|
This paper reviews the field of classroom environment research by exploring four areas: historical perspectives, methodological issues, previous research, and current and future directions for research. The modern era of classroom environment research began with independent research agendas of Moos and Walberg in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s. It has been extended by a host of researchers, the most notable being Fraser in Australia. While the study of learning environments is now a firmly established international research field with its own Special Interest Group in the American Educational Research Association and international journal (Learning Environments Research), researchers have not lost sight of the implications of their research for policy and practice, especially in classrooms.
Over the past 35 years, the study of classroom environments has received increased attention by researchers, teachers, school administrators and administrators of school systems. Vivid descriptions and images of schools through powerful movies (for example, To Sir With Love, Up the Down Staircase, Dead Poet's Society) and less powerful dramatisations (Glenview High, Class of 75, Beverly Hills 90210, Boston Public) all attest to the centrality of environment to the defining character of schools and classrooms. The concept of environment, as applied to educational settings, refers to the atmosphere, ambience, tone, or climate that pervades the particular setting. It is noteworthy from the outset to recognise that classroom environments are human environments. Accordingly, research in this field has focussed historically on the psychosocial dimensions of the environment - those aspects of the environment that focus on human behaviour in origin or outcome (Boy & Pine 1988).
To appreciate the concept of environment and its subtle effects, it is useful to consider a metaphor. In 1991, Walberg used Tolstoy's War and Peace to refer to the strength of an army as the product of its mass and that unknown X, or the spirit of the army. Observable inputs like the number of combatants, guns and so on are insufficient: the esprit de corps is critical in determining outcomes. So it is in human environments like classrooms. Without a consideration of the crucial role of the psychosocial environment of classrooms, educational productivity cannot be optimised.
In Queensland, recent research commissioned by Education Queensland - the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS 2001) - makes specific reference to supportive classroom environments as one of four general dimensions of its Productive Pedagogies framework. Table 1 shows the five elements of this key dimension. While not all learning environment researchers would accept that Explicit Quality Performance Criteria is a bona fide psychosocial construct, the QSRLS shows that learning environment is a focus of contemporary thinking on school reform. Clearly the concept of environment is important and powerful. Teachers relate to the concept - it is not an esoteric abstraction created by researchers for researchers.
This introductory article focuses on classroom environment research and sets the scene for the remaining articles in this issue by reviewing four main areas. First, historical perspectives which provide an understanding of the developments in this research field are discussed. Second, methodological issues pertaining to classroom environment research are presented. The third section presents lines of previous research in this field. Finally, current and future directions for classroom environment research are discussed.
| Dimension | Description |
| Student Direction | Do students determine specific activities or outcomes of the lesson? |
| Social Support | Is the classroom characterised by an atmosphere of mutual respect and support among teachers and students? |
| Academic Engagement | Are students engaged and on-task during the lesson? |
| Explicit Quality Performance Criteria | Are the criteria for judging the range of student performance made explicit? |
| Self-regulation | Is the direction of student behaviour implicit and self-regulatory? |
the field with which the scientist must deal is the "life space" of the individual. This life space consists of the person and the psychological environment as it exists for him. (Cartwright 1975, p. 11)Murray (1938), Stern, Stein, and Bloom (1956) and Pace and Stern (1958) extended Lewin's work to develop a need-press theory in which persons are conceptualised in terms of their psychological needs and the environment in terms of its press. Needs are the important determinants of behaviour within the individual (Genn 1984). According to Murray (1938), 'the press of an object is what it can do to the subject - the power it has to affect the well-being of the subject in one way or another' (p. 121). Pace (1963) suggested that an environment's crucial aspects are 'its overall atmosphere or characteristics, the kinds of things that are rewarded, encouraged, emphasised, the style of life which is valued in the community and is most visibly expressed and felt' (p. 73). Within this theory, needs and press interact to produce and guide behaviour. In a school, an individual student or teacher has particular needs and the school's press either satisfies of frustrates these needs. Stern (1970) extended need-press theory to develop a theory in which the degree of person-environment congruence is related to student outcomes (Fraser 1986). This theory has been the basis for person-environment fit studies in which the congruence between actual and preferred environments is assessed and related to student outcomes (see Fraser 1994).
The modern era of learning environment research commenced in the late 1960s when Rudolf Moos and Herbert Walberg began independent lines of research on the conceptualisation and assessment of psychosocial environments. Moos's (1987) suite of social climate scales provided the impetus for studies in a diverse range of human environments including hospitals, prisons, workplaces (including schools), university residences, groups and classrooms.
The main theoretical legacy of Moos's work at Stanford University has been the enduring acceptance of his three dimensions of human environments: Relationship (the nature and intensity of personal relationships within the environment), Personal Development (basic directions along which personal growth and self-enhancement tend to occur) and System Maintenance and System Change (the extent to which the environment is orderly, clear in expectations, maintains control and is responsive to change). Few genuine learning environment researchers of the past 30 years have departed from this general framework for conceptualising environments.
Walberg's involvement in Harvard Project Physics (HPP) required the evaluation of the learning environment (see Walberg & Anderson 1968). HPP was an experimentally-based physics course for secondary school students in the United States in the 1960s. Did this new approach to the teaching and learning of physics in American classrooms make a difference to classroom climate? In contrast to the 1960's behaviourism and the use of observers in classrooms (see Dunkin & Biddle 1974), Walberg's research employed students' perceptual data collected by questionnaire. Additionally, these perceptions focussed on summary judgments based on months of immersion in classrooms taught by HPP or conventional knowledge-transmission methods.
Walberg's work showed that students could make valid summary judgments about their classrooms and that these perceptions should be used in learning environment research. From the 1970s research on the conceptualisation and assessment of classroom environments has developed rapidly. Much of this work has been due to the academic leadership of the Australian Barry Fraser. His substantive research agenda in this field has led to Australia being recognised as a leading country for classroom environment research. Methodological issues have been the subject of lengthy consideration by classroom environment researchers and the following section discusses important developments in this area.
Alpha press in the classroom usually requires the observer to code specific events according to some scheme. Because it involves direct observation, alpha press is considered highly objective. By contrast, beta press represents the environment as perceived and experienced by the individual and, in a classroom setting, is dependent on the subjective assessment of students and teachers. According to Murray, beta press exerts the greater influence on behaviour because that is what is felt, interpreted and responded to by the person (Hjelle & Ziegler 1981).
High inference measures require the respondent to make an inference based on a series of classroom events using specific constructs (for example, classroom competition). Much early learning environment research employed low-inference measures and it was only in the 1950s that high inference measures were conceptualised. Studies which focus on the meaning of school and classroom events have tended to utilise high-inference measures.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, Walberg strongly advocated the use of high inference beta press measures of classroom environments. That is, students should be asked to make summary judgments about their classrooms. He claimed that:
Students seem quite able to perceive and weigh stimuli and to render predictively valid judgments of the cohesiveness, democracy, goal direction, friction, and other psychological characteristics of the social environment of their classes. These molar judgments may mediate the multiplicity of molecular events of instruction and other classroom activities and properties. (Walberg 1976, p. 160)Consideration of press type and whether low or high inference measures are employed in a particular study suggests four possible approaches to the measurement of environment perceptions (namely, low inference alpha, high inference alpha, low inference beta, and high inference beta). While some historical research involved low inference measures using a detached observer, the overwhelming methodological tradition is high inference beta press. In fact, few genuine learning environment studies of the past 20 years have departed from the use of inhabitants' summary judgments of the environment. Indeed, the use of student perceptual data is considered essential to contemporary classroom environment research.
Similarly, in school-level environment research, consensual beta press has been measured by averaging the perceptions of the teachers in the sample to form school means. These means and not the individual scores are then used in subsequent statistical testing. One characteristic of much learning research is that data are often nested (e.g. students are within classes which, in turn, are within schools). The use of multilevel analysis or hierarchical linear modelling (Bock 1989, Bryk & Raudenbush 1992, Goldstein 1987) in which the nested nature of data can be preserved during analysis has become more accepted in learning environment studies. Computer packages are readily available to conduct such hierarchical liner modelling (for example, HLM: Bryk, Raudenbush, Seltzer & Congdon 1989; MlwiN: Goldstein et al. 1998).
