Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey among secondary-school students in Hong Kong

  • Yee Wan KwanEmail author
Original Paper


The study examined the factor structure, reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (C-CLES), an instrument for assessing students’ perceptions of the extent of constructivist approaches prevalent in classrooms. A convenience sample of 967 students in Secondary Three (Grade 9) in Hong Kong participated in this study by completing a self-administered questionnaire in their class time. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the hypothesised factor structure, indicating five theoretical constructivist environment dimensions that showed goodness-of-fit to 25 items: Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control, and Student Negotiation. Criterion-related validity, involving evidence based on relations to other variables, was assessed by correlations between the constructivist environment dimensions and cognitive strategies and academic ability. Most correlations were statistically significant and in the positive direction. The C-CLES with 25 items provides a useful measure for educational practice and research among school students.


Cognitive outcomes Constructivist learning environment Secondary schools Validation 



  1. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C. C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a crossnational study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anagün, Ş. S. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions about the relationship between 21st century skills and managing constructivist learning environments. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagun, S. S., & Anilan, H. (2013). Development and validation of a modified Turkish version of the Teacher Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (TCLES). Learning Environments Research, 16(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bas, G. (2012). Investigating the correlation between students’ perceptions on the constructivist learning environment and their academic success in science course with path analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(4), 367–378.Google Scholar
  5. Blunch, N. J. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS Statistics and AMOS (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, W. (2001). Description of an expert teacher’s constructivist-oriented teaching: Engaging students’ critical thinking in learning creative dance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(4), 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2000). Learning to learn: The way forward in curriculum development (Consultation document). Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Council, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.Google Scholar
  9. Curriculum Development Council (CDC). (2009). Senior secondary curriculum guide—The future is now: From vision to realisation (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong: Author.Google Scholar
  10. deVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Dryden, M. & Fraser, B. J. (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
  12. Ebrahimi, N. A. (2015). Validation and application of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey in English language teacher education classrooms in Iran. Learning Environments Research, 18(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galand, B., Bentein, B., Bourgeois, K., & Frenay, E. M. (2003, August). The effect of PBL curriculum on students’ motivation and self-regulation. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  17. Harrington, R. A., & Enochs, L. G. (2009). Accounting for preservice teachers’ constructivist learning environment experiences. Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Learning Environments Research, 7, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, H.-B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of constructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kingir, S., Tas, Y., Gok, G., & Vural, S. S. (2013). Relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, motivational beliefs, self-regulation and science achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Krause, K. L., Bochner, S., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Educational psychology for learning and teaching (5th ed.). Melbourne: Thomson.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, D., & Dean, D., Jr. (2004). Metacognition: A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, S. S. U., & Fraser, B. J. (2000, June). The constructivist learning environment of Science classrooms in Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Fremantle, WA.Google Scholar
  27. Nix, R. K., Fraser, B. J., & Ledbetter, C. E. (2005). Evaluating an integrated science learning environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning Environments Research, 8, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  30. Schunk, D. H. (2015). Learning theories: An educational perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, P. C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taylor, P. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1991, April). Development of an instrument for assessing constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(4), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, P. C., & Maor, D. (2000, February). Assessing the efficacy of on-line teaching with the Constructivist On-line Learning Environment Survey. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  35. Tse-Kian, K. N. (2003). Using multimedia in a constructivist learning environment in the Malaysian classroom. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(3), 293–310.Google Scholar
  36. Wanpen, S., & Fisher, D. L. (2006). Creating a collaborative learning environment in a computer classroom in Thailand using the CLES. In D. L. Fisher & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to research on learning environments: Worldviews (pp. 297–312). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wong, S. L., Ab Rahim, B., Lo, Y. M., & Ahmad Fauzi, M. A. (2010). CLES-ICT: A scale to measure ICT constructivist learning environments in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, J. J., & Cheng, B. L. (1992). Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)—A revised version for use with Chinese elementary and junior high schools students (in Chinese). Psychological Testing, 39, 59–78.Google Scholar
  39. Yip, W. S. (1998). The difference between traditional learning environment and information enriched learning environment on the acquisition and transfer of higher order thinking skills in a biological context (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from the HKU Scholars Hub.Google Scholar
  40. Zohar, A. (1994). Teaching a thinking strategy: Transfer across domains and self learning versus class-like setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Saint JosephMacau SARChina

Personalised recommendations