15
Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2003). Investigating student outcomes in an outcomes-based, technology-rich leaing environment. D. Fisher & T. Marsh (Eds.), Science, mathematics and technolo education for all: Proceedings of the Third Inteational Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technolo Education (pp. 167-178). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Classroom Climate

Citation preview

Page 1: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2003).

Investigating student outcomes in an outcomes-based, technology-rich learning environment. In D. Fisher & T. Marsh (Eds.), Science, mathematics and technology education for all: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education (pp. 167-178). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Page 2: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Investigating Student Outcomes in an Outcomes-Based, Technology-Rich Learning Environment

Jill M. Aldridge, Barry J. Fraser and Darrell L. Fisher Curtin University of Technology, Australia

INTRODUCTION

In numerous countries around the world, there curr ently is a major shift in school education from what teachers do to an 'outcomes-focus' on what students achieve and an emphasis on catering for student individual differences in backgrounds, interests and learning styles. Although an effective outcomes-focused system can be extremely difficult to achieve for practical reasons, integration of information communications technology (lCT) into the learning environment has considerable potential for providing teachers with the means to manage efficiently the diverse educational provisions needed to optimise each individual student's outcomes. In many schools, ICT is becoming more commonplace and, in some cases, the integration of ICT into the learning environment is becoming a major thrust. In the field of learning enviroJ,lIllents, therefore, there is a need for an instrument that can be used to monitor the development and effectiveness of the learning environments that teachers create which provide an outcomes-focus and which integrate the use of ICT into their teaching and learning.

This paper reports the reliability and validity of a generally applicable instrument, designed to monitor the evolution of technology-rich, outcomes-focused learning environments, as well as its use in exploring how the learning environment created by teachers influences students' achievement, attitudes and self -efficacy.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

1. To validate widely applicable questionnaires for monitoring outcomes-focused and ICT-rich classroom learning environments and student attitudes.

2. To investigate whether outcomes-focused and I CT -rich learning environments promote student achievement, attitudes towards the subject, attitudes to use of ICT and academic efficacy.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

The study draws on and contributes to the field cf learning environments (Fraser, 1994, 1998a). Contemporary research on school environments partly owes inspiration to Lewin's (1936) seminal work in non-educational settings, which recognised that both the environment and its interaction with characteristics of the individual are potent detenninants of human behaviour. Since then., the notion of person -environment fit has been elucidated in education by Stern (1970), whereas Walberg (1981) has proposed a model of educational productivity in which the educational environment is one of nine detenninants of student outcomes. Research specifically on classroom learning environments took off about 30 years ago with the work of Walberg (1979) and Moos (1974) which spawned many, diverse research programs around the world (Fraser, 1994, 1998a) and the creation of Learning Environments Research: An International Journal (Fraser, 1998c). Although earlier work

167

Page 3: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

often used questionnaires to assess learning environments, the productive combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is a halhnark of the field today (Tobin & Fraser, 1998).

The dimension s measured by individual classroom environment instruments can be classified according to Moos' (1974) scheme for classifYing human environments. Moos identifled three msic dimensions including: the Relationship Dimension, which measures the nature and intensity of personal relationships; the Personal Development Dimension, which measures the directions in which personal growth and self-enhancement occur; and the System Maintenance and System Change Dimension, which measures the extent to which the environment maintains clear objectives and control and responds to change.

Past research on learning environments provides numerous research traditions, conceptual models and research methods that are relevant to the study presented in this paper. This study draws on the rich resource of diverse, valid, economical and widely-applicable assessment instruments that are available in the field of learning environments (Fraser, 1998b) as a starting point for developing a new questionnaire ideally suited to outcomes-focused, technology-rich learning environments.

RESEARCH METHODS

Sample

The sample for the quantitative data collection (learning environment and student attitudes, including academic efficacy) included Grade II and 12 students from across all learning areas at an innovative new school. The total sample available for the analyses reported in this paper consisted of 1035 student responses from 80 classes.

Sevenoaks Senior College, the school in which our study was undertaken, is located in a lower socioeconomic suburb of Perth, Western Australia. The unique ICT infrastructure built into Sevenoaks is aimed at facilitating a truly outcomes-focused curriculum that allows the integration of ICT into the delivery of programs, and it provides online curriculum and electronic infortnation management systems to teachers and students. Therefore, Sevenoaks is an ideal setting for this study of the educational benefits of outcomes-focused, teChnology-rich learning environments.

Instrument Development and Validation

This paper reports the reliability and validity of a widely-applicable questionnaire for assessing students' perceptions of their actual and preferred classroom learning environments in technology­rich outcomes-focused learning settings (known as the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory, TROF1.EI). The validation of the questionnaire involved conducting various statistical analyses with data from a sample of 1035 student responses (e.g., factor analysis and item analysis) to refme the scales and fumish validity and reliability information (see Fraser, 1998a).

The What is Happening in this Class? (wnnC) questionnaire was drawn on especially during the development of the Technology-Rich Outcomes- Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI). The WIBlC was originally developed by Fraser, McRobbie and Fisher (1996) and

168

Page 4: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

attempted to incorporate those scales that previous studies had shown to be p-edictors of student outcomes. A personal form was developed in conjunction with the class form. The personal form uses the same scales and comparable items as the class fonn, but is worded to elicit the student's perceptions of hislher individual role within the classroom, as opposed to the student's perceptions of the class as a whole (Fraser, 1998a, 1998b; Fraser, McRobbie & Fisher, 1996).

The robust nature of the What is Happening in this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire, in terms of reliability and valid ity, has been widely reported in. studies that have used the instrument in different subject areas, at different age levels and in eight different countries (Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Dorman, 2002; Fraser & Chionh, 2000; Khlne & Fisher, 2001; Margianti, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2001; Moss & Fraser, 2001; Raaflaub & Fraser, 2002; Riah & Fraser, 1998; Zandvliet & Fraser, 1998). All seven of the original WlHIC scales were included in the new instrument, namely, Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity. Three new scales were also developed for the purpose of this study, namely, Differentiation, Computer Usage and Young Adult Ethos scales.

To investigate students' attitudes, a second instrument was deve loped. The instrument consists of 18 items in three scales, namely, Attitude to Subject, Attitude to Computer Usage and Student Academic Efficacy. The first scale, Attitude to Subject, is based on a scale from the Test of Science­Related Attitudes (TOSRA; Fraser, 198 I). The second scale is adapted from the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) developed by Newhouse (2001). The third scale, Academic Efficacy, is based on a scale developed by Jinks and Morgan (1999).

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

Reliability and Validity of the Technolo�Rkh Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (l'ROFLEl)

The initial version of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI) contained 80 items altogether with 8 items belonging to each of 10 scales. Extensive field-testing and instrument validation procedures led to a refmed version of the TROFLEI with 76 items in 10 scales.

Data collected from the 1035 students in 80 classes were analysed in various ways to investigate the reliability and validity of both the actual and preferred versions of the TROFLEI. Principal components factor analysis followed by varimax rotation confmned a refmed structure of the actual and preferred forms of the instrument comprising 76 items in 10 scales. Nearly all items have a loading of at least 0.40 on their a priori scale and no other scale (see Table 1), with the exceptions being Item 6 from the Student Cohesiveness scale and Item 61 from the Differentiation scale that did not load 0.40 or above on their own or any other scale. Item 43 of the preferred version of the Cooperation scale loaded at least 0.40 in its own scale as well as the Task Orientation scale. The percentage of the total variance extracted with each factor is also recorded at the bottom of Table 1. For the actual version, the percentage of variance varies from 4.17% to 7.32% for different scales, with the total variance accounted for being 55.60%. For the preferred version, the percentage of variance ranges from 4.21% to 7.93% for different scales, with a total variance accounted for being 61.WIo.

169

Page 5: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

For the revised 76-item version of the TROFLEI, three further indices of scale reliability and validity were generated separately for the actual and preferred versions: the Cronbach alpha reliability coeffdent (used as an index of scale internal consistency); analysis of variance results (used as evidence of the ability of each scale in the actual fonn to differentiate between the perceptions of students in different classrooms); and the mean correlation If a scale with other scales (used as a convenient discriminant validity index).

Table 2 reports the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the actual and preferred versions for each of the 10 TROFLEI scales for two units of analysis (individual and class mean). Using the individual as the

.unit of analysis, scale reliability estimates range from 0.81 to 0.94 for the actual form and from 0.85 to 0.95 for the preferred form. Generally reliability figures are even higher with the class mean as the unit of analysis (from 0.87 to 0.97 for the actual form and from 0.89 to 0.97 for the preferred form). These internal consistency indices are comparable to those in past studies that have used the wnnc (Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Fraser & Chionh, 2000).

