Advertisement

Evaluation of an Innovative Mathematics Program in Terms of Classroom Environment, Student Attitudes, and Conceptual Development

  • Howard Spinner
  • Barry J. FraserEmail author
Article

Abstract

Dull classroom environments, poor students’ attitudes and inhibited conceptual development led to the creation of an innovative mathematics program, the Class Banking System (CBS), which enables teachers to use constructivist ideas and approaches. To assess the effectiveness of the CBS, the Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ), Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES), Test of Mathematics-Related Attitudes (TOMRA), and concept map tests were administered to two groups of fifth-grade students as pretests and posttests over an academic year. To enrich the data collected from those questionnaires, three case studies (one for the experimental group and two for the control group) were undertaken based on observations and interviews of selected students. Relative to non-CBS students, CBS students experienced more favorable changes in terms of mathematics concept development, attitudes to mathematics, and perceived classroom environments on several dimensions of the CLES (e.g., Personal Relevance, Shared Control) and the ICEQ (e.g., Participation and Differentiation). Qualitative information based on classroom observations and student interviews reinforced and enriched the patterns of results obtained from the concept test and questionnaires.

Keywords

attitudes conceptual development evaluation learning environment mathematics education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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, 48–57. Google Scholar
  2. 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, 37–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, G. & Arsenault, N. (1999). Fundamentals of educational research. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, L. (1971). Individualizing educational systems. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57–78). Aldershot, England: Avebury. Google Scholar
  6. Cook, T.D. & Reichardt, C. (Eds.). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  7. Dryden, M. & Fraser, B. (1998, April). The impact of systemic reform efforts in promoting constructivist approaches in high school science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Google Scholar
  8. Duit, R., Treagust, D. & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In Treagust, Duit & Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17–31). New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–159). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative methods for research in science education. In Fraser & Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
  11. Felsine, J. (1983). Concept mapping: A method for detection of possible student misconceptions. In Helm & Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics (pp. 467–476). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B.J. (1981). Test of science related attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, B.J. (1982). Development of short forms of several classroom environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 221–227. Google Scholar
  14. Fraser, B.J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 193–541). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, B.J. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In Fraser & Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, B.J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fraser, B.J. (1998c). The birth of a new journal: Editor’s introduction. Learning Environments Research, 1, 1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, B.J. (1999). ‘Grain sizes’ in learning environments research: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In Waxman & Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 285–296). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, B.J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In Goh & Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective (pp. 1–25). Singapore: World Scientific Publishers. Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1983). Development and validation of short forms of some instruments measuring student perceptions of actual and preferred classroom learning environment. Science Education, 67, 115–131. Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In Fraser & Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271–275). Oxford, England: Pergamon. Google Scholar
  23. Goh, S.C. & Khine, M.S. (Eds.). (2002). Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective. Singapore: World Scientific. Google Scholar
  24. 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, 29–40. Google Scholar
  25. Goode, W.J. & Hatt, P.K. (1952). The case study. In Goode & Hatt (Eds.), Methods of social research (pp. 330–340). New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  26. Hand, B. (1996). Diagnosis of teachers’ knowledge bases and teaching roles when implementing constructivist teaching/learning approaches. In Treagust, Duit & Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 212–220). New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  27. Holland, B.S. & Copenhaver, M. (1988). Improved Bonferroni-type multiple testing procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 145–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howe, K.R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis: Or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(11), 10–16. Google Scholar
  29. Jaccard, J. & Wan, C.K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Google Scholar
  31. Kim, H.B., Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17, 239–249. Google Scholar
  32. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw. Google Scholar
  33. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.D. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  34. Majeed, A., Fraser, B.J. & Aldridge, J. (2002). Learning environment and its associations with student satisfaction among mathematics students in Brunei Darussalam. Learning Environments Research, 5, 203–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 401–421. Google Scholar
  36. Marshall, H.H. (1990). Observing teachers’ knowledge bases and teaching roles. In Treagust, Duit & Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 212–220). New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  37. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (Eds.). (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  38. Moos, R.H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Google Scholar
  39. Mullholland, J. & Wallace, J. (2000, April). Restorying and the legitimation of research texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Google Scholar
  40. Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949. Google Scholar
  41. Novak, J.D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 58(7), 45–49. Google Scholar
  42. Stern, G.G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person–environment congruence in education and industry. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, P.C., Dawson, V. & Fraser, B.J. (1995, April). Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Google Scholar
  44. Taylor, P.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1991, April). Development of an instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Google Scholar
  45. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teh, G. & Fraser, B. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms of achievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 8, 147–161. Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, B. (1998a). Review of “what if there were no significance tests?” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 334–346. Google Scholar
  48. 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. Google Scholar
  49. Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In Fraser & Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  50. Treagust, D.F., Duit, R. & Fraser, B.J. (Eds.). (1996). Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
  51. Walberg, H.J. (Ed.) (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Google Scholar
  52. Walberg, H.J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In Farley & Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 81–108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Google Scholar
  53. Walberg, H.J. & Anderson, G.J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations