Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
101
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a growing need for collaboration across countries to help to
advance the efforts and accomplishments of educators world wide
(Ferguson & Meyer, 1998). Previous studies which compare science
classroom learning environments in different countries have been limited.
For example, to date, there are no studies that compare the classroom
learning environments found in Australia with those found in neighbouring
countries of South East Asia. The present research involved six Australian
and seven Taiwanese researchers in working together on a cross-cultural
study involving a comparison of classroom learning environments in these
two countries, as well as an investigation of factors that influence the
learning environment in each country.
In his 1996 presidential address at a NARST annual meeting, Fraser
claimed that educational research which crosses national boundaries offers
Learning Environments Research 3: 101134, 2000.
2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
102
much promise for generating new insights for at least two reasons. First,
there usually is a 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 researchers from two countries
collaborate on research involving teaching and learning in two countries.
Such research not only provides a researcher with understanding of science
education in another country, but also sharpens insights into science
education in his or her own country (Fraser, 1996).
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The present study commenced from a more objectivist paradigm, in which
the main focus of data collection was the large-scale administration of
questionnaires. This phase sought to provide an overview of the learning
environment in each country, as well as providing a springboard for further
data collection using different research methods. As the study progressed,
new research questions emerged and, through critical reflexivity, the study
began to involve a more interpretative approach that included the
combination of multiple research methods.
The interpretative framework from which the research methods were
selected was guided largely by constructivist (Taylor, 1994; von
Glasersfeld, 1987, 1993) and critical theory (Giroux, 1983, 1988)
paradigms. The constructivist perspective assumes that there are multiple
realities in which the researchers and their subjects create their own
understandings (von Glasersfeld, 1987, 1993). From this perspective, our
study was emergent in both its design and nature. The critical theory
perspective implies that reality is shaped over time by social, political,
cultural, ethnic and gender factors (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Epistemologically, this paradigm assumes that the values of the researchers will
influence the inquiry. The present study drew on feminism, which is related
to critical theory, that assumes a materialist-realist ontology from which
the real world makes a difference in terms of race, class and gender
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 14).
The present study examined and explored the learning environments in
science classes in Taiwan and Australia. The notion that a distinct classroom
environment exists began as early as the 1930s when Kurt Lewin (1936)
recognised that the environment and its interactions with personal
characteristics of the individual are determinants of behaviour. Following
Lewins work, Murray (1938) proposed a Needs-Press Model in which
103
104
A historical look at the field of learning environments over the past few
decades shows that a striking feature is the availability of a variety of
economical, valid and widely-applicable questionnaires for assessing student
perceptions of classroom environments (Fraser, 1998a, 1998b). Few fields
in education can boast of the existence of such a rich array of validated and
robust instruments which have been used in so many research applications.
These instruments include the Individualised Classroom Environment
Questionnaire (ICEQ) for open or individualised settings (Fraser, 1990), the
Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) for laboratory settings
(Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie, 1995), the College and University Classroom
Environment Inventory (CUCEI) for higher education classrooms (Fraser
& Treagust, 1986), the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) for
assessing the interpersonal relationship between teachers and students
(Wubbels & Levy, 1993), and the Constructivist Learning Environment
Survey (CLES) for assessing the degree to which a particular classroom
environment is consistent with constructivist epistemology (Aldridge, Fraser,
Taylor & Chen, 2000; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997).
Whilst the instruments described above have been used and validated
in a number of countries, many of the questionnaires overlap in what they
measure and some contain items that might not be pertinent in todays
classroom settings. Therefore, in the present study, the recent What is
Happening in this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire (Fraser, McRobbie &
Fisher, 1996) was used to collect data because it combines scales from past
questionnaires with contemporary dimensions to bring parsimony to the
field of learning environments.
Although the use of questionnaires has led to many insights into learning
environments through the students eyes, the field also includes many fine
studies that have used qualitative or interpretative methods (Fraser, 1998a),
and considerable progress has been made in combining qualitative and
quantitative methods in learning environment research (Fraser & Tobin,
1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1998). Examples of studies that highlight the benefits
of combining qualitative and quantitative methods in learning environment
research include research on exemplary science teachers (Fraser & Tobin,
1989), a study of higher-level learning (Tobin, Kahle & Fraser, 1990), and
an interpretative study of a teacher-researcher teaching science in a
challenging school setting (Fraser, 1999b).
