student perceptions of a culturally diverse classroom environment

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 10 November 2014, At: 15:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Student perceptions of a culturallydiverse classroom environmentSadaquat Ali a , David Rohindra a & Richard K. Coll ba Division of Chemistry , University of the South Pacific , NewZealandb Centre for Science & Technology Education Research, School ofScience & Engineering , University of Waikato , New ZealandPublished online: 28 May 2008.

To cite this article: Sadaquat Ali , David Rohindra & Richard K. Coll (2008) Student perceptions ofa culturally diverse classroom environment, Research in Science & Technological Education, 26:2,149-164, DOI: 10.1080/02635140802037310

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140802037310

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02635140802037310

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140802037310

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 26, No. 2, July 2008, 149–164

ISSN 0263-5143 print/ISSN 1470-1138 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02635140802037310http://www.informaworld.com

Student perceptions of a culturally diverse classroom environment

Sadaquat Alia, David Rohindraa and Richard K. Collb*

aDivision of Chemistry, University of the South Pacific, New Zealand; bCentre for Science & Technology Education Research, School of Science & Engineering, University of Waikato, New ZealandTaylor and Francis LtdCRST_A_303899.sgm10.1080/02635140802037310Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 print/1470-1138 onlineOriginal Article2008Taylor & Francis262000000July [email protected]

The research in the paper involves an application of the actual and preferred versions of apreviously-validated learning environment instrument: the What is Happening in ThisClassroom (WIHIC) instrument in a complex multi-cultural university-level environment.Statistical analyses suggest the instrument is valid in this setting (with Cronbach alpha above0.80 for all scales), and data analyses using ANOVA point to relatively few differencesbetween preferred and actual environments. The research findings suggest all students wouldprefer a more interactive and equitable classroom, the latter issue of particular importance forone cohort, namely Indo-Fijians (descendents of ethnic Indian indentured labourers). With theexception of this, there are few differences based on ethnicity and further analysis alsosuggests no differences in perceptions vis-à-vis collaborative versus competitive learningenvironments, excepting that analysis based on gender shows females have a slight preferencefor a more cooperative learning environment.

Keywords: university; multicultural; WIHIC instrument; higher education; diversity

Introduction

There is now an extensive literature on the teaching and learning of science in schools andpost-compulsory schooling environments. This literature suggests that science is a subject thatmany students find problematic (see, for example, Pfundt and Duit, 1994, 1997, 2000; Duit,2004, 2006). A variety of reasons have been posited in the literature. Some researchers believescience learning difficulties may be due to the many theories and abstract nature in sciencecontent (for example, Gabel, 1998; Taber and Coll, 2002). Other suggestions are that thescience education community as a whole fail to consider the importance of content (for exam-ple, Fensham, 2001), and that teachers may lack understanding of how students learn (Chinnand Brewer, 1998; Duit and Treagust, 1995; Matthews, 1994; Tobin, Tippins, and Hook, 1995).Other research suggests that lack of science teachers pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)influences student learning, or that some assessment regimes fail to focus on meaningful learn-ing (Bell and Cowie, 2001; Tamir, 1998), instead rewarding rote learning and ‘regurgitation’ ofmasses of factual material.

It also seems students may fail to see connections or relevance of ‘school’ science to theireveryday lives (Roth, 1998), that the learning environment is not necessarily matched to theneeds and learning styles of students (Fraser, 1998), is seen to alienate certain cohorts such asfemales (Nichols et al., 1998; Parker, Rennie, and Harding, 1995), or indigenous peoples(Cobern and Aikenhead, 1998; Keeves and Aikenhead, 1995). This is perhaps more likely whenso-called ‘Western science’ is imported into different cultural settings such as countries witheconomies linked to subsistence agriculture or when indigenous views of knowledge are seen to

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

150 S. Ali et al.

be incompatible or inconsistent with Western notions of science (Cobern and Aikenhead, 1998;Fisher and Waldrip, 1997; Keeves and Aikenhead, 1995, Vulliamy, 1988).

In our work, based in a regional post-compulsory (hereinafter referred to as tertiary) institu-tion, in Fiji, which serves the southern Pacific island nations, we are interested in student percep-tions of learning environments and, in particular, any differences in preferences based on thecultural background of our students. Previous research by our group (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002;Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002) looked at cultural-based perceptions of actual learning environ-ments. Here we wished to explore any potential link between reported cultural learning styles,namely, collaborative vs. competitive, and perceptions of learning environments. First, we detailthe educational context for this inquiry and then describe the research undertaken.

Background and context for the study

The research context here is the University of the South Pacific (USP), a regional tertiary insti-tution that is now fully established and has been in operation for more than 35 years. Science atUSP is offered through the Faculty of Science and Technology – formerly known as the Schoolof Pure and Applied Sciences (SPAS) – one of the larger faculties in the institution. The Facultyoffers BSc, MSc and PhD degrees and the Faculty and the Chemistry Division (formerly, theChemistry Department) witnessed considerable growth in enrolments through the 1990s andwhich continues to this day.

Science teaching at USP can prove problematic, not because of any limitations of resources,indeed the teaching laboratories and staff facilities are generally of a good standard, comparableto that in neighbouring developed countries like New Zealand and Australia. However, thelimited prior knowledge and low level of cognitive development of many students has provenproblematic insofar as teaching science is concerned (Tavola 1992; Taylor, 1993; Taylor andColl, 2002). This is commonly attributed to perceived inadequacies in the school system, whichis reported to be highly teacher-centred, and driven by a series of external summative examina-tions that focus on low-level cognitive skills (Muralidhar, 1989; Taylor and Coll, 2002).

There have been a number of calls for improvement to the teaching of science in secondaryschools in Fiji (Muralidhar, 1989; Taylor, 1993), and USP has a Centre for the Enhancement ofTeaching and Learning (CELT) whose role is to improve teaching at the institution. The netresult of secondary school problems in teaching science for the university is a wide range ofcognitive abilities especially at first-year level, with at least some disparity in academic achieve-ment based on ethnicity due to the enrolment system (beyond a broad entry requirement, schol-arships and support for study means entry is effectively based on member country contributionsto institutional finances with a resultant ethnic bias, see Taylor, 1993). Given large class sizes,it seems unlikely that teaching staff can make changes to pedagogy in lectures (although, notnecessarily, we return to this theme below) but, there are probably more opportunities for peda-gogical enhancement in practical classes and tutorials. Previous research at USP suggests thatfirst-year science students perceive their tutorial classes to be highly teacher-dominated withteachers, whilst friendly and helpful, at the same time highly authoritative (Coll, Taylor, and Ali,2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002). This is not particularly desirable in a tutorial class whichis intended to be interactive, and which involves the students grappling with and learning tosolve theoretical and numerical problems based on lecture material.

To take the chemistry division as an example, according to Buckingham (1989) (an externalexaminer to the Division/Department at the time), the university may be coping with teachingproblems by taking the ‘line of least resistance’. Buckingham felt that the teaching of tertiarychemistry consisted of coaching students towards expected answers, in other words, a highlyteacher-centred approach exacerbated by similarity between examinations and tutorial problems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Research in Science & Technological Education 151

Classes are highly teacher dominated and, thus, may not be allowing students to develop indi-vidual problem solving and scientific thinking skills. It seems that the students come to the univer-sity and encounter the same teaching style they have experienced previously – which is basedlargely on rote memorisation. More recent research suggests little has changed at university (Coll,Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002) or in schools (Taylor and Coll, 2002).

In addition to the matters raised above, the cultural and ethnic diversity in USP science classespresents different educational issues (Baba, 1979; Baba, Cokanasiga, and Caballes, 1992). TheUSP is unusual (but not unique) in that it is a regional institution with a multitude of ethnicities,with some 12 member countries (the University of the West Indies is in a similar situation). Ithas been suggested that this cultural diversity may be reflected in differences, and perhaps pref-erences, for learning styles, with some literature suggesting that Pacific Island and New ZealandM[amacr ] ori (see Paku, Zegwaard, and Coll, 2003) students prefer cooperative learning experiences.This is in contrast to Indo-Fijians (decedents of indentured labourers brought to Fiji by theBritish colonial administration to develop the colonial sugar trade) who are reported to preferindividual and more competitive learning styles (Nabobo and Teasdale, 1994; Taylor and Coll,2002; Taylor and Lucas, 1997). A second, similar, issue relates to preferences in learning stylesbetween males and females with preferences in learning style based on gender reported in theliterature (Fraser, Giddings, and Mcrobbie, 1995; Nair and Fisher, 2001). Some researchers reportthat females prefer science classrooms that are cooperative rather than competitive in nature(Parker, Rennie, and Harding, 1995) although these differences are reported to reduce with ageand educational level (Fraser, 1995; Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002).

Research objectives

The complex, multicultural learning environment for science students at USP is reportedlydominated by a didactic, teacher-centred, teaching approach as also occurs in many tertiaryinstitutions worldwide (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002; Vulliamy,1988). The literature suggests that this teaching approach, as well as failing to take into accountcurrent thinking about student learning (see below), may disadvantage indigenous Pacificpeoples in particular who prefer more student-centred and cooperative learning styles. Researchby Fraser and colleagues (for example Fraser, 1998) suggests that student achievement is height-ened when there is a close match between their perceptions of their actual and preferred learn-ing environments.

The research presented in this work seeks to understand student perceptions and preferencesof the learning environment for some tertiary-level science students at USP. We are interested ina variety of aspects of classroom environment but, in particular, how students see interactionsbetween themselves, peers from their own cultural or ethnic group, students from other ethnicgroups, and their teachers; viz, an interest on equity issues. From this our intention is to tease outsome features of USP students’ perceptions and preferences for the learning environment. Indoing so we draw upon the suggestion of Entwistle and Tait who note that ‘approaches to study-ing used by students are strongly influenced by their perceptions of the learning environment’(Entwistle and Tait, 1993: 3).

The research questions for this inquiry are:

(1) What are student perceptions of their actual and preferred learning environments forfirst-year science students at USP?

(2) What influence, if any, does ethnic or cultural identity have on differences betweenstudent perceptions of their actual and preferred learning environments for first-yearscience students at USP?

a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

152 S. Ali et al.

(3) What influence, if any, does gender have on differences between student perceptions oftheir actual and preferred learning environments for first-year science students at USP?

From these we also developed two subsidiary research questions, these are:

(4) Are there preferred learning styles for first-year science students at USP?(5) If there are preferred learning styles for first-year science students at USP, what influ-

ence, if any, does ethnic or cultural identity and gender exert?

Theoretical basis to the research

This research has its foundations in current theories of learning. The latter part of the last centurysaw rapid development of new learning theories, particularly constructivist-based theories and,despite some criticism (see Matthews, 1998), constructivism has come to dominate much thoughtand practice in science education. However, in many developing countries it appears that construc-tivist-inspired strategies are rarely implemented in the teaching of science at any level. While itcould be argued that this is also the case in many Western classrooms (see, Tobin and Gallagher,1987), the evidence from the literature would indicate that the situation is more extreme in devel-oping countries. Muralidhar found this to be true in Fiji from his extensive observations of classroompractice, ‘most teachers did not realise the potential of questioning and discussion, and as a conse-quence missed out on understanding the ideas their students had about important concepts’(Muralidhar, 1989: 270). Often, a transmissive approach to science teaching predominates in devel-oping countries, with teacher exposition being the major method used in the delivery of the curric-ulum. Ingle and Turner argue that this approach has been singularly unsuccessful in encouragingstudents in developing countries to think ‘scientifically’:

Straightforward ‘teaching by telling’, with an emphasis on rote learning, cannot be an effectivemethod of achieving this end, as the facts and ideas are simply absorbed without any process of inter-nalisation. Some sort of more active method, requiring the pupils to experiment and discuss, toobserve and interpret at their level, is likely to be more fruitful. (Ingle and Turner, 1981: 366)

More recently, many authors have come to believe that constructivism, whist an importantconcept helpful in understanding the learning process, fails to allow for the complexity of thelearning environment; in particular, the social and cultural settings in which learning occurs.This has led to a cohort of learning theories described as sociocultural views of learning. Thistype of learning theory places greater emphasis on the social component and context of learning.The constructivist-based assumption, based on psychological research, is that it is possible toinvestigate an individual removed from his or her social context. In contrast, sociocultural viewsobserve cognition as ‘constructed jointly’ and is influenced by the social, cultural and historicalfactors (Eames and Bell, 2005).

According to Wertsch:

The basic tenet of a sociocultural approach to mind is that human mental functioning is inherentlysituated in social interactional, cultural, institutional, and historical context. Such a tenet contrastswith approaches that assume, implicitly or explicitly, that it is possible to examine mental processessuch as thinking or memory independently of the sociocultural setting in which individuals andgroups function. (Wertsch, 1991: 86)

In summary, from a sociocultural view of learning, student learning is expressed by the setting,the institutional framework where the encounter takes place, a participant’s dialogue and atti-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


tudes, their sense of social identity, the objects manipulated and the type of interpersonal rela-tionship established. Sociocultural theories of learning are therefore appropriate for aninvestigation of the issues that form the focus of the present work.

Methodology

The methodology for this study consists of application of a previously-validated learning envi-ronment instrument: the What is Happening in This Classroom (WIHIC) instrument. We usedthe personalised version rather than the classroom level-based version as we wished to gain indi-vidual students’ perceptions of the environment they themselves experienced (rather than speak-ing of what they thought the class as a whole experienced, see Fraser and Tobin, 1991; Fraser,Giddings, and Mcrobbie, 1995). Scales, descriptors and sample items from the instruments areprovided in Table 1. The original questionnaire development and subsequent statistical analysesto maximise validity and reliability are reported in Fraser, Fisher, and Mcrobbie (1996). In thepresent work, a similar cohort of statistical tests was also used in order to validate the instrumentin this new educational context. Demographics, reliability data, along with ANOVA analyses(based on gender and ethnicity) are presented for both the actual and preferred versions of thepersonalised version of the instrument (Tables 2–5).

A key feature of rigorous questionnaire development and administration of an off-shelf instru-ment in a new context involves the use of focus groups or face-to-face interviews, prior to theadministration of the instrument. This is particularly so in the case of complex multi-cultural learn-ing environments such as that for the present study (for example, it was necessary to interviewindividuals from several member countries to ensure face validity). This was deemed necessarygiven several literature reports of problems with validity when employing instruments in complexmulticultural contexts (see, for example Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher,2002; Lucas and Taylor, 1998; Mahapa, 2001). The researchers first sought to ascertain that theprospective participants understood the questions (in terms of language comprehension) and in

Table 1. Scales, descriptors and sample items from the actual version of the What Is Happening In thisClassroom (WIHIC) instrument (Fraser, Fisher, and Mcrobbie, 1996; Rickards et al., 2003).

Scale name Description of scale (Extent to which…) Sample item

Student cohesiveness …students are friendly and supportive of each other

I make friendships among students in this class

Teacher support …the teacher helps, befriends, and is interested in students

The teacher goes out of his/her way to help me

Involvement …students have attentive interest, participate in class and are involved with other students in assessing the viability of new ideas

I give my opinions during class discussions

Investigation …there is emphasis on the skills and of inquiry and their use in problem solving and investigation

I carry out investigations to answer questions coming from discussions

Task orientation …it is important to complete planned activities and stay on the subject matter

I know the goals for this class

Cooperation …students cooperate rather than compete with one another on learning tasks

I work with other students on class activities

Equity …the teacher treats students equally, including distributing praise, question distribution and opportunities to be included in discussions

I am treated the same as other students in this class

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

154 S. Ali et al.

terms of validity (that is, the researchers and participants use terms with shared understanding,Johnson and Gott, 1996). Such a process required extensive face-to-face interviews before survey-ing and this was duly done in this inquiry.

Research findings

Examination of the reliability data suggest both forms of the instrument contain reliable data withCronbach alpha ranging from 0.80–0.91 for the actual and 0.89–0.92 for the preferred versionof the instrument which compares very favourably with the values produced in the developmentof the instrument (Fraser, Fisher, and Mcrobbie, 1996; Rickards et al., 2003). Examination ofANOVA analyses suggest the instrument is valid and, in particular, capable of distinguishingamongst various cohorts such as ethnic groups and gender (Trochim, 2000).

Sample demographics are consistent with the national population as a whole (Table 2), withethnicity dominated by Fijian and Indians in roughly equal proportions, with a smaller cohort ofPacific Islanders and people of Asian and mixed ethnicity. There is a preponderance of females(as occurs for this tertiary institution), most are young (age range 18–20 years), in the first orsecond year of their tertiary education and completing a double major – all consistent with thedemographics of the tertiary education institution in this study (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll,Taylor, and Fisher, 2002).

Student perceptions of their actual and preferred learning environments

The biggest scale mean differences for the actual and preferred versions of the WIHIC instru-ment are for Teacher Support and Involvement (Table 3), both of which are statistically signifi-cant (p<0.01). Together these data point to a learning context that is teacher-dominated withlittle student involvement and which is not particularly supportive. A factor here may be theage demographics, with the cohort in this study mostly fresh out of school. Schools in Fiji andthe Pacific Islands whilst having large class sizes compared to the standards of neighbouringWestern countries such as New Zealand and Australia (Taylor and Coll, 2002) and being

Table 2. Sample description by ethnicity, gender, age, program/major and years of study.

Sample demographicsn (%)

Ethnicity Fijian Indo-Fijian Other TotalActualPreferred

240 (40)229 (39)

230 (40)215 (37)

111 (19)139 (24)

518583

Gender Male Female TotalActualPreferred

231 (40)238 (41)

350 (60)345 (60)

581583

Age (years) <18 18 19 20 20+ActualPreferred

35 (6)23 (4)

141 (24)130 (22)

145 (24)150 (26)

153 (26)159 (27)

119 (20)120 (21)

Program/Major Chemistry Double Prelim/foundation Other scienceActual and Preferred 175 (17) 592 (59) 154 (16) 87 (8)

Study (years) 1 2 2+ActualPreferred

349 (62)331 (58)

176 (31)187 (33)

47 (8)49 (9)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


relatively competitive in nature (Muralidhar, 1989), are characterised by supportive teachersand strong relationships between teachers and students (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll,Taylor, and Fisher, 2002; Muralidhar, 1989). The larger class sizes that occur in the earlystages of tertiary education and the very new learning environment experienced by thesenewcomers thus may contribute to feelings of lack of support and involvement in class activi-ties. This proposition is supported by earlier work by Coll, Taylor, and Ali (2002); Coll,Taylor, and Fisher (2002) who report feelings of strong support in tertiary level tutorial classesin the same educational institution.

Influence of ethnic or cultural identity on differences in student perceptions of their actual and preferred learning environments

As was reported in earlier work in the same educational institution (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002;Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002) there are surprisingly few differences based on ethnicity orcultural identity. In terms of perceptions of the actual learning environment the biggest differ-ences are for Involvement (an extraordinary difference in scale means of 1.28 statistically signif-icant p<0.01, Table 4) and Equity scales. It seems Indo-Fijians see themselves as disenfranchisedfrom classroom involvement (assuming the differences are due to perceptions of their own treat-ment) and to a lesser – but, nonetheless, important extent – believe there is not equitable treat-ment in the classroom. This may, in part at least, be a carryover of resentment of the University’senrolment system for which is reported that they think it is biased against them (Coll, Taylor andFisher, 2002; Tavola 1992).

Differences in perceptions of the actual learning environment were not carried over to percep-tions of the preferred learning environment. So, for example, whilst Indo-Fijians may perceivethe extent of student involvement and equity in the actual classroom different to others of differentethnicity, all ethnicities see the preferred involvement and equity in much the same way (Table4). Interestingly, there were no statistically significant differences in perceptions of the preferredenvironment in terms of its collaborative versus competitive nature. Hence, the commonly-citednotion that Indo-Fijians (Indians in Table 4) and indigenous Fijians prefer different learning

Table 3. Internal reliability (Cronbach alpha coefficient) and mean differences for actual (n=581) andpreferred (n=583) versions of the WIHIC instrument.

Scale FormCronbach

alphaScale mean

Standard deviation

Mean difference

Cohesiveness ActualPreferred

0.800.89

3.603.95

0.660.75

0.35

Teacher support ActualPreferred

0.880.89

2.943.53

0.900.86

0.59*

Involvement ActualPreferred

0.820.90

2.863.51

0.780.83

0.65*

Investigation ActualPreferred

0.880.92

3.463.73

0.810.85

0.27

Task orientation ActualPreferred

0.850.90

4.084.29

0.640.64

0.21

Cooperation ActualPreferred

0.840.92

3.784.11

0.810.77

0.33

Equity ActualPreferred

0.910.92

3.754.03

0.880.82

0.28

Note: * p <0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

156 S. Ali et al.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analysis for actual (n=581) and preferred (n=583)versions of the WIHIC instrument – ethnicity differences.

ScaleForm Ethnicity

Scale mean

Standard deviation F p

CohesivenessActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.623.753.53

0.630.610.78

4.8 0.009*

Preferred FijianIndianOther

3.914.083.92

0.680.750.84

3.34 0.036*

Teacher supportActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.062.883.18

0.880.890.96

4.56 0.011*


3.583.523.60

0.770.930.88

0.43 0.648

InvolvementActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.544.825.40

0.410.340.55

2.05 0.13


3.453.673.45

0.800.810.88

4.63 0.01*

InvestigationActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.153.213.19

0.760.850.82

0.42 0.66


3.694.343.71

0.850.680.90

1.3 0.27

Task orientationActual Fijian

IndianOther

4.064.164.05

0.630.590.74

1.76 0.17


4.314.184.25

0.650.740.78

0.66 0.52

CooperationActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.793.873.68

0.820.780.87

2.05 0.13


4.134.184.01

0.720.740.92

2.05 0.13

EquityActual Fijian

IndianOther

3.633.923.71

0.870.870.93

6.52 0.002*


3.934.223.95

0.770.790.88

7.81 0*

Note: * p <0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


environments or learning styles in this regard (Coll, Taylor and Ali, 2002; Nabobo and Teasdale,1994; Taylor and Lucas, 1997) would not appear to be supported in this work.

The biggest differences in preferred learning environments occurred for the Investigationscale (mean differences between Indo-Fijians and Fijians and Indo-Fijians and others 0.65 and0.63 respectively, statistically significant p<0.01, Table 4). This is likely a reflection of thisgroup’s desire for more control over their own learning, perhaps as a result of their greater confi-dence and generally higher academic ability/performance in science (Buckingham, 1989;Muralidhar, 1989; Taylor, 1993).

Influence of gender on differences in student perceptions of their actual and preferred learning environments

Interestingly, there were few differences between perceptions of the actual or preferred learningenvironment based on gender (Table 5). This is in marked contrast with previous work in thiscontext (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002), and other internationalwork (see, Brickhouse, 1998; Fraser, Giddings, and Mcrobbie, 1995; Nair and Fisher 2001). Afactor here may be the environment under investigation. The study by Coll, Taylor, and Ali(2002) and Coll, Taylor, and Fisher (2002) was, as noted above, tutorial classes, where as herewe are concerned with the entire university learning environment where learning is dominatedby mass lectures. So, for example, whilst females may wish for more interactive, supportive tuto-rials, they may not hold the same feeling about mass lectures they encounter in first-year scienceas occurred here. The largest difference in perceptions based on gender is for the preferredversion of the Cooperation scale (mean difference of 0.29, statistically significant p<0.01),which adds some support to reports in the literature that females prefer more cooperative learn-ing environments (Coll, Taylor, and Ali, 2002; Coll, Taylor, and Fisher, 2002; Fraser, Giddings,and Mcrobbie, 1995; Nair and Fisher, 2001a, b).

Summary and conclusions

The research reported in this work shows that both actual and preferred forms of the WIHICinstrument are reliable and valid in this complex, multi-cultural educational context. Interestinglythere seem to be few differences in perceptions for actual and preferred learning environments.This is an encouraging result suggesting these students are generally happy with their learningenvironment (based on the scales of this instrument at least). The biggest differences are forthe Teacher Support and Involvement scales, which suggest the teachers here need to be moreempathetic to their students and allow more student involvement in classroom activities. This isparticularly important for new students coming to a tertiary education scene which is likely to bevery different from their high school experiences. It might seem a tall order to introducenew pedagogies in mass lectures that dominate this educational context at this educationallevel. However, a number of authors (for example, Solomon, 1994; Tobin and Tippins, 1993;Wheatley, 1991) comment that large class sizes need not inhibit good teaching, nor dictate weuse teacher-dominated pedagogies. Things such as exciting and interesting demonstrationsor the use of prediction-observation-explanation (POE) techniques (White and Gunstone, 1992)or analogies can all help to add interest and an enhanced feeling of involvement in class (seeHarrison and Coll, 2007, for some resources).

Surprisingly, there seem to be few differences in perceptions for actual and preferred learn-ing environments based on ethnicity, with two notable exceptions: for the actual version, thereis a huge difference in perception of Involvement for Indo-Fijians and Fijians or others. As noted,this may have historical origins, but it also would probably be addressed in part at least by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

158 S. Ali et al.

use of more interactive pedagogies. The issue of equity is more thorny. Again, historical issuesare probably a factor here, but no obvious solution is apparent. Entry procedures for this institu-tion, which may be part of the issue, are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. A factorhere may be the target student notion identified by Tobin and co-workers (see, Tobin, 1987). Inthe present educational context teachers may pick out the more able students, a cohort dominatedby a particular ethnic group. It is interesting that the preferred environment equity-wise is similarfor all ethnicities, and this perhaps suggests that if teachers work towards the preferred option

Table 5. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analysis for actual (n=581) and preferred (n=583)versions of the WIHIC instrument – gender differences.

ScaleForm Gender

Scale mean

Standard deviation F p

CohesivenessActual Male

Female3.543.72

0.720.61

11.7 0.001*

Preferred MaleFemale

3.824.08

0.770.72

16.21 0*

Teacher supportActual Male

Female3.102.96

0.920.90

2.94 0.087


3.563.57

0.830.87

0.01 0.92

InvolvementActual Male

Female4.474.35

0.870.84

2.68 0.90


3.473.57

0.860.81

1.81 0.18

InvestigationActual Male

Female3.223.16

0.860.76

0.73 0.39


3.673.79

0.860.84

2.87 0.091

Task orientationActual Male

Female4.044.13

0.670.62

2.67 0.10


4.174.40

0.700.67

16.15 0*

CooperationActual Male

Female3.743.84

0.800.82

2.09 0.15


3.954.24

0.810.73

20.53 0*

EquityActual Male

Female3.683.82

0.870.90

2.88 0.09


3.934.13

0.820.80

8.29 0.004*

Note: * p < 0.01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


this may go some way to addressing the problem for all groups. So, for example, making a pointof asking questions, distributing praise to all class members and other similar equitable treatmentmay help.

It is interesting that there was little evidence of differences in ethnic-based perceptions ofpreferred learning environments with respect to classroom collaboration. As noted, this may inthis case be a feature of the nature of the overall learning environment, namely, first-yearscience. It is thus possible that in a particular learning context such as laboratory classes or tuto-rials some differences may occur, and this is an area of current research for our research group.

There is a marked contrast between the findings for this work and other literature withrespect to differences in perceptions of learning environments and gender. Our work found littleevidence for gender differences except for Cooperation, which is also reported elsewhere(Fraser, Giddings, and Mcrobbie, 1995; Nair and Fisher, 2001). As noted the main reasons forthis may be the fact that our work concerned large first-year classes which may not be seen assituations in which cooperation could readily occur. Also potentially influential is the fact thatas noted by Fraser, Giddings, and Mcrobbie (1995), gender differences reduce with age andeducational level, the students here being older than most in other studies in which gender differ-ences are reported.

In conclusion, our work suggests that with a few exceptions the participants were positiveabout their learning environment, but that they would prefer more involvement, perhaps achiev-able by using more interactive pedagogies. The data suggest such changes would result in alearning environment that was acceptable for different ethnicities and gender.

ReferencesBaba, T.L. 1979. An evaluation of the UNDP social science curriculum in Fiji secondary schools. PhD

diss., McQuarie University.Baba, T.L., L.J. Cokanasiga, and J.B. Caballes. 1992. South Pacific education profiles: A sourcebook on

trends and developments. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific.Bell, B., and B. Cowie. 2001. Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Brickhouse, N.W. 1998. Feminism(s) and science education. In International handbook of science educa-

tion, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 1067–81. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Buckingham, D. 1989. Report of external advisor in chemistry. Suva: University of The South Pacific.Chinn, C.A., and W.F. Brewer. 1998. Theories of knowledge acquisition. In International handbook of

science education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 97–113. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Cobern, W.W., and G.S. Aikenhead. 1998. Cultural aspects of learning science. In International handbook

of science education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 39–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Coll, R.K., N. Taylor, and S. Ali. 2002. Investigating tertiary level teacher-student interactions in Fiji

using the questionnaire on teacher interaction (QTI). Directions: Journal of Educational Studies 23,no. 2: 91–112.

Coll, R.K., N. Taylor, and D.L. Fisher. 2002. An application of the questionnaire on teacher interactionand college and university classroom environment inventory in a multicultural tertiary context.Research in Science and Technological Education 20, no. 2: 165–83.

Duit, R. 2004. Bibliography: Student’s alternative frameworks and science education. 6th ed. Germany:University of Kiel.

———. 2006. Bibliography: Student’s alternative frameworks and science education. updated ed.Germany: University of Kiel.

Duit, R., and D. Treagust. 1995. Students’ conceptions and constructivist teaching. In Improving scienceeducation, ed. B.J. Fraser and H.J. Walberg, 46–69. Chicago: International Academy of Education.

Eames, C., and B. Bell. 2005. Using sociocultural views of learning to investigate the enculturation ofstudents into the scientific community through work placements. Canadian Journal of Science,Mathematics and Technology Education 5, no. 1: 153–69.

Entwistle, N., and H. Tait. 1993. Approaches to studying and preferences for teaching in higher education:Implications for student ratings. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, in April, in Atlanta, GA.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

160 S. Ali et al.

Fensham, P. 2001. Science content as problematic: Issues for research. In Research in science education:Past present, and future, ed. H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Graber, M. Kororek, A. Kross andP. Reiska, 27–41. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Fisher, D.L. and Waldrip, B.G. 1997. Assessing culturally sensitive factors in learning environments ofscience classrooms. Research in Science Education 27, 41–8.

Fraser, B.J. 1995. The learning environment in science classrooms and its effects on learning. In Scienceeducation: From theory to practice, ed. A. Hofstein, B.-S. Eylon and G. Giddings, 331–46. Rheovot:Weizmann Institute of Science.

———. 1998. Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In Internationalhandbook of science education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 527–64. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Fraser, B.J., D.L. Fisher, and C.J. Mcrobbie. 1996. Development, validation and use of personal and classforms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, in April, in New York.

Fraser, B.J., G.J. Giddings, and C.J. Mcrobbie. 1995. Evolution, validation and application of a personalfrom of a questionnaire for assessing science laboratory classroom environments. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 32: 399–422.

Fraser, B.J., and K. Tobin. 1991. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environ-ment research. In Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences, ed. B.J.Fraser and H.J. Walberg, 271–92. Oxford: Pergamon.

Gabel, D. 1998. The complexity of chemistry and implications for teaching. In International handbook ofscience education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 233–48. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Harrison, A.G., and R.K. Coll. 2007. Using analogies in middle and secondary science classrooms: TheFAR guide – an interesting way to teach with analogies. New York: Corwin.

Ingle, R.B., and Turner. A.D. 1981. Science curricula as cultural misfits. European Journal of ScienceEducation 3, 357–71.

Johnson, P., and R. Gott. 1996. Constructivism and evidence from children’s ideas. Science Education 80,no. 5: 561–77.

Keeves, J. and G.S. Aikenhead. 1995. Science curricula in a changing world. In Improving science education,ed. B.J. Fraser and H.J. Walberg, 13–45. Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education,University of Chicago Press.

Lucas, K.B., and N. Taylor. 1998. Some cautionary notes about employing the socio-cultural environmentscale in different cultural contexts. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia21, no. 2: 37–43.

Mahapa, S.S. 2001. ‘Off-shelve’ instruments: Perceptions of high school learners in the science centre asa learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association ofResearch in Science Teaching, in March, St. Louis, MO.

Matthews, M.R. 1994. Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.———. 1998. Constructivism in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Muralidhar, S. 1989. An exploratory study of a science curriculum in action: Basic science in Fiji. PhD

diss., Monash University, Melbourne.Nabobo, U., and J. Teasdale. 1994. Teacher education for cultural identity in Fiji. Directions: Journal of

Educational Studies 16, no. 2: 3–13.Nair, C., and D. Fisher. 2001. Transition from senior secondary to tertiary science: A learning environ-

ment perspective. Research in Science Education 30, no. 4: 435–50.Nichols, S.E., P.J. Gilmer, A.D. Thompson, and N. Davis. 1998. Women in science: Expanding the

vision. In International handbook of science education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 967–78.Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Paku, L., K. Zegwaard, and R.K. Coll. 2003. Enculturation of indigenous people into science and technol-ogy: An investigation from a socio-cultural perspective. Paper presented at the World Association forCooperative Education, biennial conference, in August, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Parker, L., L. Rennie, and J. Harding. 1995. Gender equity. In Improving science education, ed. B.J.Fraser and H.J. Walberg, 186–210. Chicago: International Academy of Education.

Pfundt, H., and R. Duit. 1994. Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. 3rded. Germany: University of Kiel.

———. 1997. Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. 4th ed. Kiel:University of Kiel.

———. 2000. Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education. 5th ed. Germany:University of Kiel.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


Rickards, T., P. den Brok, E. Bull, and D. Fisher. 2003. Predicting student views of the classroom: ACalifornian perspective. In Proceedings of the Western Australian Institute for Educational ResearchForum, ed. R. Atkinson & C. Mcbeath, 1–16. Perth, WA.

Roth, W.M. 1998. Teaching and learning as everyday activity. In International handbook of scienceeducation, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 169–81. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Solomon, J. 1994. The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education 23: 1–19.Taber, K.S., and R.K. Coll. 2002. Bonding. In Chemical education: Towards research-based practice, ed.

J.K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. Justi, D.F. Treagust, and J.H. Van Driel, 213–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Tamir, P. 1998. Assessment and evaluation in science education: Opportunities to learn and outcomes. In

International handbook of science education, ed. B.J. Fraser and K. Tobin, 761–89. Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Tavola, H. 1992. Race is not the only issue in education in Fiji. Directions: Journal of Educational Studies14, no. 2: 34–40.

Taylor, N.T. 1991. The Fiji junior certificate basic science examination: Its implications for the teachingof science in Fiji. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in South East Asia 14, no. 2: 73–8.

———. 1993. Teaching science at the University of the South Pacific: Its special problems. Journal ofIndian Education 18, no. 5: 18–23.

Taylor, N., and R.K. Coll. 2002. Constructivist-informed pedagogy in teacher education: An overview ofa year-long study in Fiji. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development 5, no. 1: 47–76.

Taylor, N.T., and K. Lucas. 1997. The trial of an innovative science program for preservice primaryteachers in Fiji. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 25, no. 3: 325–43.

Tobin, K. 1987. The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research57, no. 1: 69–95.

Tobin, K., and J.J. Gallagher. 1987. What happens in high school science classrooms? Journal of CurriculumStudies 19: 549–60.

Tobin, K., and D. Tippins. 1993. Constructivism: A paradigm for the practice of science education. In Thepractice of constructivism in science education, ed. K. Tobin, 3–21. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tobin, K., D. Tippins, and K.S. Hook. 1995. Students’ beliefs about epistemology, science, and classroomlearning: A question of fit. In Learning science in the schools, ed. S.M. Glynn and R. Duit, 85–108.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Trochim, W. 2000). The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.Vulliamy, G. 1988. Third world schools. In New ideas in environmental education, ed. S. Briceno and

D.C. Pit, 143–57. London: Croom Helm.Wertsch, J.V. 1991. A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In Perspectives on socially

shared cognition, ed. L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasly, 85–100. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

Wheatley, G.H. 1991. Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning. Science Education75, no. 1: 9–21.