| Instrument | Level | Items | Scales assessed by instrument | Reference |
| Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) | Secondary | 7 | Cohesiveness, Friction, Favouritism, Cliqueness, Satisfaction, Apathy, Speed, Difficulty, Competitiveness, Diversity, Diversity, Formality, Material Environment | Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg (1982) |
| Classroom Environment Scale (CES) | Secondary | 10 | Involvement, Affiliation, Teacher Support, Task Orientation, Competition, Order & Organisation, Rule Clarity, Teacher Control | Moos & Trickett (1987) |
| Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) | Secondary | 10 | Personalisation, Participation, Independence, Investigation, Differentiation | Fraser (1990) |
| My Class Inventory (MCI) | Primary | 6-9 | Student Cohesiveness, Friction, Satisfaction, Difficulty, Competitiveness | Fraser, Anderson, & Walberg (1982) |
| College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) | Tertiary | 7 | Personalisation, Involvement, Student Cohesiveness, Satisfaction, Task Orientation, Innovation, Individualisation | Fraser & Treagust (1986) |
| Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) | Secondary, Tertiary | 7 | Student Cohesiveness, Open-Endedness, Rule Clarity, Material Environment | Fraser, Giddings, & McRobbie (1995) |
| Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) | Secondary | 7 | Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control, Student Negotiation | Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher (1997) |
| Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) | Primary, Secondary | 7-9 | Leadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility/Freedom, Uncertain, Dissatisfied, Admonishing, Strict | Wubbels & Levy (1993) |
| What is Happening in this Class (WIHIC) | Secondary | 8 | Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation, Equity | Aldridge & Fraser (2000) |
In addition to the instruments of Table 2, questionnaires have been developed for particular settings. For example, the Catholic School Classroom Environment Questionnaire was developed specifically to assess the environment in Australian Catholic school classrooms (Dorman 1999). Classroom environment researchers have also focussed on the particular characteristics of constructivist classroom environments. In a constructivist environment, meaningful learning is a cognitive process in which students make sense of the world in relation to the knowledge which they have constructed. The Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES: Taylor, Fraser & Fisher 1997) was developed to assess the constructivist dimensions of classrooms.
Another instrument design issue has been the development of personal forms as opposed to class forms of existing instruments. While traditional class forms of instruments have elicited an individual student's judgments of the class as a whole, the personal form asks students about his/her role in the classroom. Whereas a class form might ask students to respond to the item: Students find out answers by doing investigations, an analogous personal form item would be I find out answers by doing investigations. Research by McRobbie, Fisher and Wong (1998) using the Science Laboratory Environment Questionnaire (SLEI) showed that personal and class forms of this instrument accounted for unique variance in attitudinal outcomes of students that could not be explained by the other form. That is, class and personal forms seem to assess different components of classroom environment.
Student perceptions of the classroom environment account for appreciable amounts of variance in learning outcomes, often beyond that attributable to background student characteristics. For example, Goh and Fraser (1998) used the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) and a modified version of the My Class Inventory (MCI) to establish associations between student cognitive and affective outcomes and perceived patterns of teacher-student interaction in 39 primary school mathematics classes in Singapore. In particular, higher cognitive outcomes were associated with better classroom teacher leadership, more helping/friendly classroom environments and teacher behaviours that demonstrate understanding and empathy towards students. Additionally, the affective outcome measure, student liking and interest in mathematics, was related positively with improved levels of student cohesion and reduced levels of classroom friction.
The study by Dorman, McRobbie and Foster (2002) involving 1,317 secondary students in 17 Sydney Catholic secondary schools found statistically significant positive associations between the environment in religious education classes as assessed by the 7-scale Catholic School Classroom Environment Questionnaire (CSCEQ) and four dimensions of students' attitudes to Christianity. A total of 21 of the 28 simple Pearson correlation coefficients were statistically significant (p<.05), a result which is about fifteen times that which could be expected by chance alone. Recently, Dorman, Adams and Ferguson ( in press) conducted a cross-national investigation of links among ten classroom environment dimensions, student self-handicapping and student academic efficacy. A sample of 3,602 students from 29 schools in Canada, England and Australia was surveyed. Simple and multiple correlation analyses between 10 classroom environment scales from the What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) and the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) and self-handicapping were conducted with and without control for academic efficacy. Results showed that classroom environment scales accounted for appreciable proportions of variance in self-handicapping beyond that attributable to academic efficacy. Enhanced affective dimensions of the classroom environment were associated with reduced levels of self-handicapping. Commonality analyses revealed that the WIHIC scales accounted for a much greater proportion of variance in self-handicapping that did the CLES scales.
Other classroom environment studies have investigated the effect of a curriculum innovation by employing an approach similar to that used in Walberg's evaluation of Harvard Project Physics discussed earlier in this paper. For example, Maor (2000) used a specially developed instrument the Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey to assess the environment under an innovative multimedia approach to classroom teaching.
A final use of classroom environment perceptions as criterion variables involves the use of actual and preferred forms of an instrument and studying whether students perform better when there is a close alignment of actual and preferred environment. This person-environment fit research was pioneered by Fisher and Fraser (1983). Findings suggest that actual-preferred environment congruence is important in predicting outcomes and that outcomes can be enhanced by making the actual environment more like the preferred environment.
Research conducted by Duschl and Waxman (1991) in the United States investigated the criterion-related validity of two instruments used to assess the classrooms of student teachers. Data were collected from classes taught by student teachers. The purpose of this research was to establish whether generic teaching strategies and behaviours were related to the psychosocial learning environment. In this way aspects of the psychosocial environment can be explained in greater detail for the beginning teacher by direct reference to teaching behaviours. For example, Duschl and Waxman (1991) found that personalisation in the classroom (the classroom environment dimension) was positively related to teachers who respond, give feedback and use overviews and appropriate comments in helping students understand what is taught (the teacher behaviour dimension). This translation from classroom environment to teacher behaviour is very important for beginning teachers because it concretises perceptions and provides clear directions for the modification of teaching practices.
In another study conducted in the early 1990s, Kremer-Hayon and Wubbels (1993) used a modified version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) to study the supervisory environment of students in pre-service teacher education courses in The Netherlands. The instrument developed from this research - the Questionnaire on Supervisor Interaction (QSI) - has a similar theoretical framework to the QTI, that is, Leary's (1957) model for interactional behaviour. Table 3 shows descriptive information for the QSI. Most scales of the QSI have sound internal consistency with Cronbach coefficient alphas ranging from 0.57 to 0.83. To enhance its structural properties the QSI needs further field testing and refinement.
The third program of research which is currently underway is focussing on the environment that student teachers experience when undertaking field experience (that is, practice teaching). Progress to date has yielded a very promising instrument to assess the extended practicum learning environment of fourth year pre-service primary students in one Queensland university (Kennedy & Dorman 2002). The Extended Practicum Learning Environment Inventory (EPLEI) has 72 items allocated to 12 internally consistent scales. It has been developed using an intuitive rational approach to scale development (Fraser 1986, Hase & Goldberg 1967). Within this approach the structure and validity of the instrument rests heavily on subjective judgments made by the researcher and key stakeholders. As shown in Table 4, all scales of the EPLEI have very sound internal consistency reliability. In addition to its student teacher form, the EPLEI has a supervising teacher form that assesses the perceptions of teachers in primary schools who supervise student-teachers. The EPLEI is an important advancement in the study of the professional life of student teachers and its use should enhance the validity of student teacher assessments through the triangulation of information collected directly from university visitors and supervising teachers.
| Scale | Items | Typical item | alpha |
| Leadership | 8 | He or she give a lot of advice. | .83 |
| Helpful/Friendly | 6 | He or she is some one we can rely on. | .79 |
| Understanding | 8 | If I have something to say s/he will listen. | .82 |
| Student Teacher Responsibility/ Freedom | 10 | He or she lets me make my own decisions. | .78 |
| Uncertain | 6 | He or she seems uncertain. | .57 |
| Dissatisfied | 7 | He or she is suspicious. | .66 |
| Objecting | 7 | He or she can get angry. | .75 |
| Strict | 9 | He or she is strict. | .69 |
| Scale | Description | Sample Item | alpha |
| Supervising Teacher Support | The extent to which the supervising teacher supports the student teacher | The supervising teacher encourages you when you have difficulties with lessons | .93 |
| Administration Support | The extent to which the administration of the school support the student teacher | Members of the administration team create a welcoming environment for student teachers. | .78 |
| Fellow Teacher Support | The extent to which the other teachers in the school support the student teacher | The other teachers in the school support you | .85 |
| Fellow Student Teacher Support | The extent to which the other student teachers in the school support the student teacher | Student teachers at this school give each other constructive criticism | .79 |
| Student Teacher Involvement | The extent to which the student teacher, is concerned and committed to the jobs/tasks | You feel willing to be involved as a staff member at this school | .94 |
| Pupil-Pupil Cohesiveness | The extent to which the pupils in the class where the student teacher is placed help each other and bond together | The pupils in this class encourage each other | .82 |