Using the individual a; the unit of analysis, the discriminant validity results (mean correlation of a scale with other scales) for the 10 scales of the TROFLEI range from 0.18 to 0.40 for the actual form and between 0.21 and 0.49 for the preferred form. With the class mean as the unit of analysis, discriminant validity ranges from 0.37 to 0.45 for the actual form and from 0.21 to 0.49 for the preferred form. The data suggest that raw scores on the TROFLEI assess distinct but somewhat overlapping aspects of learning environment. However, the factor analysis supports the independence of factor scores on the 10 scales.

An analysis of variance (ANOV A) was used to detennine the ability of the actual version of each TROFLEI scale to differentiate between the perceptions of students in different classes. The one-way ANOV A for each scale involved class membership as the independent variable and the individual student as the unit of analysis. Table 2 reports theANOV A results showing all 10 of the TROFLEI scales differentiate significantly between classes P<O.O I}. Thus, students within the same class perceive the environment in a relatively similar manner, while the within-class mean perceptions of the students vary between classes. The eta2 statistic (an estimate of the strength of asso:iation between class memhership and the dependent variable) ranges from 0.07 to 0.18 for different TROFLEI scales.

The statistics obtained for the internal consistency (alpha reliability) and the ability of each scale to differentiate between the perceptions of the students in different classrooms �ta2 statistic from ANOV A} can be considered acceptable. The data presented in Table 2, in conjunction with the factor analysis results in Table I, support the contention that the TROFLEI is a valid and reliable classroom environment instrument for the assessment of students' perceptions of their psychosocial environments at the high school level.

170

Page 6: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Tabl. 1: Factor Loadings for the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (TROFLEI)

FactorLoading ... Stude'lll Te.cbor lIIvolwmcat Tuk Invcmp. COOpel:l.- Equity piffercnti.rion Compuur Young

No CobCliivc:nc=;: Support Orimta� lion don Us.,e Aduh

lion ..,,, ." Prcf A" p,.f Ao< Pref A. ""f '0 P�f ." pm A� 'ot Prcf Aot Pref ." p<or

I • 64 ... 2 . 6l ... ) • 62 ... • ... .72 S .57 " , 7 ... .6l • • 71 ...

10 1I .7S \I .. .70 Jl 51 .62 " ,. .13

14 ... .11> IS .Q ... J6 " .6l 17 .72 .67 " .65 .70 J9 ... ... 20 ... JO

II .62 JI " • 47 ... 14 ... JO

lS JS ... 16 '" .... 21 .M • 71

" . 56 ... 19 .71 .77 ,. J7 ." n J' .67

" Jl ... " ... .7S ,. ... . .. " .n .n 16 .., .76 " .79 ... " .78 . ., " .79 .W '" " .76

41 " .SO " '" J' 43 ... .Q . ., .. ,. .71

" If> .OJ .. " .76 47 '" . .. .. IJJ .62 .. . .. .55

SO .11> .6l 51 ... .M " .17 ... " .79 ." " .72 ... " ... J'

" .76 .65

" J) .4S .. .OJ .71

" " .7S ... " .7S .79 .. .70 .79

65 . .. .71 .. ... .6l " ... . .. " .6l .71

II> ... . .. 70 .64 .71 71 ... JO

" J7 Jl 13 . 74 J • 74 .n .67 7S ... .7S 76 ... .76

17 J' ." " ... .71

79 .65 .6l

SO ... ." % <X. '.JJ9 620 7'" 'J' '.J< S.1l 7.93 S.1l ,., '.92 U. 7J2 ,.os 4.17 'JI .... 'JO , ... 7J7

v!!i!m Factor loadings smaller than 0.40 have been omitted. The sample consisted of 1035 student responses in 80 classes.

171

Page 7: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Reliability and Validity of the Student Attitude and Efficacy Scares

To measure students' attitudes, the present study adapted selected scales from three instruments. The three scales are Attitude to Subject, Attitudes to Computer Use and Academic Efficacy. The original instrument consisted of 24 items, with 8 eight items in each of three scales.

The data collected from 1035 student responses in 80 classes were used to perform a principal components factor analysis followed by varimax rotation. This resulted in the acce ptance of a revised version of the instrument with the same three a priori factors, but with three items omitted, namely, Items 14 and 15 from the Computer Attitude scale and Item 22 from the Academic Efficacy scale. For the final version, all items loaded more than 0.40 on their own scale and less than 0.40 on the other two scales.

The scale reliability estimates range from 0.81 to 0.87 using the individual as the unit of analysis and

from 0.83 to 0.92 using the class mean as the unit of analysis. The mean correlation of a scale with other scales ranged from 0.14 to 0.26 using the individual as the unit of analysis and from 0.15 to' 0.23 using the class mean. as the unit of analysis. The results suggest strong factorial validity, internal consistency relialility and discriminant Validity for the three attitude and efficacy scales.

Table 2: Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient). Discriminant Validity (Mean Corre/arion With Olher Scales) and Ability to Differentiate Between Classrooms (ANOVA. Results) for Two Units of A.nalysis for the Modified TROFLEI

Sal, Unito! Noor Alpha Reliability MIIUI COITc\a1ion with ottlcr ANOVA Analysis ,- Scales Elf;l

A"",,' ""'''''''' Actual p",femd Actual

Sluclcnl Cohe.ivcncas Individual 0,86 0.91 O,3S O.4S D.O!)" CIU5Mean 0.91 0.94 0.42 0.49

Teac::be:t" Support Individual 0.91 0.91 0.36 0.46 0.18'" ClusMcan 0.96 0.94 0.40 0.42

Involvemenl Individual 7 0.16 0.89 0.38 0.44 0.10'" Class Mean 0.S7 0.S9 0.45 0041

Tuk Orimtalion Individual 0.87 0.94 0.36 0.46 0.09--ClusMcan 0.92 0.95 0.45 0.47

lnveJtiption Individual 0.92 0.9S 0.34 0.43 0.01'" ClusMcan 0.94 0.96 0.37 0.37

Cooperation Illdiyjdual 0.90 0.92 0.40 0.49 O.OS'" Clau Mean 0.90 0.93 0.42 0.48

Equity Individual 8 0.94 0.95 0.35 0 .... 0.13" ClusMun 0.97 0.97 0.45 0.48

Differentiotion Indhic!ual 6 0.&1 0.85 0.18 0.21 0.10" Clan Mean 0.89 0.91 0.21 0.24

Computer Usaa:e Individual 8 0.86 0.88 0.20 0.30 0.17'" ClusMcan 0.92 0.9\ 0.20 0.21

Young Adull Elho. Indiyidual 8 0.92 0.91 0.37 0.41 0.13"· CIauMean 0.9S 0.92 0.39 0.39

.. p-4l.05 .. p<O.Ol The sample consisted of 1035 students in 80 classes.. The ela1 statistic (which is the ratio of 'between' to 'total' sums of squares) represents the proportion ofVllriance explained by class membenhip.

172

Page 8: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Investigating Whether Outcomes-Focused and ICT-Rich Learning Environments are Associated with Student Outcomes

To investigate associations between four student outcomes (student attitudes towards their subject, student attitudes towards using the computer, student self-efficacy and student achievement) ang the 10 classroom environment scales, simple correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted. A simple correlation analysis of relationships between each attitude scale and each of 10 learning environment scales was perfonned to provide information about the bivariate association between each learning environment scale and each student outcome. A multiple correlation analysis of relationships between each attitude scale and the set of 10 learning environment scales was conducted to provide a more complete picture of the joint influence of correlated environment dimensions on outcomes and to reduce the Type I error rate associated with the simple correlation analysis. Table 3 shows the association between each of the student outcome and each TROFLEI scale using both the individual and the class mean as the units of analysis for all analyses except for the achievement outcome (for which the sample size was not large enough to pennit analyses at the class level).

Student Attitudes Towards their Subject

The results of simple correlation analysis (Table 3) indicate that all but two of the 10 TROFLEI scales, namely, Differentiation and Computer Usage, are statistically significantly and positively associated with student attitudes towards their class p<O.Ol) at the individual level of analysis. Seven of the 10 scales are statistically significantly (p<0.05) related to the Attitude to Subject scale at the class mean level of analysis. namely. Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Task Orientation, Cooperation, Equity and Young Adult Ethos. The results of the simple correlation analysis suggest that improved student attitudes towards a subject are associated with more emphasis on these scales.

The multiple correlation (R) between students' perceptions of the set of 10 TROFLEI scales and the Attitude Toward Subject scale (reported it Table 3) is 0.52 at the student level of analysis and 0.76 at the class mean level of analysis, and is statistically significant (p<O.OI) for both levels. Table 3 indicates that three of the 10 TROFLEI scales uniquely account for a significant (p<0.01) amount of variance in student attitudes towards their subject (Teacher Support, Equity and Young Adult Ethos) at the student level of analysis. Teacher support is the ouly TROFLEI scale that is a significant independent predictor (p<O.OI) of Attitude to Subject at the class level of analysis. All significant associations are positive for Attitude to Subject.

Student Attitudes to Computer Use

With the individual as unit of analysis, the results of the simple correlation analysis (reported in Table 3) indicate that nine of the 10 TROFLEI scales (with the exception being Differentiation for which the relationship is nonsignificant) are positively and statistically significantly (p<0.05) related to the Attitude to Computer Use scale. At the class mean level of analysis, seven of the 10 TROFLEI scales (namely, Involvement, Task Orientation, Investigation, Cooperation, Equity, Computer Usage and Young Adult Ethos) are positively and statistically significantly (p<0.01) to Attitudes to Computer Use. The multiple correlation is 0.40 and 0.62, respectively, for the individual and class

173

Page 9: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

mean levels of analysis and is statistically significant �<O.O I) for both levels. The standardised regression weights reported in Table 3 indicate that two of the 10 TROFLEI scales (Differentiation and Computer Usage) are statistically significantly (p<0.01) and independently related to the Attitudes to Computer Use at both the student and class mean levels of analysis. Also Involvement is a significant (p<O.OI) independent predictor a Attitudes to Computer Use at the class mean level. All relationships are positive except those for Differentiation, and this suggests the need for further research aimed at replicating and explaining this relationship.

Table 3: Simple Correlalion and Multiple Regression Analyses for Associations Between Four ShuJenJ Oulcornes (Attitude 10 Subject. Altitude

to Computer Use, Academic Efficacy and Achievement) and Dimensions of the TROFLEI for Two Units of Analysis

...... lIM of AIIIlysiI A&tilIIdetoSlbjoDct ..... . AcIdcmic EffiAq' ."'''"'-Compna-U.,

, ,

StuoilolCobcll_ ... ,- 0.1'" .... 0.1"" 0.02 .".. 0.05 D.D< .0.11 "'" 02)' .0.1'7 0,17 .0.22 .

,. .. 0.09

T culler S.pport lI1dividuti 0.46-- 0.2 .... om" DOS D.21� 0.01 0.15" .0.0< Cw. 0.71" o ... �· 0.21 .0.12 W·· 0",

lDvolveawar lDdivicl\u.1 0.27" DOS Doll'" 0.04 OJI" 0.26" 0.17" 0.13 C .... 0.34" .0.04 039" 0.3S· 0.41" 0.10

TaJkOrieaIalloB lIldivkhlll 0.42n . 0.18" 0.1'" O.OS OJ3" O.19u 0.19'" 0.13 ow. 034" 0.22 "". D." 0>9"' D.2l

InvatttIltioa IDdivkhai 0.20" 0" 0.19" D." OJS" 0.14" 0.19 -0.03 Clw D.1l -0.14 OJ1" 0.26 O.ISS·· 0.43"

"-"'= lzldjvi4u.&l 0.22"· ·D.D9 0.1!''' -O.oJ 021" -0.05 0.13' 0.01 ow. OJ2·· 0.11 027' '"' 0.27" -O.OS

.. "" Individual 0.042" D.D7 0.14" 0.07 02:2'· 0.05 D23M 0.11' 0... 0.62" 0.06 0.30" 0:27 0.12 0.07

Di� ladivictu.al 0.02 -0.01 '"I .O.IS·· OZ,· 0.09' 0., OM C .... 0.17 .023 ·0.11 _0.52" 0.66·' 0.46·'

CODlINiI:r UJllr ..., ..... O.OS -0.01 OJ3'· 0.31" 0.17" 0.00 .0.07 -0.11 ow. 0.09 -0.04 D.2J· 0.44·· 0.41" D.D9

YO\IIII AdultElbot lDdividv..al 039"" o.n·· 0.14" 0.07 .,. .. 0.10 0.11" -0.03 ow. O.SS" 0.14 0,., 0.00 0.10 0.18

Mvltiple CoCIII\a1iOD (K) IDdividual o.n·· 0.40" 0.4S·· 0.29··

0.. 0.76" 0.62" 0.11·'

·p<O.OS "p<O.OI N- 1035 students for attitude scales and 356 students for achievement

Academic Efficacy

With the individual student as unit of analysis, the results of the simple correlation analysis reported in Table 3 indicate that all 10 scales of the TROFLEI are positively and significantly (p<0.01) related to the Academic Efficacy scale. At the class mean level of analysis, eight of the 10 TROFLEI scales are positively and statistically significantly (p<O.05) related to the Academic Efficacy scale (namely, Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Task Orientation, Investigation, Cooperation, Differentiation and Computer Usage). The multiple correlation (fl.) between students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic efficacy is statistically significant (p<0.01) with both the individual (0.45) and class mean (0.81) as the unit of analysis. For the Academic Efficacy scale, scales that uniquely account for a significant proportion of variance are Involvement, Task Orientation, Investigation and Differentiation at the student level and Investigation and Differentiation at both the student and class levels. All relationships are positive for both the simple correlation and multiple regression analyses, thus suggesting a link between higher student

174

Page 10: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Academic Efficacy and emphasis on the dimensions of the classroom environment that are assessed by the TROFLEI.

Student Achievement

The study also examined whether associations exist between student achievement and dimensions of the learning environment.lhe student's score, designated at the end of the academic year, was used as a measure of achievement. Given the limited sample sizes, analyses were conducted only at the student level. The results of the simple correlation analysis reported in Table 3 indicate that six of the 10 scales of the TROFLEI are positively and significantly (p<0.05) related to the student achievement score, namely, Teacher Support, Involvement, Task Orientation, Cooperation, Equity and Young Adult Ethos. The multiple correlation (R) between students' perceptions of the learning environment and achievement is statistically significant (p<0.01) at the individual level of analysis. According Table 3, only the Equity scale uuiquely accounts for a significant proportion of variance in student achievement. All significant relationships between student achievement and learning environment scales are positive.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A major contribution of the present study is the development and validation of a widely-applicable and distinctive questionnaire for assessing students' perceptions of their actual and preferred classroom learning environments in outcomes-focused, technology-rich classroom learning settings. This research, by exaruitting the learuing environment in an innovative new school and its impact on student attitudes towards learning and computer use, academic efficacy and student achievement, has the potential to provide information to teachers on how ICT can be used in creating outcomes­focused education and promoting improved outcomes for all students.

A new questionnaire (Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory, TROFLEI) measures 10 dimensions of the actual and preferred classroom environments at the high school level, namely, Student Cohesiveness, Teacher Support, Involvement, Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation, Equity, Differentiation, Computer Usage and Young Adult Ethos. The questionnaire includes a novel structure that incorporates the actual and preferred responses on the same form, providing an economical format that reduces the amount of administration time. The questionnaire has 76 items in 10 scales and takes around 30 minutes to administer.

The total sample available for the analyses reported in this paper consisted of 1035 student responses from 80 classes. The sample included Grade II and 12 students from across aU learning areas at Sevenoaks Seuior College.

The TROFLEI has been found to be valid and reliable at the high school level across a number of different subjects and learning areas. A series of item and factor analyses led to a refined version of the TROFLEI that displays satisfactory factorial validity for both the actual and preferred versions of the questionnaire. At both the individual and class mean levels of analysis, the internal consistency reliability and discriminant validity are satisfactory for both the actual and preferred form to the TROFLEI. Further analyses support the ability of the actual responses to differentiate between classrooms on most scales. These results support the reliability and validity of the TROFLEI and,

175

Page 11: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

therefore, teachers and researchers can use it with confidence in the future.

An attitude instrument was also developed for the present study. The three scales examine important affective outcomes of technology-rich, outcomes-focused learning environments, namely, Attitude to Subject, Attitude to Computer Use and Academic Efficacy. Satisfactory factorial validity. interml consistency reliability and discriminant validity were found for the new attitude instrument for both the individual and class mean as the units of analysis.

Data collected using the TROFLEI and attitude scales were analysed to investigate whether associations exist between the classroom leartting environment and achievement and three affective outcomes (student attitude towards their subject, student attitude towards computer use and student academic efficacy). The results suggest that Teacher Support, Equity and YOWlg Adult Ethos uniquely accoWlt for a significant amount of variance in students' attitudes towards their subject. For associations between student attitudes to computer use, the results indicate that Differentiation and Computer Usage are statistically significantly and independently related to the students' attitudes to computer use at the individual level of analysis. An examination of associations between academic efficacy and the leartting environment suggest that, with the individual as he unit of analysis, Involvement, Task Orientation, Investigation and Differentiation independently account for a significant proportion of variance in Academic Efficacy. Finally, the study examined whether associations exist between students' achievement and dimensions of the learning environment. The results indicate that only the Equity scale uniquely accounts for a significant proportion of variance in student achievement.