Literature reviews trace the considerable progress made in the conceptualisation, assessment and investigation of the subtle but important
concept of learning environments over the previous quarter of a century
(Fraser, 1994, 1998a; Fraser & Walberg, 1991). For example, the varied
types of past research on educational learning environments include (a)
105
106
environment and student outcomes for almost all scales. Whilst these
studies provide useful suggestions to educators regarding classroom
environment dimensions that could be changed in order to improve
students outcomes, they do not identify causal factors associated with the
classroom environments.
In Hong Kong, qualitative methods involving open-ended questions
were used to explore students perceptions of the learning environment in
Grade 9 classrooms (Wong, 1993, 1996). This study found that many
students identified the teacher as the most crucial element in a positive
classroom learning environment. These teachers were found to keep order
and discipline while creating an atmosphere that was not boring or solemn.
They also interacted with students in ways that could be considered friendly
and showed concern for the students. Also, in Hong Kong, Cheung (1993)
used multilevel analysis to determine the effects of the learning environment
on students learning. The findings of this study provide insights that could
help to explain why Hong Kong was found to rank highly in physics,
chemistry and biology in international comparisons (Keeves, 1992).
The present study went beyond past research in non-Western countries
to involve an English and a Mandarin version of the WIHIC that were
validated and used in Western Australia and Taiwan, respectively. In
addition, other research methods, drawn from a range of paradigms, made
possible a more in-depth understanding of social and cultural influences
on the learning environments. The study not only replicated previous
research, but also explored causal factors associated with students
perceptions of their learning environment.
4. RESEARCH METHODS
The way in which researchers perceive the world is likely to be shaped by
the paradigm which they use (Feyerabend, 1978; Kuhn, 1962; Lakatos,
1970). It is widely agreed that multiple methods in comparative research
are useful in achieving greater understanding (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;
Keeves & Adams, 1994; Tobin & Fraser, 1998). It was with this in mind
that data collection for the present study involved different sources and
kinds of information (as recommended by Erickson, 1998), including
videotape recordings of science classrooms, fieldnotes, narrative stories,
interview comments and tape recordings of interviews. The collection and
analysis of the data were integrally linked, each informing the other during
a recursive process. The idea of grain sizes (the use of different sized
samples for different research questions varying in extensiveness and
107
108
for use with students in Taiwan. The English version of the WIHIC
questionnaire was translated into Mandarin by educators in Taiwan and
then back translated into English by an independent third party as
recommended by Brislin (1970, 1976, 1980; Brislin, Lonner & Thorndike,
1973). The back translations were checked, in collaboration with Taiwanese
colleagues, to ensure that the Mandarin version maintained the original
meanings and concepts in the original English version.
Comparisons between the Mandarin back translation and English
versions of the questionnaires revealed that, in some cases, the language
used in the back translations was more succinct or simpler than in the
original English version. In these cases, we modified the original English
questionnaire to make the items clearer. For example, Item 10 in the original
English version read In this class, I am able to depend on other students
for help and this was changed to In this class, I get help from other
students.
In other cases, we found that some English words had no direct equivalent
in Mandarin. In these cases, the English version was changed so that the
wording could be parallel in the versions. For example the term favours in
the original item I do favours for members of this class was found to have
no direct equivalent in Mandarin. To accommodate this, the original English
item was changed to I am friendly to members of this class.
There were other cases for which differences in words changed the
meaning of the back translation. For example, some items in the back
translations used the word homework (e.g. When I have problems with
homework, this teacher will help me), when the original version implied
class work (e.g. The teacher helps me when I have trouble with the
work). In these cases, where the meanings of the back translations differed
from those of the English version, amendments were made to the Mandarin
version to ensure consistency.
Once the modifications had been made, the process was repeated to
ensure that the changes were adequate. A trial of the modified English
version of each student questionnaire took place in three science classes
in Australia, one from each of Grade 7, 8 and 9. This was followed by
interviews with five students from each class about the readability and
comprehensibility of items. These interviews were used to check whether
students had responded to questionnaire items on the basis intended by the
researchers. Similar interviews were conducted in Taiwan by a colleague
from National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Insights from the interviews in Australia were compared with those
conducted in Taiwan and subsequent changes were made to the questionnaires. The Taiwanese version was then used to make two questionnaires
109
in which the items remained identical except that the word biology was
used for biology classes and the word physics was used for physics
classes.
110
111
& Lincoln, 1994). The results are presented below in three separate
sections: analysis of the questionnaire data; findings related to recognising
and minimising cultural bias; and information gathered using observations
and interviews.
112
TABLE I
Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient), and Ability to Differentiate Between Classrooms (ANOVA
Results) for Two Units of Analysis for the WIHIC
Item
No
.64
Teacher
support
Aust
Taiw
Involvement
Aust
Taiw
.65
.77
.46
.58
.47
.49
.53
.65
Factor loading
Investigation
Task orientation
Aust
Taiw
Aust
.65
.58
.71
.63
.64
.63
.66
.61
.61
.64
.70
.61
.68
.66
.66
.64
.63
.59
.64
.68
.65
.56
.63
.68
.62
.43
Taiw
Cooperation
Aust
Taiw
Equity
Aust
Taiw
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
Student
cohesiveness
Aust
Taiw
.62
.59
.47
.56
.53
.68
.68
.60
.60
.71
.67
.65
.75
.55
.62
.70
.59
.50
.41
.45
TABLE I
(Continued)
Student
cohesiveness
Aust
Taiw
Teacher
support
Aust
Taiw
Involvement
Factor loading
Investigation
Task orientation
Cooperation
Taiw
Aust
.44
.40
.53
.47
.47
.54
.58
.56
.68
.70
.69
.71
.72
.74
.63
.68
27.3
15.27
.93
.97
.15**
.56
.65
.67
.66
.71
.58
.60
.64
6.2
3.47
.90
.95
.24**
Taiw
113
Aust
Taiw
Aust
Taiw
Aust
Taiw
Aust
42
.65
.49
44
.58
.49
45
.55
.59
46
.62
.51
47
.71
.54
48
.65
.58
49
.67
.62
50
.63
.58
51
.55
52
.59
53
.58
54
.63
55
.65
56
.67
57
.62
58
.52
61
63
64
65
66
67
69
70
% Variance
2.4
4.5
2.5
3.6
1.7
1.5
5.2
29.2
6.1
2.5
4.8
1.8
Eigenvalue
1.37
2.52
1.41
1.99
0.97
0.82
2.92
16.35
3.43
1.41
2.68
0.98
Alpha Reliability
Individual
.81
.86
.88
.87
.84
.85
.88
.90
.88
.86
.89
.87
Class Mean
.87
.91
.95
.95
.88
.90
.95
.96
.96
.94
.93
.92
2
Eta
.11**
.07** .14**
.34**
.09*
.11**
.15**
.22** .14**
.36**
.15**
.28**
Loadings smaller than .4 are omitted. The sample consisted of 1081 students in 50 classes in Australia and 1879 students in 50 classes in Taiwan.
The eta2 statistic (which is the ratio of between to total sums of squares) represents the proportion of variance explained by class membership.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Equity
Item
No
114
115
TABLE II
Mean, Standard Deviation, Effect Size and T Test for Independent Samples for
Differences Between Australia and Taiwan in Perceptions of Classroom Environment
and Attitude for the Class Mean as the Unit of Analysis
WIHIC scale
Mean
Student
cohesiveness
Teacher support
Involvement
Investigation
Task orientation
Cooperation
Equity
Attitude
*p < .05.
Standard deviation
Aust
31.61
Taiw
31.60
Aust
1.33
Taiw
1.54
Difference between
countries
Effect size
t
0.00
0.06
24.68
24.76
23.56
31.75
30.43
31.68
23.59
24.24
23.04
22.90
30.98
29.56
30.04
26.43
2.89
2.09
2.43
1.80
1.80
2.24
4.41
2.79
1.89
2.54
2.24
2.24
2.81
3.67
0.17
0.86
0.27
0.38
0.43
0.65
0.70
0.74
4.60*
1.43
2.10*
2.44*
3.40*
3.55*
over three quarters of a standard deviation (0.86) for class means. These
effect sizes suggest a substantial difference between countries on the
learning environment scales with the exception of Student Cohesiveness
and Teacher Support. T tests for independent samples, using the class as
the unit of analysis, were used to investigate whether differences in scale
scores between Australia and Taiwan were statistically significant. Students
in Australia consistently viewed their classroom environment (in terms of
WIHIC scales) more favourably than did students in Taiwan. There was a
statistically significant difference (p < .05) for the scales of Involvement,
Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity (see Table II).
An interesting anomaly arose in that students in Taiwan expressed a
significantly more positive attitude towards science than did students in
Australia (p < .01). The effect size for student attitudes was over two thirds
of a standard deviation (0.72) for class means, also suggesting a large
difference between countries. Despite students in Australia holding more
favourable perceptions of the learning environment, it appears that students
in Taiwan had more positive attitudes towards their science classes. These
findings prompted the researchers to examine the perceptions of the
students in each country more closely during the qualitative data collection
which is discussed further in the following sections.
116
117
the degree to which active participation had taken place during these
lessons. It was not until after we had read a number of stories about our
observations that we realised that we each held different views. The
Australian researcher had used this term to describe lessons or activities
that encouraged a hands-on approach (i.e. more student-centred and
involving physically manoeuvring, touching and investigating a variety
of materials). The Taiwanese researcher, however, perceived the term
active participation as a minds-on phenomenon in which students not
only pay attention to what is taught, but assimilate the new information
with different or similar information that has been learned. This requires
the teacher to keep the students interested and attentive to what is being
taught. Once again, these differences coloured what each of the researchers
considered important during the observations, and the stories often reflected
these differences.
118
over the Orient. Initially, the Australian researcher tended to use her own
culture as a benchmark to determine whether science classes in Taiwan
were effective or appropriate, and explained differences between the
science classes in Australia and Taiwan using her own experiences and
cultural understandings. The initial reactions which she had towards science
classrooms in Taiwan and her comparisons of the learning environments
led her to view education in Australia as more conducive to effective
learning. The ensuing discourse assumed the role of Orientalism in which
she expressed the strength of the West and the Orients weakness (Said,
1995, p. 45), as seen by herself, a Westerner.
The concept of border crossing (Giroux, 1992) was used to make sense
of the Western researchers shift from Orientalism towards rethinking and
reinvestigation of assumptions about what she knew to be true of schools
and the culture in Taiwan. Her initial reaction to science teaching in Taiwan
was one of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1992), in which she felt that
science in Taiwan went against much that she had learned to represent good
teaching. However, after subsequent discussions with colleagues and
interviews with teachers, she was able to make sense of particular actions
and to recognise difficulties and pressures under which teachers in Taiwan
work. She began to empathise with these teachers and understand the
problems which they faced. This, coupled with the Taiwanese researchers
conflicting view of what constituted an effective teacher, forced her to reexamine her own views.
Whilst the examination-driven curriculum in Taiwan appears to have
forged teaching styles different from in Australia, interviews with students
revealed that they were not as unhappy with classes in Taiwan as the
researcher had imagined. In fact, students whom we interviewed in
Taiwan had more positive attitudes towards science classes than those
in Australia. This disclosure forced the researcher to take a more objective
look at teaching in her own country and, as a result, she began to find
that perhaps it was not as superior as she had first imagined. She no longer
considered Australian education to be relatively free of faults and, in
contrast, commenced a more critical discourse about Australian education.
She had began to recognise that neither system was superior, neither
had all the answers and, in retrospect, both had a lot to offer the other. The
researchers awareness of Orientalism, and the difficulties that this mind
bent could pose, made her more critical of her own reactions towards
education in Taiwan. This awareness would not have been possible if she
had not felt at ease with her fellow researchers and able to question and
probe aspects of their culture.
119
120
121
The constraints placed on Taiwanese teachers as a result of the examinationdriven curriculum were echoed by Mr Cheung, a teacher whom we
interviewed the day after. He used the expression time is tight on a number
of occasions to explain the predicament of teachers in Taiwan. Mr Cheung
had explained that:
The way we teach is constrained. Students have to do the entrance examination to senior
high school and they like to be crammed . . .. The examinations, the [content of the]
textbook and the amount of homework restrict how much work we can do outside of the
textbook. Every aspect of science education is constrained.
During our visits to Taiwan, we did observe a teacher who moved away
from the teacher-centred approach, but these occasions were few.
In classes that we observed in Taiwan, we noticed that teachers used
rote learning on a number of occasions. The teacher would ask a question,
and students would chorus back the answer. These sessions were used to
revise the content of lessons, particularly when a test was close at hand.
Through further reading, we became aware that what we perceived as rote
learning (a mechanical procedure requiring little thought) could have
actually been what is referred to as deep memorisation (Biggs, 1996; Lee,
122
123
Although the teachers whom we interviewed generally felt this way, there
was an exception. One Taiwanese teacher purposefully created a closer
and more personal relationship with some students, paying particular
attention to those whom were motivated or interested in biology. She
encouraged them with excursions and trips to sites of interest on the
weekend and took them around the school grounds to teach them more
biology after school.
The degree of respect that the Taiwanese students have for their
teachers could be grounded in the students upbringing and in the
Confucian ethic of filial piety. According to Bond and Hwang (1990),
Lee (1996) and Smith (1997), much of the Chinese social behaviour is
commanded by the teachings of Confucius, or Chung-ni Kung. One of
the primary concerns of Confucius is achieving social harmony (Tong,
1970). In the Confucian tradition, relationships are considered to be of
paramount importance, with both parties within a relationship being
accorded rules of correct behaviour. Social harmony is ensured if each
individual follows the requirements of his or her relationship role, such
as that of the teacher and student.
Students observed in Australia, however, were more likely to interrupt
or be disrespectful towards the teacher than their counterparts in Taiwan.
The socialisation of students could also have a bearing on the degree of
respect that students have for their teachers. Comparing classrooms in
Taiwan and Australia, observations indicated that there was a larger gap
between the roles of teachers and students. This point was highlighted
during observations of Australian teachers performing tasks, such as giving
out papers, that normally would be undertaken by students in Taiwan.
Differences in the degree of respect accorded to teachers in each country
could be related to power differences between teachers and students in the
respective countries.
124
125
126
8. DISCUSSION
The research described in this article is different from the large majority
of studies in science education in that it extended beyond the confines of
a single country to involve researchers from two different countries in
working collaboratively in pursuing the same research questions both in their
own country and in the other country. This study is also distinctive in that it
went beyond past cross-national research which was restricted to translating
a questionnaire developed in the West into another language, and then using
it in another country to replicate previous research in Western countries. This
study used a multimethod approach in which the use of qualitative research
methods (observations, interviews and narrative stories) augmented
questionnaire data to provide richer interpretations and insights. Overall, the
study highlighted the importance of cross-cultural studies to help our
127
128
129
enable researchers, teachers and teacher educators to gain better understandings about their own beliefs and the social and cultural restraints
to their teaching.
REFERENCES
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 152.
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, 4862.
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C.-C. (2000). Constructivist learning
environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal
of Science Education, 22(1), 3755.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119128.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 128). London:
Allyn and Bacon.
Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. In
D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural psychological and
contextual influences (pp. 4568). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Bilmes, J., & Boggs, S. (1979). Language and communication: The foundations of culture. In A. Marsella, R. Tharp, & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural
psychology (pp. 4776). New York: Academic Press.
Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1990). The social psychology of the Chinese people. In
M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213266). Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185216.
Brislin, R. W. (1976). Translation: Applications and research. New York: Wiley.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.
Triandis, & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology
(Vol. 2, pp. 389444). London: Allyn & Bacon.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. W. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley.
Burdell, P., & Swadener, B. B. (1999). Critical personal narrative and autoethnography
in education: Reflections on a genre. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 2126.
Burden, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Use of classroom environment assessments in school
psychology: A British perspective. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 232240.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in teaching and teacher education. Educational
Researcher, 22(1), 512.
Casey, K. (1995). The new narrative research in education. Review of Research in Education, 21, 211253.
130
Cheung, K. C. (1993). The learning environment and its effects on learning: Product and
process modelling for science achievement at the sixth form level in Hong Kong.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 242264.
Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). Validation and use of the What is Happening in this Class (WIHIC) questionnaire in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. J.
Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623
640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119161). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser
& K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 1155
1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ferguson, D. L., & Meyer, G. (1998). Talking across borders and languages: Encouraging international research discussions and collaboration. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 8993.
Ferguson, P. D., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Changes in learning environment during the
transition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environment Research, 1, 369
383.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.
London: Verso.
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, 5561.
Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne,
Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493541). New York:
Macmillan.
Fraser, B. J. (1996, March). NARSTs expansion, internationalization and cross-nationalization: History in the making. Presidential address presented at the annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.
Fraser, B. J. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science
education (pp. 527564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and
applications. Learning Environment Research, 1, 733.
Fraser, B. J. (1999a). Using learning environment assessments to improve classroom and
school climates. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and
sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 6583). London: Falmer Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1999b). Grain sizes in learning environment research: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In H. C. Waxman, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), New
131
directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 285296). Berkeley, CA:
McCutchan.
Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of a
personal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399422.
Fraser, B. J., Kahle, J. B., & Scantlebury, K. (1999, March). Classroom, home and peer
environment influences on student outcomes: An analysis of systemic reform data.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Boston.
Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1996, April). Development, validation
and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1989). Student perceptions of psychosocial environments in
classrooms of exemplary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1434.
Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in
classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Educational
environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271292). London:
Pergamon.
Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing
classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37
57.
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences. London: Pergamon.
Geelan, D. R. (1997). Weaving narrative nets to capture school science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 27, 553563.
Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom as a unique social system. In N. B.
Henry (Ed.), The dynamics of instructional groups: Sociopsychological aspects of
teaching and learning (pp. 5382) (Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition.
South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking the
discourse of educational research. In R. Sherman, & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative research in education: Focus and methods (pp. 190210). New York: Falmer Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education.
New York: Routledge.
Goh, S. C., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 2940.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.
K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105117).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ho, D. Y. F., & Kang, T. K. (1984). Intergenerational comparisons of child-rearing attitudes and practices in Hong Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20, 10041016.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work related
values. London: Sage.
132
Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions.
In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in crosscultural psychology (pp. 335355). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Huang, I. T. C. (1997). Science education in Asia. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study
Abroad, 3(2), 1324.
Keeves, J. P. (1992). The IEA study of science III: Changes in science education and
achievement: 1970 to 1984. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Keeves, J. P., & Adams D. (1994). Comparative methodology in education. In T. Husn,
& T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.,
pp. 948958). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Khoo, H. S., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). Using classroom environment dimensions in
the evaluation of adult computer courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.
Kim, H.-B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of
constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 239249.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In
I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91
196). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in
the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:
Cultural psychological and contextual influences (pp. 2541). Melbourne, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principals of topological psychology. New York: McGraw.
Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, world-traveling, and loving perception. Hypatia, 2(2),
313.
Maehr, M., & Nicholls, J. (1980). Culture and achievement: A second look. In N. Warren
(Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 221267). London: Academic
Press.
Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401421.
McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes and
psychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 7885.
McWilliam, E. (1999). Individuality in education. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett, & P.
OBrien (Eds.), Understanding education: Contexts and agendas for the new millennium (pp. 2631). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parish, W. L., & Whyte, M. K. (1978). Village and family in contemporary China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Partington, G. (1998, April). Power, discipline and minority students in high school.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
133
Riah, H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). The learning environment of high school chemistry classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Said, E. W. (1995). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. London: Penguin Books.
Schibeci, R. A., Rideng, I. M., & Fraser, B. J. (1987). Effects of classroom environments
on science attitudes: A cross-cultural replication in Indonesia. International Journal
of Science Education, 9, 169186.
Slee, R., & Knight, T. (1992). Introduction. In R. Slee (Ed.), Discipline in Australian
public education: Changing policy and practice (pp. 112). Melbourne, Australia:
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Smith, D. C. (1997), Middle education in the Middle Kingdom: The Chinese junior high
school in modern Taiwan. London: Praeger.
Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in
education and industry. New York: Wiley.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing
and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit
Books.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 1421.
Taylor, P. C. (1994). Collaborating to reconstruct teaching: The influence of researcher
beliefs. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp.
267298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom
learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293302.
Teh, G., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of
achievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 8, 147161.
Thompson, B. (1998a). Review of what if there were no significance tests? Educational and Psychlogical Measurement, 58, 334346.
Thompson, B. (1998b, April.). Five methodology errors in educational research: The
pantheon of statistical significance and other faux pas. Invited address presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,
CA.
Thorpe, H., Burden, R. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). Assessing and improving classroom
environment. School Science Review, 75, 107113.
Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international
handbook of science education (pp. 623640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classes:
Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.
Tong, K. M. (1970). Educational ideas of Confucius. Hong Kong: Youth Books.
Tseng, W. S., & Hsu, J. (1980). Culture and psychotherapy. In A. Marsella, R. Tharp, &
T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology (pp. 333345). New
York: Academic Press.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as constructive activity. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.),
The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics (pp. 307333).
Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publications.
134