| Clarity | Relates to whether the student teacher knows what is expected and how explicitly rules, policies and expectations are communicated to the student teacher in the school setting | The supervising teacher communicates clear guidelines for student teachers | .76 |
| Control | Relates to how much control of the members of the school community is maintained | Supervising teachers keep a close watch on student teachers | .75 |
| Physical Comfort | The extent to which the physical surroundings of the school and classroom where the student teacher is completing the practicum are a pleasant environment to work in | The classroom provides an attractive learning setting | .81 |
| Work Pressure | The extent to which the pressure of work dominates the school community where the student teacher is completing the practicum | There is a lot of work pressure in this school | .74 |
| Autonomy | The extent to which the student teacher is encouraged to be self-sufficient & make decisions | The teacher allows you to make decisions about lessons | .78 |
| Task Orientation | The extent to which there is emphasis on good planning, efficiency and getting the job done in the practicum | Task completion is important in this classroom | .69 |
The study of multimedia learning environments is highly topical with recent North American and Australian research by Zandvliet and Buker (2002), Aldridge, Fraser, Fisher and Wood (2002) and Raaflaub and Fraser (2002) focusing on this issue. Zandvliet and Buker (2002) used an instrument called the Computerised Classroom Environment Checklist and a modified version of the What is Happening in This Class? to assess both physical and psychosocial environment in 22 classrooms in British Columbia, Canada. All classrooms were using the internet as an essential learning medium. The noteworthy aspect of this study is that it is one of the first classroom environment studies to recognise the importance of the physical attributes of classrooms to technologically-based learning environments.
In Perth, Western Australia, Aldridge, Fraser, Fisher and Wood (2002) evaluated the teaching and learning environment in an innovative new school and its impact on student achievement and attitudes towards learning and computer usage. In this school, ICT was integrated into all facets of teacher work. This study is innovative because it focuses on outcomes-based education in a school that has a technological basis. In fact a major contribution of this study was the development of a widely-applicable instrument for monitoring outcomes-based and ICT-rich classroom learning environments. Complementary qualitative data provided rich insights into the perceptions of students about the classroom environment created in an outcomes-based classroom with a strong ICT infrastructure. Given the clear moves towards outcomes-based education in Queensland, the replication and extension of this research in a sample of Queensland schools would be particularly timely.
Raaflaub and Fraser's (2002) paper reported Canadian research on the environment in mathematics and science classrooms when laptop computers are used. This study also illuminated how to make the use of laptop computers more equitable for male and female students. While male and female students perceived the actual learning environment in similar ways, females preferred greater involvement, investigation and task orientation and less computer usage than boys. While at least one Queensland school has a substantive history of teaching with laptops, their usage is not widespread. No studies of the psychosocial environment of classrooms using laptops in Queensland schools are evident in the psychosocial environment literature.
Scale development and validation remains a strong focus of contemporary classroom environment research. Probably the most significant development in this area over the past year has been the work of Thomas (2002) in Hong Kong who conceptualised, developed and validated the Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale - Science (MOLES-S). Drawing on extensive literature and research on metacognition across subject areas (for example, Baird & Mitchell 1987) including science education (Thomas & McRobbie 2001), a seven scale instrument was developed to assess metacognitive demands, student-student discourse, student-teacher discourse, student voice, distributed control, encouragement and support, and emotional support. The successful development of MOLES-S provides researchers and teachers with an effective means for assessing the metacognitive orientation of science classrooms. Thomas suggests that MOLES-S be used as a template for the development of similar instruments in other subject areas of the school curriculum.
As indicated earlier in this paper, most classroom environment research of the past 20 years has been conducted in the United States and Australia. While this trend has continued, the field of classroom environment research has become more international with papers at the 2002 AERA annual meeting reporting research conducted in China (Song & Hunt 2002), Hong Kong (Thomas 2002), Canada (Nair & Fisher 2002; Raaflaub & Fraser 2002; Zandvliet & Buker 2002), Brunei (Khine & Fisher 2002), Singapore (Goh & Khine 2002), Taiwan (Huang 2002), and Korea (Lee & Fraser 2002). These studies complement work conducted previously in England (Burden & Fraser 1993), The Netherlands (Wubbels & Levy 1993), Indonesia, (Soerjaningsih, Fraser, & Aldridge 2001) and Nigeria (Idiris & Fraser 1997). Studies have led to cross-national investigations that enhance the generalisability of findings.
