Learning Environments Research

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 409–426 | Cite as

Students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning environments: measurement and associations with achievement

  • Venkata L. N. Aluri
  • Barry J. FraserEmail author
Original Paper


In this study, we measured students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom learning environment and investigated their associations with students’ achievement. The Mathematics-Related Constructivist-Oriented Classroom Learning Environment Survey (MCOLES) was developed with seven dimensions and 56 items, using theories surrounding classroom learning environment. For a sample of 423 grade 10 students from five schools in India, we validated the MCOLES by exploratory factor analysis and then by confirmatory factor analysis, which suggested the exclusion of 11 items and yielded an 11-factor solution. For achievement on a topic taught, mainly medium correlations emerged with the learning environment factors, suggesting practical implications for classroom teaching. This study is methodologically significant in proposing and validating the new MCOLES for measuring classroom learning environments in secondary-school mathematics.


Achievement Learning environment Mathematics education Mathematics-Related Constructivist-Oriented Learning Environment Survey (MCOLES) Validity 



  1. Afari, E., Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Khine, M. S. (2013). Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and attitudes in game-based mathematics classrooms. Learning Environments Research, 16, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J., Fraser, B., Bell, L., & Dorman, J. (2012). Using a new learning environment questionnaire for reflection in teacher action research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 259–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Outcomes-focused learning environments: Determinants and effects. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T.-C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Sebela, M. P. (2004). Using teacher action research to promote constructivist learning environments in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 24, 245–253.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various Chi square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296–298.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, L. M., & Aldridge, J. M. (2014). Student voice, teacher action research and classroom improvement (Advances in learning environments research series). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. M. (2002). Structural equation modeling with EQS. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (2009). Classroom environment, achievement, attitudes and self-esteem in geography and mathematics in Singapore. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chipangura, A. T. (2014). Multimedia in high school mathematics classes: Students’ perceptions of the learning environment and engagement. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Cohn, S. T., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Effectiveness of student response systems in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement. Learning Environments Research, 19, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1996). Assessment of domain-specific and domain-transcending prior knowledge: Entry assessment and the use of profile analysis. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 227–264). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dochy, F. J. R. C., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dorman, J. P. (2008). Use of multitrait-multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the What Is Happening In this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire. Learning Environments Research, 11, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Earle, J. E., & Fraser, B. J. (2017). Evaluating online resources in terms of learning environment and student attitudes in middle-grade mathematics classes. Learning Environments Research, 20, 339–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernest, P. (1991). The philosophy of mathematics education. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Learning Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  23. Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational environments: An international perspective (pp. 1–25). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  24. 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: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fraser, B. J. (2014). Classroom learning environments: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, B. J. (2018). Milestones in the evolution of the learning environments field over the past three decades. In D. B. Zandvliet & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Thirty years of learning environments research: Looking back and looking forward (pp. 1–19). Rotterdam: Brill ׀ Sense.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2017). Improving classrooms through assessment of learning environments. In J. P. Bakken (Ed.), classrooms (Vol. 1, pp. 91–107)., Assessment practices for teachers and student improvement strategies New York: Nova.Google Scholar
  28. Fraser, B. J., & Butts, W. L. (1982). Relationship between perceived levels of classroom individualization and science-related attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 498–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hailikari, T., Nevgi, A., & Komulainen, E. (2008). Academic self-beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in mathematics: A structural model. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Hanke, C. Y. C., & Fraser, B. J. (2013, April). Cross-national study of classroom environments, attitudes and academic self-efficacy in middle school mathematics. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hubbard, R., & Allen, S. J. (1987). An empirical comparison of alternative methods for principal component extraction. Journal of Business Research, 15, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koh, N. K., & Fraser, B. J. (2014). Learning environment associated with use of mixed mode delivery model among secondary business studies students in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 17(2), 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moos, R. H. (1974). The social climate scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  40. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Munby, H. (1997). Issues of validity in science attitude measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2008). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Author.Google Scholar
  43. NCERT. (2015). Class X mathematics. New Delhi: National Council of Education Research and Training. Retrieved from Accessed 10 April 2018.
  44. Ogbuehi, P. I., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  46. Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. State Government of Victoria. (2012). Principles of teaching and learning. Melbourne: Author.Google Scholar
  48. Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor, B. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2013). Relationships between learning environment and mathematics anxiety. Learning Environments Research, 16, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.Google Scholar
  54. Velayutham, S., & Aldridge, J. M. (2013). Influence of psychosocial classroom environment on students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Research in Science Education, 43, 507–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 2159–2179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. von Glasersfeld, E. (2000). Problems of constructivism. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action: Building on the pioneering work of Ernst Glasersfeld (pp. 3–9). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis. State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, T., & Turner-Vorbeck, T. (2001). Extending the conception of the mathematics teaching. In T. Wood, B. S. Nelson, & J. Warfield (Eds.), Beyond classical pedagogy (pp. 185–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha: A reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zaragoza, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2017). Field-study classrooms as positive and enjoyable learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 20(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations