Learning Environments Research

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 209–227 | Cite as

Changing the Learning Environment to Enhance Explaining and Understanding in a Year 12 Chemistry Classroom

  • Campbell J. McRobbie
  • Gregory P. Thomas

Abstract

Internationally there is concern in relation to the traditional learning environments evident in many science classrooms and the levels of understanding of science developed by students in such environments. Further, students have generally been found to be poor in relation to thinking in terms of models or theories and in terms of evidence to support their theories. The majority of research on classroom environments has focused on characterising the learning environment in classrooms rather than monitoring changes to a class's or an individual's perceptions to their learning environments as a consequence of interventions. This study reports an attempt to change the learning environment in a classroom and documents changes in participants' perceptions of their learning environments and the corresponding changes in a teacher's and her students' perceptions of their reasoning and understanding that such changes facilitated. A community of learners in which students and teachers began to understand the processes and the value of reasoning in terms of theories and evidence was developed as a result of the involvement of the researchers with the teacher and her class of students.

explaining learning environments science laboratories science reasoning teacher change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101-134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (1998). Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: Reflecting on initial difficulties. Research in Science Education, 28, 317-336.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 2(5), 5-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Driver, R., & Newton, P. (1997, September). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Paper presented at the conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Rome.Google Scholar
  8. Duschl, R. (1994). Research on history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 442-465). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, G. (1994). Pupils' understanding of magnetism in a practical context: The relationship between content, process and progression. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. T. White (Eds.), The content of science (pp. 80-97). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ericksen, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1155-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school environment. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. 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 York.Google Scholar
  14. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  15. Gabel, D. (1998). The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 233-248). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. Glaser, R. (1984). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. American Psychologist, 39(2), 93-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Gunstone, R., McKittrick, B., & Mulhall, P. (1999). Structured cognitive discussions in senior high school physics: Student and teacher perceptions. Research in Science Education, 29, 527-546.Google Scholar
  19. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70, 33-40.Google Scholar
  21. Hodson, D. (1992). Assessment of practical work: Some considerations from the philosophy of science. Science and Education, 1, 115-144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.Google Scholar
  23. Lave, J. (1997). The culture of practice and the practice of understanding. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 17-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 94-128). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. McRobbie, C. J. (1998). Coordinating theories and evidence in chemistry classrooms. In D. M. Druskovich & G. T. Klease (Eds.), Bridging the gap: Proceedings of the 1998 Royal Australian Chemical Institute Conference (pp. 135-146). Rockhampton, Australia: Central Queensland University Publishing Unit.Google Scholar
  26. McRobbie, C. J., Roth, W.-M., & Lucas, K. B. (1997). Multiple learning environments in the physics classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 333-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Millar, R. (1987). Towards a role for experimentation in the science teaching laboratory. Studies in Science Education, 14, 109-118.Google Scholar
  28. Raghaven, K., & Glaser, R. (1995). Model based analysis and reasoning in science. The MARS Curriculum. Science Education, 79, 37-61.Google Scholar
  29. Ritchie, S. M. (1994). Metaphor as a tool for constructivist science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 293-303.Google Scholar
  30. Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 388-414). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Roth, W.-M. (1993). Construction sites: Science labs and classrooms. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 145-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, G. M. (2000). Learning difficulties related to graphing: A hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Research in Science Education, 30, 123-139.Google Scholar
  33. Roth, W.-M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonne, S. (1997). The local production of order in traditional science laboratories: A phenomenological analysis. Learning and Instruction, 7, 107-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1991). Extending the conception of problem solving research. Science Education, 12, 105-120.Google Scholar
  35. Thomas, G. P. (1999). Student restraints to reform: Conceptual change issues in enhancing students' learning processes. Research in Science Education, 29, 89-109.Google Scholar
  36. Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 241-254.Google Scholar
  37. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Campbell J. McRobbie
    • 1
  • Gregory P. Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Mathematics and Science EducationQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum StudiesThe University of Hong KongHong Kong, China

Personalised recommendations