The Development of an Instrument for a Technology-integrated Science Learning Environment

  • Weishen WuEmail author
  • Huey-Por Chang
  • Chorng-Jee Guo


This study developed, validated, and utilized the Technology Integrated Classroom Inventory (TICI) to examine technology-integrated science learning environments as perceived by secondary school students and teachers. Using technology-oriented classroom climate instruments and considering the science classroom’s characteristics, TICI was developed. More than 1,100 seventh through ninth grade science students validated the instrument, revealing eight scales: technological enrichment, inquiry learning, equity and friendliness, student cohesiveness, understanding and encouragement, competition and efficacy, audiovisual environment, and order, with alpha reliabilities ranging between 0.69 and 0.91 (0.93 for the entire questionnaire). In measuring actual and preferred learning environments, TICI results indicated that both students and teachers ranked equity and friendliness highest. The largest actual–preferred discrepancy was order (students) and inquiry learning (teachers). TICI offers additional utilities for technology-enriched science leaning environments.

Key words

classroom climate instrumentation learning environment science teaching technology integration 


  1. Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J., Taylor, P.C. & Che, 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
  2. Aldridge, J.M., Dorman, J.P. & Fraser, B.J. (2004). Use of multitrait-multimethod modeling to validate actual and preferred forms of the technology-rich outcomes-focused learning environment inventory (Troflei). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 110–125.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A.A., Hamilton, R.J. & Hattie, J. (2004). Classroom climate and motivated behavior in secondary schools. Learning Environments Research, 7, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnette, J.J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversal on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, P. & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowman, J., Jr., Newman, D.L. & Masterson, J. (2001). Adopting educational technology: Implications for designing interventions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, V. & Fisher, D.L. (2001). A new learning instrument to evaluate online learning in higher education. In M. Kulski & A. Herrmann (Eds.), New horizons in university teaching and learning (pp. 23–34). Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, C.Y., Hisao, C.H. & Barufaldi, J.P. (2006). Preferred-actual learning environment spaces and earth science outcome in Taiwan. Science Education, 90(3), 420–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chau, P.Y.K. & Hu, P.J. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decision Science, 32(4), 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, C.C., Taylor, P.C. & Aldridge, J.M. (1998). Study on teachers’ beliefs about science and their effect on classroom environment in junior high school. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 383–402.Google Scholar
  12. Cox, M. (2000). Information and communications technologies: Their role and value for science education. In M. Mork & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 190–207). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dorman, J. (2001). Associations between classroom environment and academic efficacy. Learning Environments Research, 4, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorman, J. (2002). Classroom environment research: Progress and possibilities. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18, Queensland Institute for Educational Research.
  15. Dorman, J. & Adams, J. (2004). Associations between students’ perceptions of classroom environment and academic efficacy in Australian and British secondary schools. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, R.J. & Harris, L.G. (1998). Organizational dimensions of climate and the impact on school achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 100–115.Google Scholar
  17. Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elliott, E. & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fisher, D.L., Goh, S.C., Wong, A.F.L. & Richards, T.W. (1997). Perceptions of interpersonal teacher behavior in secondary science classrooms in Singapore and Australia. Journal of Applied Research in Education, 25, 125–133.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, B.J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Coom Helm.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraser, B.J. (2002). Learning environments research: yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S.C. Goh & M.S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in Educational Learning Environments (pp. 1–25). Singapore: Word Scientific.Google Scholar
  24. Fraser, B.J. & Tobin, K. (1989). Student perceptions of psychosocial environment in classrooms of exemplary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fraser, B.J., McRobbie, C. J. & Fisher, D. L. (1996). Development, validation and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, NY.Google Scholar
  26. Gerjets, P.H. & Hesse, F.W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang, S.Y. (2003). Antecedents to psychosocial environments in middle school classrooms in Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 6, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jöreskog, K.G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). California: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Khine, S.M. (2003). Creating a technology-rich constructivist learning environment in a classroom management module. In S.M. Khine & D. Fisher (Eds.), Technology-rich learning environments: A future perspective (pp. 21–39). New Jersey: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  32. Lajoie, S.P. (1993). Computer environments as cognitive tools for enhancing learning. In S.P. Lajoie & R. Derry (Eds.), Computer as cognitive tools (pp. 261–288). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Lim, C.P., Pek, N.S. & Chai, C.S. (2005). Classroom management issues in information and communication technology (ICT)-mediated learning environments: Back to the basics. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(4), 391–414.Google Scholar
  34. Linn M.C. & His, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Maor, D. (2000). A teacher professional development program on using a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 307–330.Google Scholar
  36. Maor, D. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E. & Woodrow, J. (1998). An examination of how science teachers’ experiences in a culture of collaboration inform technology implementation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(2), 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mistler-Jackson, M. & Songer, N.B. (2000). Student motivation and Internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moos, R.H. (1987). The social climate scales: A user’s guide. Consulting, Palo Alto, California: Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  40. National Science Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Newhouse, C.P. (2001). Development and use of an instrument for computer-supported learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 4, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newton, L.R. & Rogers, L. (2001). Teaching Science with ICT. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  43. Nolen, S.B. (2003). Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Reuterberg, S.E. & Gustafsson, J.E. (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rigdon, E.E. (1995). A necessary and sufficient identification rule for structural models estimated in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roth, W.M. (1998). Teacher-as-researcher reform: Student achievement and perceptions of learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schriesheim, C.A., Eisenbach, R.J. & Hill, K.D. (1991). The effect of negation and polar opposite item reversals on questionnaire reliability and validity: An experimental investigation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. She, H.C. (1998). The development and validation of the teacher-student interaction questionnaire (TSIQ) in the secondary science classroom learning environment. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 403–416.Google Scholar
  50. Songer, N.B. (1998). Can technology bring students closer to science? In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobein (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 333–347). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Suárez, M., Pias, R., Membiela, P. & Dapia, D. (1997). Classroom environment in the implementation of an innovative curriculum project in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 655–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscape of classroom learning environments. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Tobin, K. & LaMaster, S.U. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(3), 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walker, S.L. & Fraser, B.J. (2005). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, 8(3), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang, K.H., Tuan, H.L. & Chang, H.P. (1998). Secondary school student perceptions of science teacher’s knowledge. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 363–381.Google Scholar
  57. Woods, J.D. (1995). Teaching effectiveness: Using students’ perceptions of teaching style and preferred learning style to enhance teaching performance. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  58. Wu, H.K., Krajcik, J.S. & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zandvliet, D.B. & Fraser, B.J. (2005). Physical and psychosocial environments associated with networked classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 8, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zandvliet, D.B. & Straker, L.M. (2001). Physical and psychosocial aspects of the learning environment in information technology rich classrooms. Ergonomics, 44(9), 838–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zimmerman, B.J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementDa-Yeh UniversityDa-TsuenTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsNational Changhua University of EducationChang-HuaTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Natural Science EducationNational Taitung UniversityTaitungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations