Associations Between Student Outcomes and Psychosocial Science Environment

Abstract

Past research on classroom environment was extended to science laboratory class settings in an investigation of associations between student outcomes and classroom environment, The sample consisted of 1,594 senior high school chemistry students in ! X2 classes. The Science Laboratory Environment Inventory was used to assess student cohesiveness, openendedness, integration, rule clarity, and material environments in the laboratory dass, and student outcomes encompassed two inquiry skill and four attitude measures. Simple, multiple, and canonical analyses were conducted separately for two units of analysis (student scores and class means) and separately with and without control for general ability. Past research was replicated in that the nature of the science laboratory classroom environment accounted for appreciable proportions of the variance in both cognitive and affective outcomes beyond that attributable to general ability.he strongest tradition during the previous quarter of T a century of classroom environment research has involved investigation of the predictability of students' cognitive and affective learning outcomes from their perceptions of classroom environment (Fraser, 1989; Fraser, in press;Fraser & Walberg, 1991). Past research provides convincing and consistent support for the predictive validity of student perceptions in accounting for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes, beyond that attributable to student characteristics such as general ability. This pattern has been replicated in numerous countries and for a variety of outcomes and classroom environment instruments.The present study of associations between students' outcomes and their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment was distinctive in several ways. First, we used the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) in the first study of outcome-environment relationships specifically in laboratory classroom settings. Second, to permit comparison with results from method- BARRY J. FRASER Curtin University of Technologyologically diverse past studies, we analyzed our data in several different ways (i.e., simple, multiple, and canonical correlation analyses). Third, we compared the magnitudes of environment-outcome relationships for two units of analysis, namely, the individual student's score and the class mean score. Fourth, we performed all analyses separately with and without control for student general ability.

Culturally-Sensitive Factors in the Learning Environment of Science Classrooms in Brunei Darussalam

“…The gender equity data are consistent with the openness in Bruneian society to women's education. The level of gender equity in Bruneian schools was comparable to that found in some developing and developed countries [32], but different from other reports that students of different genders were treated differently in some cultures even in the classroom setting [40]. However, the mean value of 4.00 in our study still suggests some scope for improvement in gender equity at the lower-secondary school level.…”

“…(WIHIC) [38]. These instruments have been used as a source of process criteria in the evaluation of educational innovations [39], in studies of associations between classroom environment and student outcomes [40], and in teacher action research aimed at improving classroom environments [41].…”

Evaluation of a K–5 Mathematics Program Which Integrates Children’s Literature: Classroom Environment and Attitudes

“…As in considerable prior research (e.g., Fraser, 1998a;McRobbie & Fraser, 1993), we explored associations between students' attitudes and their perceptions of actual classroom environment. As dependent variables, we used not only the three NAEP attitude scales for reading, writing and mathematics as dependent variables, but also the Satisfaction scales from the MCI as recommended by Majeed et al (2003).…”

“…In past learning environment research, many studies have investigated associations between students' outcomes and the nature of the classroom environment (Fraser, 1994;McRobbie & Fraser, 1993). Our study followed this tradition by exploring associations between students' attitudinal outcomes (namely, Satisfaction from the MCI and the three scales assessing attitudes to reading, writing and mathematics) and students' perceptions on the other four learning environment scales of the MCI (Friction, Competitiveness, Difficulty and Cohesiveness).…”

“…Our study is notewor-thy because it used classroom environment variables as process criteria of effectiveness in evaluating Project SMILE. Also, we followed the research tradition of investigating associations between student-perceived classroom environments and students' achievement and attitudinal outcomes (Fraser, 1994;McRobbie & Fraser, 1993).…”