White, R., and R. Gunstone. 1992. Probing understanding. London: Falmer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

162 S. Ali et al.

Appendix 1.What is actually happening in my class?Directions for studentsThese questionnaires contain statements about practices which could take place in this class. You will beasked how often each practice takes place.

There are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. Your opinion is what is wanted. Think about how well eachstatement describes what this class IS ACTUALLY LIKE for you.

Draw a circle around:

1 if the practice takes place Almost never2 if the practice takes place Seldom3 if the practice takes place Sometimes4 if the practice takes place Often5 if the practice takes place Almost always

Be sure to give an answer for all questions. If you change your mind about an answer, just cross it out andcircle another.

Some statements in this questionnaire are fairly similar to other statements. Don’t worry about this.Simply give your opinion about all statements.

Practice exampleSuppose you were given the statement: ‘I choose my partners for group discussion.’ You would need todecide whether you choose your partners ‘Almost always’, ‘Often’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Seldom’ or ‘Almostnever’. If you selected ‘Often’ then you would circle the number 4 on your questionnaire.

Age: _____________________

Sex: _____________________

Ethnicity: _____________________

Number of years at university: _____________________

Subject major: _____________________

Student cohesivenessAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

1. I make friendships among students in this class. 1 2 3 4 52. I know other students in this class. 1 2 3 4 53. I am friendly to members of this class. 1 2 3 4 54. Members of the class are my friends. 1 2 3 4 55. I work well with other class members. 1 2 3 4 56. I help other class members who are having trouble

with their work.1 2 3 4 5

7. Students in this class like me. 1 2 3 4 58. In this class, I get help from other students. 1 2 3 4 5

Teacher supportAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

9. The teacher takes a personal interest in me. 1 2 3 4 510. The teacher goes out of his/her way to help me. 1 2 3 4 511. The teacher considers my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014


12. The teacher helps me when I have trouble with the work.

1 2 3 4 5

13. The teacher talks with me. 1 2 3 4 514. The teacher is interested in my problems. 1 2 3 4 515. The teacher moves about the class to talk with me. 1 2 3 4 516. The teacher’s questions help me to understand. 1 2 3 4 5

InvolvementAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

17. I discuss ideas in class. 1 2 3 4 518. I give my opinions during class discussions. 1 2 3 4 519. The teacher asks me questions. 1 2 3 4 520. My ideas and suggestions are used during

classroom discussions.1 2 3 4 5

21. I ask the teacher questions. 1 2 3 4 522. I explain my ideas to other students. 1 2 3 4 523. Students discuss with me how to go about solving

problems.1 2 3 4 5

24. I am asked to explain how I solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5

InvestigationAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

25. I carry out investigations to test my ideas. 1 2 3 4 526. I am asked to think about the evidence for

statements.1 2 3 4 5

27. I carry out investigations to answer questions coming from discussions.

1 2 3 4 5

28. I explain the meaning of statements, diagrams and graphs.

1 2 3 4 5

29. I carry out investigations to answer questions which puzzle me.

1 2 3 4 5

30. I carry out investigations to answer the teacher’s questions.

1 2 3 4 5

31. I find out answers to questions by doing investigations.

1 2 3 4 5

32. I solve problems by using information obtained from my own investigations.

1 2 3 4 5

Task orientationAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

33. Getting a certain amount of work done is important to me.

1 2 3 4 5

34. I do as much as I set out to do. 1 2 3 4 535. I know the goals for this class. 1 2 3 4 536. I am ready to start this class on time. 1 2 3 4 537. I know what I am trying to accomplish in this class. 1 2 3 4 538. I pay attention during this class. 1 2 3 4 539. I try to understand the work in this class. 1 2 3 4 540. I know how much work I have to do. 1 2 3 4 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

164 S. Ali et al.

CooperationAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

41. I cooperate with other students when doing assignment work.

1 2 3 4 5

42. I share my books and resources with other students when doing assignments.

1 2 3 4 5

43. When I work in groups in this class, there is teamwork.

1 2 3 4 5

44. I work with other students on projects in this class. 1 2 3 4 545. I learn from other students in this class. 1 2 3 4 546. I work with other students in this class. 1 2 3 4 547. I cooperate with other students on class activities. 1 2 3 4 548. Students work with me to achieve class goals. 1 2 3 4 5

EquityAlmost never Seldom Sometimes Often

Almost always

49. The teacher gives as much attention to my questions as to other students’ questions.

1 2 3 4 5

50. I get the same amount of help from the teacher as do other students.

1 2 3 4 5

51. I have the same amount of say in this class as other students.

1 2 3 4 5

52. I am treated the same as other students in this class. 1 2 3 4 553. I receive the same encouragement from the teacher

as other students do.1 2 3 4 5

54. I get the same opportunity to contribute to class discussions as other students.

1 2 3 4 5

55. My work receives as much praise as other students work.

1 2 3 4 5

56. I get the same opportunity to answer questions as other students.

1 2 3 4 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

22 1

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

student perceptions of a culturally diverse classroom environment

Documents