Advertisement

A CROSS-NATIONAL STUDY OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT IN CHEMISTRY CLASSES AT ALBANIAN, KOSOVAR, ROMANIAN AND TURKISH SECONDARY SCHOOLS

  • ILIYA EMILOV
  • ADRIANA TAFROVA-GRIGOROVAEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study is part of a cross-national research entitled In the past and now: Constructivist practices in teaching chemistry—Bulgaria, the Balkans and Europe. The purpose of the research is to explore science secondary classroom environments in terms of the constructivist approach. The study has been carried out at international schools and state schools in Albania, Kosovo, Romania and Turkey. The data collection methods were three surveys: the What Is Happening In This Class? (WIHIC), the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) and the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). The questionnaires were given to 747 secondary school students. The results show that in the majority of the surveyed classrooms, a blended traditional-constructivist type of environment is present. The highest scores for all three questionnaires were given by students of the international school in Kosovo. The traditional and test-oriented teaching in the Turkish schools surveyed explains the low degree of satisfaction and enjoyment of science lessons among Turkish students.

Key words

constructivist approach cross-national studies learning environment secondary chemistry education 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Amoush, S., Markic, S., Usak, M., Erdogan, M. & Eilks, I. (2014). Beliefs about chemistry teaching and learning—a comparison of teachers’ and student teachers’ beliefs from Jordan, Turkey and Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 767–792.CrossRefGoogle 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(1), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. & Ntuli, S. (2009). Utilising learning environment assessments to improve teaching practices among in-service teachers undertaking a distance-education programme. South African Journal of Education, 29(2), 147–170.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. O., Lin, H.-S., Treagust, D. F., Ross, S. P. & Yore, L. D. (2007). Using large scale assessment datasets for research in science and mathematics education: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boiadjieva, E., Tafrova-Grigororva, A., Hollenbeck, J. E. & Kirova, M. (2009). An examination of teacher’s pedagogical philosophical beliefs of secondary science teachers in Sofia public schools, Sofia, Bulgaria. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Educational Policy, 3(1), 39–46.Google Scholar
  6. Cakiroglu, E. & Cakiroglu, J. (2003). Reflections on teacher education in Turkey. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(2), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charalampous, K. & Kokkinos, C. M. (2013). The model of interpersonal teacher behaviour: A qualitative cross-cultural validation within the Greek elementary education context. British Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 182–205.Google Scholar
  8. Coll, R. K. & Taylor, T. G. N. (2001). Using constructivism to inform tertiary chemistry pedagogy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 2(3), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. den Brok, P., Telli, S., Cakiroglu, J., Taconis, R. & Tekkaya, C. (2010). Learning environment profiles of Turkish secondary biology classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 13(3), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emilov, I. & Tafrova-Grigorova, A. (2013). Student perceptions of science classroom learning environment in some European countries. In M. Koleva (Ed.), Training issues of chemistry teachers: Proceedings of the international conference on teachers’ training (pp. 124–131). Gabrovo, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  13. Evrekli, E., Şaşmaz Ören, F. & İnel, D. (2010). Pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy toward the constructivist approach and their opinions about their efficacy levels. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Conference on Education, Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  14. Evrekli, E., Şaşmaz Ören, F. & İnel, D. (2011). Examining student teachers’ self-efficacy for implementing the constructivist approach in terms of the variables of gender, department and grade level. International Journal of New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 2(2), 66–77.Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62(4), 509–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences (pp. 3–27). London, England: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environments: An international perspective (pp. 1–25). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 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(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L. & McRobbie, C.J. (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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Fraser, B. J., Aldridge, J. M. & Adolphe, F. S. G. (2009). A cross-national study of secondary science classroom environments in Australia and Indonesia. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 551–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grossman, G. M., Onkol, P. E. & Sands, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkish teacher education: Attitudes of teacher educators towards change in an EU candidate nation. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(2), 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gürbüztürk, O. & Şad, S. N. (2009). Student teachers’ beliefs about teaching and their sense of self-efficacy: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 10(3), 201–226.Google Scholar
  27. Hollenbeck, J. E., Kirova, M., Boiadjieva, E. & Grigorova-Tafrova, A. (2009). A study on students’ and teachers’ perceptions and expectations of their learning in secondary science classrooms. Chemistry, 18, 349–369.Google Scholar
  28. Kahveci, A. & Ay, S. (2008). Different approaches—common implications: Brain-based and constructivist learning from a paradigms and integral model perspective. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3), 108–123.Google Scholar
  29. Khine, M. S. (2001). Using the WIHIC questionnaire to measure the learning environment. Teaching and Learning, 22(2), 54–61.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, H., Fisher, D. L. & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation of science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, M., Lavonen, J., Juuti, K., Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2013). Teacher’s reflection of inquiry teaching in Finland before and during an in-service program: Examination by a progress model of collaborative reflection. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Evaluation of learning in science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings & G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning (pp. 559–642). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Nix, R. K. (2012). Cultivating constructivist classrooms through evaluation of an integrated science learning environment. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1291–1303). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Nix, K. R., Fraser, B. J. & Ledbetter, C. E. (2005). Evaluating an integrated science learning environment using the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey. Learning Environments Research, 8(2), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oh, P. S. & Shin, M.-K. (2005). Students’ reflections on implementation of group investigation in Korean Secondary Science Classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oh, P. S. & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes of student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education International, 15, 105–113.Google Scholar
  37. Taber, K. (2000). Chemistry lessons for universities?: A review of constructivist ideas. University Chemistry Education, 4, 63–72.Google Scholar
  38. Tafrova-Grigorova, A., Boiadjieva, E., Emilov, I. & Kirova, M. (2012a). Science teachers’ attitudes towards constructivist environment: A Bulgarian case. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(2), 184–193.Google Scholar
  39. Tafrova-Grigorova, A., Kirova, M. & Boiadjieva, E. (2012b). Science teachers’ views on the constructivist learning environment in the Bulgarian school. Chemistry, 21, 375–388 [In Bulgarian].Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & White, L.R. (1994, April). The revised CLES: A questionnaire for educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved May 2013 from http://surveylearning.moodle.com/cles/papers/CLES_AERA94_Award.htm
  41. 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, CAGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Telli, S., den Brok, P. & Cakiroglu, J. (2010). The importance of teacher-student interpersonal relationships for Turkish students’ attitudes towards science. Research of Science and Technological Education, 28(3), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tobin, K. G. (1993). Constructivist perspectives on teacher learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (Vol. 13, pp. 213–226). Washington, DC: AAAS Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tobin, K. G. & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Toshev, B. V. (2007). Ранното обучение по природни науки – интегрален или модулен позход (The early science teaching and learning: Integral vs. module approach). Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 1, 51–56.Google Scholar
  47. Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.Google Scholar
  48. Yager, R. E. (2000). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 67(1), 44–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Laboratory on Chemistry Education and History and Philosophy of Chemistry, Department of Physical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry and PharmacyUniversity of Sofia “St. Kliment Ohridski”SofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations