Classroom Climate Research Paper

A historical look at the field of classroom climate over the past few decades shows that a striking feature is the availability of a variety of economical, valid, and widely applicable questionnaires that have been developed and used for assessing students’ perceptions of classroom climate. This research paper makes some of these valuable instruments readily available by describing some major questionnaires and their past application in various lines of research.

Although using students’ and teachers’ perceptions to study classroom climate forms the focus of this research paper, this method can be contrasted with the external observer’s direct observation and systematic coding of classroom communication and events and the techniques of naturalistic inquiry, ethnography, case study, or interpretive research. In the method considered in detail in this research paper, defining the classroom climate in terms of the shared perceptions of the students and teachers has the dual advantage of characterizing the setting through the eyes of the participants themselves, and capturing data which the observer could miss or consider unimportant.

1. Instruments For Assessing Classroom Climate

Historically, the development of classroom climate instruments commenced three decades ago with the appearance of Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and Classroom Environment Scale (CES). The LEI was developed in conjunction with evaluation and research related to Harvard Project Physics (Walberg and Anderson 1968). The respondent expresses degree of agreement with each of 105 statements (seven per scale) using the four response alternatives of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The names of some of the scales are cohesiveness, speed, difficulty, goal direction, and disorganization. The CES (Moos and Trickett 1987) grew from a comprehensive program of research involving perceptual measures of a variety of human environments including psychiatric hospitals, prisons, university residences and work milieus (Moos 1974). The final published version contains nine scales with ten items of true–false response format in each scale. Scales include involvement, teacher support, task orientation, and innovation.

Three more contemporary classroom climate instruments are described below: Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI); Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES); and What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) questionnaire.

1.1 Science Laboratory Environment Inventory

Because of the importance of laboratory settings in science education, an instrument specifically suited to assessing the climate of science laboratory classes at the senior high school or higher education levels was developed (McRobbie and Fraser 1993). The SLEI has five scales (student cohesiveness, open-endedness, investigation, rule clarity, and material environment), each with seven items. The five response alternatives are almost never, seldom, sometimes, often, and very often. Typical items are ‘I use the theory from my regular science class sessions during laboratory activities’ (integration) and ‘we know the results that we are supposed to get before we commence a laboratory activity’ (open-endedness).

1.2 Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

The CLES (Taylor et al. 1997) was developed to assist researchers and teachers to assess the degree to which a particular classroom’s climate is consistent with a constructivist epistemology, and to assist teachers to reflect on their epistemological assumptions and reshape their teaching practice. The CLES has 36 items with five response alternatives ranging from almost never to almost always. The scales are personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, shared control, and student negotiation. Typical items are ‘I help the teacher to decide what activities I do’ (shared control) and ‘other students ask me to explain my ideas’ (student negotiation).

1.3 What Is Happening In This Class (WIHIC) Questionnaire

The WIHIC questionnaire brings parsimony to the field of classroom climate by combining modified versions of the most salient scales from a wide range of existing questionnaires with additional scales that accommodate contemporary educational concerns (e.g., equity and constructivism). Whereas an Australian sample of 1,081 students in 50 classes responded to the original English version, a Taiwanese sample of 1,879 students in 50 classes responded to a Chinese version that had undergone careful procedures of translation and back translation (Aldridge et al. 1999). This led to a final form of the WIHIC containing the seven eight-item scales of student cohesiveness, teacher support, involvement, investigation, task orientation, cooperation, and equity.

1.4 Different Forms Of Questionnaires

The instruments discussed above have not only a form to measure perceptions of ‘actual’ or experienced classroom climate, but also another form to measure perceptions of ‘preferred’ or ideal classroom climate. The preferred forms are concerned with goals and value orientations and measure perceptions of the classroom climate ideally liked or preferred. For example, an item in the actual form such as ‘there is a clear set of rules for students to follow’ would be changed in the preferred form to ‘there would be a clear set of rules for students to follow.’

Tobin and Fraser (1998) point out that there is potentially a problem with nearly all existing classroom climate instruments when they are used to identify differences between subgroups within a classroom (e.g., males and females) or in the construction of case studies of individual students. The problem is that items elicit an individual student’s perceptions of the class as a whole, as distinct from a student’s perceptions of his her own role within the classroom. For example, items in the traditional class form might seek students’ opinions about whether ‘the work of the class is difficult’ or whether ‘the teacher is friendly towards the class.’ In contrast, a personal form of the same items would seek opinions about whether ‘I find the work of the class difficult’ or whether ‘the teacher is friendly towards me.’ For these reasons, most of the questionnaires discussed above have a personal form. Comprehensive statistics supporting the validity and reliability of the above questionnaires are pro- vided in Fraser (1998).

2. Research Involving Classroom Climate Instruments

2.1 Associations Between Student Outcomes And Classroom Climate

The strongest tradition in past classroom climate research has involved investigation of associations between students’ cognitive and affective learning outcomes and their perceptions of psychosocial characteristics of their classrooms. Fraser’s (1994) tabulation of 40 past studies shows that associations between outcome measures and classroom climate perceptions have been replicated for a variety of cognitive and affective outcome measures, a variety of classroom climate instruments, and a variety of samples (ranging across numerous countries and grade levels). Using the SLEI, associations with students’ cognitive and affective outcomes were found for a sample of approximately 80 senior high school chemistry classes in Australia (Fraser and McRobbie 1995 and Fraser 1993), 489 senior high school biology students in Australia (Fisher et al. 1997) and 1592 grade 10 chemistry students in Singapore (Wong and Fraser 1996).

2.2 Evaluation Of Educational Innovations

Classroom climate instruments can be used as a source of process criteria in the evaluation of educational innovations. An evaluation of the Australian Science Education Project (ASEP) revealed that, in comparison with a control group, ASEP students perceived their classrooms as being more satisfying and individualized and having a better material environment (Fraser 1979). The significance of this evaluation is that classroom climate variables differentiated revealingly between curricula, even when various outcome measures showed negligible differences. Recently, the incorporation of a classroom climate instrument within an evaluation of the use of a computerized database revealed that students perceived that their classes became more inquiry oriented during the use of the innovation (Maor and Fraser 1996). In an evaluation of an urban systemic reform initiative in the USA, use of the CLES painted a disappointing picture in terms of a lack of success in achieving constructivist oriented reform of science education (Dryden and Fraser 1996).

2.3 Differences Between Student And Teacher Perceptions Of Actual And Preferred Climate

An investigation of differences between students and teachers in their perceptions of the same actual classroom climate and of differences between the actual climate and that preferred by students or teachers was reported by Fisher and Fraser (1983) for a sample of 116 classes for the comparisons of student actual with student preferred scores, and a subsample of 56 of the teachers of these classes for contrasting teachers’ and students’ scores. Students preferred a more positive classroom climate than was actually present for all five climate dimensions. Also, teachers perceived a more positive classroom climate than did their students in the same classrooms on four of the dimensions. These results replicate patterns emerging in other studies in other countries (Fraser 1998).

2.4 Teachers’ Attempts To Improve Classroom Climates

Feedback information based on student or teacher perceptions has been employed in a five-step procedure as a basis for reflection upon, discussion of, and systematic attempts to improve classroom climate (Yarrow et al. 1997). First, all students in the class respond to the preferred form of a classroom climate instrument, while the actual form is administered in the same time slot about a week later (assessment). Second, the teacher is provided with feedback information derived from student responses in the form of profiles representing the class means of students’ actual and preferred climate scores (feedback). These profiles permit identification of the changes in classroom climate needed to reduce major differences between the nature of the actual climate and that preferred by students. Third, the teacher engages in private reflection and informal discussion about the profiles in order to provide a basis for a decision about whether an attempt would be made to change the climate in terms of some of the dimensions (reflection and discussion). The main criteria used for selection of dimensions for change are, first, that there should be a sizeable actual-preferred difference on that variable and, second, that the teacher should feel concerned about this difference and want to make an effort to reduce it. Fourth, the teacher introduces an intervention of about two months’ duration in an attempt to change the classroom climate (intervention). For example, strategies used to enhance the dimension of teacher support could involve the teacher moving around the class more to mix with students, providing assistance to students, and talking with them more than previously. Fifth, the student actual form of the scales is re-administered at the end of the intervention to see whether students perceive their classroom climate differently from before (reassessment).

Yarrow et al. (1997) reported a study in which 117 preservice education teachers were introduced to the field of classroom climate through being involved in action research aimed at improving their university teacher education classes and their 117 primary school classes during teaching practice. Improvements in classroom climate were observed, and the preservice teachers generally valued both the inclusion of the topic of classroom climate in their preservice programs, and the opportunity to be involved in action research aimed at improving classroom climate.

2.5 Combining Quantitative And Qualitative Methods

Significant progress has been made towards the desirable goal of combining quantitative and qualitative methods within the same study in research on classroom climates (Tobin and Fraser 1998). Fraser’s (1999) multilevel study of classroom climate incorporated a teacher-researcher perspective as well as the perspective of six university-based researchers. The research commenced with an interpretive study of a Grade 10 teacher’s classroom at a school which provided a challenging classroom learning climate in that many students were from working-class backgrounds, some were experiencing problems at home, and others had English as a second language. Qualitative methods involved several of the researchers visiting this class each time it met over five weeks, using student diaries, and interviewing the teacher-researcher, students, school administrators, and parents. A video camera recorded activities for later analysis. Field notes were written during and soon after each observation, and team meetings took place three times weekly. The qualitative component of the study was complemented by a quantitative component involving the use of a questionnaire which linked three levels: the class in which the interpretive study was undertaken; selected classes from within the school; and classes distributed throughout the same State. This enabled a judgment to be made about whether this teacher was typical of other teachers at the same school, and whether the school was typical of other schools within the State. Some of the features identified as salient in this teacher’s classroom climate were peer pressure and an emphasis on laboratory activities.

2.6 Cross-National Studies

Educational research which crosses national boundaries offers much promise for generating new insights for at least two reasons (Aldridge et al. 1999). First, there usually is greater variation in variables of interest (e.g., teaching methods, student attitudes) in a sample drawn from multiple countries than from a one-country sample. Second, the taken-for-granted familiar educational practices, beliefs, and attitudes in one country can be exposed, made ‘strange,’ and questioned when research involves two countries. In a recent cross-national study, six Australian and seven Taiwanese researchers worked together on a study of classroom climate. The WIHIC was administered to 50 junior high school science classes in Taiwan (1,879 students) and 50 classes in Australia (1,081 students) (Aldridge et al. 1999). An English version of the questionnaire was translated into Chinese, followed by an independent back translation of the Chinese version into English, again by team members who were not involved in the original translation. Qualitative data, involving interviews with teachers and students and classroom observations, were collected to complement the quantitative information and to clarify reasons for patterns and differences in the means in each country.

Data from the questionnaires guided the collection of qualitative data. Student responses to individual items were used to form an interview schedule to clarify whether items had been interpreted consistently by students and to help to explain differences in questionnaire scale means between countries. Classrooms were selected for observation on the basis of the questionnaire data, and specific scales formed the focus for observations in these classrooms. The qualitative data provided valuable insights into the perceptions of students in each of the countries, helped to explain some of the differences in the means between countries, and highlighted the need for caution when interpreting differences between the questionnaire results from two countries with cultural differences.

2.7 Transition From Primary To High School

There is considerable interest in the effects on early adolescents of the transition from primary school to the larger, less personal climate of the junior high school at this time of life. Midgley et al. (1991) reported a deterioration in the classroom climate when students moved from generally smaller primary schools to larger, departmentally organized lower secondary schools, perhaps because of less positive student relations with teachers and reduced student opportunities for decision making in the classroom. Ferguson and Fraser’s (1998) study of 1,040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16 linked high schools in Australia also indicated that students perceived their high school classroom climates less favorably than their primary school classroom climates, but the transition experience was different for boys and girls and for different school size ‘pathways.’

3. Conclusion

The major purpose of this research paper has been to make this exciting research tradition involving classroom climate more accessible to wider audiences by portraying several widely applicable instruments for assessing perceptions of classroom climate and by describing several major lines of previous research.

Bibliography:

1. Aldridge J M, Fraser B J, Huang T-C I 1999 Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research 93: 48–62
2. Ferguson P D, Fraser B J 1998 Changes in learning environment during the transition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environments Research 1: 369–83
3. Fisher D L, Fraser B J 1983 A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20: 55–61
4. Fraser B J 1979 Evaluation of a science-based curriculum. In: Walberg H J (ed.) Educational Environments and Effects: Evaluation, Policy, and Productivity. McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 218–34
5. Fraser B J 1994 Research on classroom and school climate. In: Gabel D (ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Macmillan, New York, pp. 493–541
6. Fraser B J 1998 Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants. In: Fraser B J, Tobin K G (eds.) International Handbook of Science Education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 527–64
7. Fraser B 1999 ‘Grain sizes’ in learning environment research: combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In: Waxman H, Walberg H (eds.) New Directions for Research on Teaching. McCutchan, Berkeley, CA, pp. 285–96
8. Maor D, Fraser B J 1996 Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education 18: 401–21
9. Midgley C, Eccles J S, Feldlaufer H 1991 Classroom environment and the transition to junior high school. In: Fraser B J, Walberg H J (eds.) Educational Environments: Evaluation, Antecedents and Consequences. Pergamon, London, pp. 113– 39
10. Moos R H 1974 The Social Climate Scales: An Overview. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA
11. Moos R H, Trickett E J 1987 Classroom Environment Scale manual, 2nd edn. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA
12. Taylor P C, Fraser B J, Fisher D L 1997 Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research 27: 293–302
13. Tobin K, Fraser B J 1998 Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In: Fraser B J, Tobin K G (eds.) International Handbook of Science Education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 623–40
14. Walberg H J, Anderson G J 1968 Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 59: 414–19
15. Yarrow A, Millwater J, Fraser B J 1997 Improving university and primary school classroom environments through preservice teachers’ action research. International Journal of Practical Experiences in Professional Education 1(1): 68–93
16. Dryden M,, Fraser B J 1996 Evaluating Urban Systemic Reform Using Classroom Learning En ironment Instruments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York
17. Fisher D, Henderson D, Fraser B 1997 Laboratory environments and student outcomes in senior high school biology. American Biology Teacher 59: 214–19
18. Fraser B J, McRobbie C J 1995 Science laboratory classroom environments at schools and universities: A cross-national study. Educational Research and Evaluation 1: 289–317
19. McRobbie C J, Fraser B J 1993 Associations between student outcomes and psychosocial scince environment. Journal of Educational Research 87: 78–85
20. Wong W L F, Fraser B J 1996 Environment-attitude associations in the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education 14: 91–102