.5 0.2 3.8 0.3Sequence 2.5 0.3 2.6 0.3Experimental Design 2.5 0.3 2.6 0.3

showed 2 scales at slightly above the “seldom” level (Sequence and Experimental Design), 1 atthe “sometimes” level (Difficulty), and 3 approaching the “often” level (Relevance, CriticalVoice, and Involvement). Certainly, science students should be involved in properly sequencedhands-on activities more than just seldom. Also, although the Relevance, Critical Voice, and In-volvement scales are more highly rated, there is still room for improvement, especially if sci-ence educators are to create the type of learning environment called for in the National ScienceEducation Standards (NRC, 1995).

Although only the difficulty and involvement scales showed within-class differences, thesefindings dovetail well with prior research on subgroups, thus providing corroboration of theireducational importance. These findings fit with Getzels and Thelen’s framework (1960) sug-gesting that more personal aspects of the environment, such as difficulty and involvement, maybe more susceptible to subgroup differences than less personal aspects such as sequence or ex-perimental design.

The results of this study show that girls viewed their science classes as slightly more in-volving than boys. Tobin and Fraser (1990) found that exemplary teachers had classes that stu-dents perceived as more involving. Furthermore, students must be involved in their classes toengage in the process of conceptual change necessary for developing understanding of scienceconcepts (Driver, 1989; Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994). High levels of involvement are also es-sential for achieving the “community of learners” envisioned by the Science Standards (NRC,1995). Girls tend to be less likely to pursue science careers (NSF, 1993), and the higher levelof perceived involvement found in the present study may be evidence of an effort on the partof teachers to correct this problem by involving girls more in their classes. This would certain-ly be consistent with the recent emphasis on gender equity in science education. On the otherhand, it may be that girls are more interested in trying to please their teachers than the boys,and therefore view themselves as more involved (Kahle & Meece, 1994). Another possibility isbased on the research of Byrne, Hattie, and Fraser (1986), who found that females preferredteacher structure, personalization, and participation more than males. Perhaps girls are more so-cial, interact more in class, and therefore perceive their role in the classroom as more importantand engaging.

The Involvement scale also showed that black students perceived their science classes asless involving than the white students. This lower level of involvement is consistent with otherdata on racial differences in science education. When allowed a choice, the enrollment level for


Table 11Effect of race of student, adjusted for SES, by sex of teacher

White teachers (n 5 10 classes)

Scales F values p

Overall SCI .75 .65Difficulty 0.86 1.0Relevancy 1.21 1.0Critical Voice 1.07 1.0Involvement 5.88 .25Sequence 0.25 1.0Experimental Design 0.44 1.0

*p , .05.

black students is only about 40% for chemistry and 10% for physics (NSF, 1996). Furthermore,few black students go on to science careers (NSF, 1993). Why do black students perceive theirclasses as less involving? One possible explanation, presented by Fordham and Ogbu (1986), isthat black students choose not to become too involved in a dominate culture experience such asscience. In support of this perception is the fact that most high school science teachers are white.In 1992, 93% of the 12th-grade science students were taught by white teachers (NCES, 1992).If science educators are to provide science for all students, as recommended in the Standards(NRC, 1995), ways must be found to help students of color become more involved in learningscience.

Although the scores for students from all subgroups on the Involvement scale were com-paratively high, they may not be high enough. If students are to truly learn science, they needto be actively involved almost all the time—not just sometimes. Perhaps students would per-ceive their classes as more involving if the classes were more hands-on and inquiry oriented.Hands-on activity has been shows to be related to science achievement (Stohr-Hunt, 1996). Thestudents’ ratings on the Experimenting and Sequence scales in this study indicated that experi-mental activities seldom occurred in students’ classrooms. This perceived low level of experi-mentation is supported by national data (Horn, Hafner, & Owings, 1992). For example, 40% ofeighth-grade students participate in experiments once a month or less. As a result, it is not sur-prising that science students might feel uninvolved. Another suggestion would be to increasethe personal relevance of science classes. Although the scores of all subgroups on the Relevancescale were comparatively high, there is always room for improvement, and real-world relevancehas been shown to increase science student involvement and learner outcomes (Aikenhead, inpress).

One of the classroom conditions most consistently associated with science learning out-comes is the Difficulty scale (Fraser et al., 1987). Although the absolute difference in the meansis small, it is still disheartening to find that girls view their classes as more difficult than theboys and that this is especially true when the teacher is a male. This finding is consistent withother research on women in science (Kahle & Meece, 1994; Kahle, 1988). Girls tend not to takescience classes when they have a choice (NSF, 1996) and some of the reasons they give for notdoing so are because they do not like science (35%), they do not do well in it (24%), and theywant to avoid the hard work (26%) (NSF, 1993). Perhaps because of this, boys consistently per-form better in science than girls (Becker, 1989; NAEP, 1992) and there are fewer women whopursue science careers (NSF, 1993). Exacerbating this problem is the fact that 70% of highschool science teachers are male (NSF, 1996). Furthermore, although different perceptions donot necessarily mean different treatment, it is possible that the science teachers are treating thegirls in their classes in ways that can cause girls to perceive the class as more difficult than dothe boys. The possibility of differential treatment would certainly fit with Tobin and Gallagher’s(1987) research. Clearly science educators, and especially male teachers, need to be very care-ful about how they structure their classroom learning environments. They must walk a fine lineof making the class difficult enough to encourage critical thinking but in a way that will not dis-courage the girls.

This study should spark renewed interest in the science classroom learning environment andhow it is perceived by different subgroups of students within classes. There are many more psy-chosocial variables within the science classroom that can and should be measured than weremeasured in this study. Previous meta-analyses have identified other possibly relevant variablessuch as cohesiveness, satisfaction, goal direction, disorganization, and friction (Haertel, Wal-berg, & Haertel, 1981; Fraser et al., 1987). In addition, analyses of more subgroups are neces-sary. One important within classroom subgroup that needs to be more closely examined is His-


panic or Latino students. They are the most underrepresented group in the sciences and have thefastest growing population in the United States (NSF, 1996). In addition, different proportionsof students within the subgroups may affect perceptions. We imposed a minimum of four stu-dents per subgroup, but that may have affected the results. For example, a class with only fourgirls but many boys may perceive the learning environment differently from a class which ismore balanced.

In summary, this study showed that there were few differences in the perceptions of the sci-ence classroom environment of subgroups within classes, and therefore, that class mean per-ceptions of the psychosocial learning environment are an appropriate unit of analysis. The twodifferences found in this study, however, were consistent with previous research on differencesin science classroom learning environments and suggest that future studies of science classroomlearning environments should at least consider the possibility of differences within classes. Inaddition, more research is needed on how to help science teachers create a positive science learn-ing environment that will ultimately help improve students’ science achievement.

References

Aikenhead, G. (in press). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science.Studies in Science Education.

Allen, G.G., & Seumptewa, O. (1988). The need for strengthening Native American sci-ence and mathematics education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 55, 364–369.

Becker, B.J. (1989). Gender and science achievement: A reanalysis of studies from twometa-analyses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 141–169.

Bloom, B.S. (1964). Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: Wiley.Byrne, D.B., Hattie, J.A., & Fraser, B.J. (1986). Student perceptions of preferred classroom

learning environment. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 10–18.Crichlow, W., Goodwin, S., Shakes, G., & Swartz, E. (1990). Multicultural ways of know-

ing: Implications for practice. Journal of Education, 172, 101–117.Driver, R. (1989). The construction of scientific knowledge in school classrooms. In Mil-

lar, R. (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 83–105). Philadelphia:Falmer Press.

Educational Testing Service. (1994). What Americans study, revisited. Princeton, NJ: Author.Fordam, S., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of

acting white.” Urban Review, 18, 176–206.Fraser, B.J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.Fraser, B.J. (1989). Twenty years of classroom climate work: Progress and prospect. Jour-

nal of Curriculum Studies, 21, 307–327.Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Hand-

book of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.Fraser, B.J., Anderson, G.J., & Walberg, H.J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments:

Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (Third ver-sion). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.

Fraser, B.J., & Fisher, D.L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptions ofclassroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498–518.

Fraser, B.J., Giddings, G.J., & McRobbie, C.J. (1992). Assessing the climate of science lab-oratory classes. In What research says to the science and mathematics teacher, No. 8. Perth: KeyCentre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.


Fraser, B.J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in class-room environment research. In B.J. Fraser, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments:Evaluation, antecedents, consequences (pp. 271–292). London: Pergamon.

Fraser, B.J., Walberg, J.J., Welch, W.W., & Hattie, J.A. (1987). Synthesis of educationalproductivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 155–165.

Fraser, B.J., Williamson, J.C., & Tobin, K. (1987). Use of classroom and school climatescales in evaluating alternative high schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 219–231.

Getzels, J.W., & Thelen, H.A. (1960). The classroom as a unique social system. The Na-tional Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 59, 53–81.

Haertel, G.D., Walberg, H.J., & Haertel, E.D. (1981). Socio-psychological environmentsand learning: a quantitative synthesis. British Educational Research Journal, 7, 27–37.

Horn, L., Hafner, A., & Owings, J. (1992). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.A profile on American eighth-grade mathematics and science instruction. Washington, DC: Na-tional Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Kahle, J.B. (1988). Gender and science education: II. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Developmentand dilemmas in science education. New York: Falmer Press.

Kahle, J.B., and Meece, J. (1994). Research on gender issues in the classroom. In D.L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.

Lawrenz, F. (1987). Gender effects for student perception of the classroom psychosocial en-vironment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 689–697.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.Moos, R.H., & Trickett, E.J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale Manual (2nd ed.). Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1992). The 1990 science report card:

NAEP’s assessment of fourth, eighth, and twelfth graders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (1992). An overview of the Schools and StaffingSurvey and Teacher Follow-up Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (1995). National Science Education Standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

National Science Foundation. (1993). Indicators of science and mathematics education,1992. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation. (1994). Indicators of science and mathematics education.Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Foundation. (1996). 1994 indicators of science and mathematics educa-tion. Washington, DC: Author.

Simpson, R.D., & Oliver, J.S. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude towardachievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1–18.

Sjorberg, J., & Imsen, G. (1988). Gender and science education: I. In P. Fensham (Ed.), De-velopment and dilemmas in science education. New York: Falmer Press.

Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and scienceachievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101–109.

Taylor, C.S., Fraser, B.J., & White, L.R. (1994, April). CLES: An instrument for monitor-ing the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B.J. (1990). What does it mean to be an exemplary teacher? Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 27, 3–25.


Tobin, K., & Fraser, B.J. (1991). Learning from investigations of exemplary teachers. InH.C. Waxman, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Contemporary research on teaching (pp. 217–236).Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Tobin, K., & Gallagher, J.J. (1987). The role of target students in the science classroom.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 61–75.

von Glaserfeld, E. (1988). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Washing-ton, DC: National Science Foundation.

Welch, W.W., & Walerg, H.J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. Amer-ican Educational Research Journal, 9, 373–383.


within-class analysis of ninth-grade science students' perceptions of the learning environment

Documents