1bis paper is significant because the study could have important implications for educational systems concerning how ICT can be used effectively to maximise educational outcomes for individual students. The study is innovative within the field of learning environments because of its focus on outcomes-based and technology-rich settings at an innovative new school.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The present study is funded by the Australian Research Council under its Strategic Partuerships with Industry: Research and Training Scheme (SPIRT). The contributions of a nmnber of organisations have contributed to the study and we would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Australian Research Council, Education Department of Western Australia, Alpha West6, CISCO Systems, ACER Computers and RM Australasia.

176

Page 12: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

REFERENCES

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, 3, 101-134.

Dorman, J. P. (2002). Associations between classroom environment and acadentic efficacy. Learning Environment Research: An International Journal, 4, 243-257.

Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes handbook (TOSRA). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

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.

Fraser, B. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and deterntinants. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environment Research: An International Journal, J, 7-33.

Fraser, B. J. (1998c). The birth of a new journal: Editor's introduction. Learning Environments Research, J, 1-5.

Fraser, B. J., & Chionh, Y. H. (2000, April). Classroom environment, self-esteem, achievement and attitudes in geography and mathematics in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Fisher, D. L. (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.

Jinks, J. L., & Morgan, V. (1999). Children's perceived academic self-efficacy: An inventory scale. Clearing House, 72, 224-230.

Khine, M. S., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). Classroom environment and teachers' cultural background in secondary science classes in an Asian context. Paper presented at the annnal conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw.

Margianti, E. S., Fraser, B. J., & Aldridge, J. M. (2001, April). Classroom environment and students' outcomes among university computing students in Indonesia. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, W A.

Moos, R. H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: An overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Moss, C. R., & Fraser, B. J. (2001, April). Using environment assessments in improving teaching and learning in high school biology classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, W A.

Newhouse, C. P. (2001). Development and use of an instrument for ccmputer-supported learning environments. Learning Environment Research: An International Journal, 4, 115-138.

177

Page 13: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Raaflaub, C. A., & Fraser, B. J. (2002, April). Investigating the learning environment in Canadian mathematics and science classes in which computers are used. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Riah, H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). The learning environment of high school chemistry classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence in education and industry. New York: Wiley.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 623-640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Farley & N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 81- 108). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Zandvliet, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1999, Marcil). A model of educational productivity for high school Internet classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

178

Page 14: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

EReserve

From: Jill Aldridge Sent: To:

Tuesday, 24 January 2012 12:06 PM James Robinson

Subject: RE: Copyright Permission Request

Categories: James

Dear James,

I would be happy for the article to be made available.

Best wishes

Jill

Dr Jill Aldridge Associate Professor I Science and Mathematics Education Centre Science and Engineering

Curtin University Tel I +61 892663592 Fax I +61 8 9266 2503

Email I [email protected] Web I http://curtin.edu.au

Curtin University

Curlin UnivtUSlly IS a lrtldemork of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS PrOVider Code 00301J (WA), 026378 (NSW)

From: James Robinson Sent: Tuesday, 24 January 2012 11 :38 AM To: Jill Aldridge Subject: Copyright Permission Request

Hi Jill

We've had a request to place an article that you wrote in the University Library's Reserve collection.

The article in question is "Investigating Student Outcomes in an Outcomes-Based, Technology-Rich Learning

Environment" .

With your permission we'd like to download the document and make it accessible via our catalogue. Access would be

restricted to staff and students of Curtin University and the article will be made available for a limited time.

We would appreciate your permission to make this article available in the way described.

Kind Regards

James Robinson Library Technician I Reserve Supervisor Flexible Delivery & Lending Services Robertson Library

1

Page 15: Aldridge, Fraser, & Fisher

Curtin University Tel I +61 8 9266 7572

[email protected] Web I http://curtin.edu.au

Curtin University

Curlin UniverSIty is a trademark of Curlin University of Technology. CRtCaS Provider COde 0030lJ (WA), 02637B (NSW)

2