A second desirable direction for future environment research is the linking of classroom environments with other learning environments. While the focus of the present paper has been classroom environments, it is important that future research consider learning environments in a broader context. Marjoribanks (1991) contends that families and classrooms are two of the most significant learning environments that influence students' school outcomes. Further research should bring these two field closer together. Additionally, it could be hypothesised that other environments (e.g. home, out-of-school peer group, part-time work) influences student attitudes towards school. The availability of computer software packages (e.g. LISREL) has revolutionalised and simplified the testing of hypothesised complex structural models (see below).
Third, classroom environment needs to be more embedded in large, comprehensive research projects. Earlier in this paper, supportive classroom environments was noted to be one of four general dimensions of the Productive Pedagogies framework (see QSRLS 2001). It is highly desirable that, in projects like Productive Pedagogies, the theory and methodology of classroom environment research be employed. Rather than simply using the generic language of classroom environment, it is recommended that researchers utilise the conceptual and methodological developments of classroom environment research that have occurred during the past 30 years. The assessment of classroom environment should have a cameo role in large comprehensive projects where the environment is not the sole focus of enquiry.
A final general direction for classroom environment research is the use of more robust methods of data analysis. With regard to instrument development, exploratory factory analysis had been employed widely. Researchers should give more attention to the use of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in which the researcher postulates a measurement model between observed variables and underlying constructs (or latent variables). Dorman (2000) demonstrated the use of CFA in Australian research that reported the development of the University-Level Environment Questionnaire. To investigate associations between environment dimensions and outcomes, simple, multiple and canonical correlational analyses have been conducted. Where more sophisticated modelling is required, researchers should consider the use of structural equation modelling. Earlier in this section it was suggested that a more comprehensive understanding of student outcomes could be obtained if several environments (namely classroom, home, out-of-school peer group, part-time work) were assessed. Structural equation modelling (SEM) using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom 1993) could be used to establish significant paths between these variables. In one of the few classroom environment studies to employ SEM, Dorman and McRobbie (2000) developed and tested a structural model for attitude to Christianity of Australian Catholic secondary school students. Predictor variables included age, gender, classroom environment, church attendance of parents and student's religious behaviour.
Apart from the above four areas, opportunities for learning environment research that respond to the current context of Queensland education can be identified. Outcomes-based education is very topical and research on the effect of this approach on the classroom environment should be conducted. Educational reforms have a long history of effecting minimal change "at the coal face" (see Popkewitz 1983). Will outcomes-based education change the nature of classrooms or will the rhetoric of outcomes-based education be simply incorporated into existing patterns of behaviour? Other initiatives being pursued currently in Queensland are the preparatory year for pre-school age children and the formation of middle schools and state colleges. Studies of classroom environment would yield valuable information on the implementation of these changes. Given that Productive Pedagogies has identified a supportive classroom environment as a critical predictor of student outcomes, one could reasonably expect these initiatives to have some impact on classroom environment and subsequent students' cognitive and affective outcomes.
Aldridge, JM, Fraser, BJ, Fisher, DL & Wood, D 2002, Assessing students' perceptions of outcomes-based, technology-rich learning environments, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Baird, JR & Mitchell, IJ 1987, Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study - The PEEL project, Monash University, Melbourne.
Bock, RD (Ed.) 1989, Multilevel analysis of educational data, Academic Press, San Diego.
Boy, AV & Pine, GJ 1988, Fostering psychosocial development in the classroom, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.
Bryk, AS & Raudenbush, SW 1992, Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
Bryk, AS, Raudenbush, SW, Seltzer, M & Congdon, RT 1989, An introduction to HLM: Computer program and users' guide, University of Chicago.
Burden, RL & Fraser, BJ 1993, 'Use of classroom assessments in school psychology: A British perspective', Psychology in the Schools, vol. 30, pp. 232-240.
Cartwright, D (Ed.) 1975, Field theory in social science. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticutt.
Chavez, RC 1984, 'The use of high inference measures to study classroom environments: A review', Review of Educational Research, vol. 54, pp. 237-261.
Dorman, J.P 1999, 'The evolution, validation and use of a personal form of the Catholic School Classroom Environment Questionnaire', Catholic Education, vol. 3, pp. 141-157.
Dorman, JP 1997, 'Use of student and teacher perceptions to assess classroom environment', Set, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 1-4.
Dorman, J.P 2000, 'Validation and use of a short form of the University-Level Environment Questionnaire', Queensland Journal of Educational Research, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 31-55. http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qjer16/dorman.html
Dorman, JP, Adams, JE & Ferguson, JM 2002, 'Psychosocial environment and student self-handicapping in secondary school mathematics classes: A cross-national study', Educational Psychology, 22(5), 499-511.
Dorman, JP & McRobbie, CJ 2000, 'Using secondary school students' perceptions to develop a structural model for attitude to Christianity', International Journal of Education and Religion, vol. 1, pp. 248-266.
Dorman, JP, McRobbie, CJ & Foster, WJ 2002, 'Associations between psychosocial environment in religious education classes and students' attitude to Christianity', Religious Education, vol. 97, pp. 23-42.
Dunkin, MJ & Biddle, BJ 1974, The study of teaching, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Duschl, RA & Waxman, HC 1991, 'Influencing the learning environments of student teaching', in B.J Fraser & H.J Walberg (Eds), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 255-270), Pergamon, London.
Fisher, DL (Ed.) 1992, The study of learning environments (vol. 6), Department of Education, University of Tasmania, Launceston.
Fisher, DL & Fraser, BJ 1983, 'A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 20, 55-61.
Flanders, NA 1970, Analyzing teacher behavior, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Fraser, BJ 1986, Classroom environment, Croom Helm, London.
Fraser, BJ 1990, Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire, Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
Fraser, BJ 1991, 'Two decades of classroom environment research', in BJ Fraser & HJ Walberg (Eds), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 3-27), Pergamon, London.
Fraser, BJ 1993, 'Incorporating classroom and school environment ideas into teacher education programs', in TA Simpson (Ed.), Teacher educators' annual handbook (pp. 135-152), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Fraser, BJ 1994 'Research on classroom and school climate', in D Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541), Macmillan, New York.
Fraser, BJ 1998a, 'Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications', Learning Environments Research, vol. 1, pp. 7-33.
Fraser, BJ 1998b, 'Science learning environments: Assessments, effects and determinants', in BJ Fraser & KG Tobin (Eds), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564), Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Fraser, BJ, Anderson, GJ & Walberg, HJ 1982, Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd version), Western Australian Institute of Technology, Perth.
Fraser, BJ, Giddings, GJ & McRobbie, CJ 1995, 'Evolution and validation of a personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 32, pp. 399-422.
Fraser, BJ & Treagust, DF 1986, 'Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychological environment in higher education', Higher Education, vol. 15, pp. 37-57.
Fraser, BJ & Walberg, HJ (Eds) 1991, Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences, Pergamon, London.
Genn, J 1984, 'Research into the climates of Australian schools, colleges and universities: Contributions and potential of need-press theory', Australian Journal of Education, vol. 28, pp. 227-248.
Goh, SC & Fraser, BJ 1998, 'Teacher interpersonal behaviour: Classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore', Learning Environments Research, vol. 1, pp. 199-229.
Goh, SC & Khine, MS 2002, Classroom climate in Singapore higher education: A learning environment study, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Goldstein, H 1987, Multilevel models in educational and social research, Charles Griffin, London.
Goldstein, H Rabash, J, Plewis, I, Draper, D, Browne, W & Yang, M 1998). A user's guide to MlwiN, Institute of Education, University of London.
Hase, HD & Goldberg, LG 1967, Comparative validity of different strategies of constructing personality inventory scales, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 67, pp. 231-248.
Hjelle, LA & Ziegler, DJ 1981, Personality theories: Basic assumptions, Research and applications, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Huang, SL 2002, Variables predicting classroom learning environments of middle school students, paper presented at the Annual mMeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Idiris, S & Fraser, BJ 1997, 'Psychosocial environment of agricultural science classrooms in Nigeria', International Journal of Science Education, vol. 19, pp. 79-91.
Jöreskog, KG & Sörbom, D 1993, LISREL 8: User's reference guide, Scientific Software International, Chicago.
Kennedy, J & Dorman, J 2002, Development and validation of the Extended Practicum Learning Environment Inventory, paper presented at the Challenging Futures Conference, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales.
Khine, MS & Fisher, DL 2002, Classroom environments, Student attitudes and cultural background of teachers in Brunei, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Kremer-Hayon, L & Wubbels, T 1993, 'Supervisors' interpersonal behavior and student teachers' satisfaction, in T Wubbels & J Levy (Eds), Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 123-135), Falmer, London.
Leary, T 1957, An interpersonal diagnosis of personality, Ronald Press, New York.
Lee, SS & Fraser, BJ (2002, High school science classrooms learning environments in Korea, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Lewin, K 1936, Principles of topological psychology, McGraw, New York.
Maor, D 2000, 'A teacher development program on using a constructivist multimedia learning environment', Learning Environment Research, vol. 2, pp. 307-330.
Marjoribanks, K 1991, 'Environmental measures', in K Marjoribanks (Ed.), The foundations of learning (pp. 265-274), Pergamon, Oxford.
McRobbie, CJ, Fisher, DL & Wong, AFL 1998, 'Personal and class forms of classroom environment instruments', in BJ Fraser & KL Tobin (Eds), International handbook of science education (pp. 581-594), Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Moos, R H 1987, The social climate scales: A user's guide. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.
Moos, R H & Trickett, EJ 1987, Classroom environment scale manual (2nd ed.), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, California.
Murray, HA 1938, Explorations in personality, Oxford University Press.
Nair, CS & Fisher, D 2002, Learning environment changes in transition from senior secondary to post secondary level, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Pace, CR 1963, 'Differences in campus atmosphere', in WW Charters & N Gage (Eds), Readings in the social psychology of education (pp. 73-79), Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Pace, CR & Stern, GG 1958, 'An approach to the measurement of the psychological characteristics of college environments', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 269-277.
Popkewitz, TS 1983, Change and stability in schooling: The dual quality of educational reform, Deakin University, Geelong.
Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS). (2001, October 19). Education Views, pp. 1-4.
Raaflaub, CA & Fraser, BJ 2002, Investigating the learning environment in Canadian mathematics and science classrooms in which laptop computers are used, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Rosenshine, B 1970, 'Evaluation of classroom instruction', Review of Educational Research, vol. 40, pp. 279-300.
Soerjaningsih, W, Fraser, BJ & Aldridge, JM 2001, Achievement, Satisfaction and learning environment among Indonesian computing students at the university level, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.
Song, L & Hunt, KL 2002, Bringing active participation into undergraduate classroom learning environments in China, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Stern, GG 1970, People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry, Wiley, New York.
Stern, GG, Stein, MJ & Bloom, BS 1956, Methods in personality assessment, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.
Taylor, PC, Fraser, BJ & Fisher, DL 1997, 'Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments', International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 27, pp. 293-302.
Thomas, GP 2002, Conceptualisation, Development and validation of an instrument for evaluating the metacognitive orientation of science classroom learning environments: The Metacognitive Orientation Learning Environment Scale - Science (MOLES-S), paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Thomas, GP & McRobbie, CJ 2001, 'Using a metaphor for learning to improve students' metacognition in the chemistry classroom', Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 38, pp. 222-259.
Walberg, HJ 1976, 'Psychology of learning environments: Behavioral, structural, or perceptual?', Review of Research in Education, vol. 4, pp. 142-178.
Walberg, H.J 1991, 'Classroom psychological environment', in K Marjoribanks (Ed.), The foundations of students' learning (pp. 255-263), Pergamon, New York.
Walberg, H.J & Anderson, GJ 1968, 'Classroom climate and individual learning', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 59, pp. 414 -419.
Weinstein, CS 1979, 'The physical environment of the school', Review of Educational Research, vol. 49, pp. 577-610.
Wubbels, T & Levy, J (Eds) 1993, Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal relationships in education, Falmer, London.
Zandvliet, DB & Buker, L 2002, The internet in BC classrooms: Learning environments in new contexts, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
| Author details: Dr Jeffrey Dorman is a Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Australian Catholic University. He specialises in the study of learning environments.
Address for correspondence: School of Education, Australian Catholic University, PO Box 456 Virginia 4014, Queensland, Australia. Email: j.dorman@mcauley.acu.edu.au Please cite as: Dorman, J. (2002). Classroom environment research: Progress and possibilities. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(2), 112-140. http://www.iier.org.au/qjer/qjer18/dorman.html |