Dorman, Jeffrey  P.

Ferguson, Janet  M.

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

The Alberta Journal of Educational Research Vol. XLVII, No. 3, Fall 2001, 276-279 Research Notes Janet M. Ferguson Canisius College, Buffalo, NY and Jeffrey P. Dorman Australian Catholic University Psychosocial Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy in Canadian High School Mathematics Classes During the past three decades, independent research has been conducted in the fields of classroom psychosocial environment and academic self-efficacy. Both classroom environment and academic efficacy have been associated with cog-nitive and affective student outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Fraser, 1998a). However, as noted by Lorsbach and Jinks (1999), no research has investigated the possible link between psychosocial learning environments and student academic self-efficacy. This research note reports the results of a preliminary Canadian study of students' perceptions of classroom environment and academic efficacy that serves as a pilot for a wider cross-national investigation of the same issue. Whereas classroom environment research focuses on the atmosphere, tone, or ambience of classrooms, usually from the students' perspective, academic efficacy research draws attention to the importance of fostering self-belief and self-regulatory capabilities in students (Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Zimmerman, 1995). Al though not explicitly recognized by efficacy theorists, some of these efficacy sources can be attributed hypothetically to the psychosocial learning environment that students experience in their schools and classrooms. It is plausible that learning environment contributes to academic efficacy. The present study makes two distinctive contributions to the field of learning environments. It was the first study to investigate the relationship between classroom environment and academic efficacy with a sample of Canadian high school mathematics students. In addition, by using scales from two well-estab-lished classroom environment instruments, it was possible to establish unique and joint contributions of each instrument in explaining academic efficacy. Research Design and Context The sample consisted of 951 (490 male, 461 female) students drawn from grade 8 and grade 10 classes in four Canadian high schools. Researchers in Australia and Asia have recently developed a classroom environment instrument called the What Is Happening in This Classroom questionnaire (WIHIC, Aldridge & Fraser, 2000; Fraser, 1998b). Although the WIHIC is comprehensive, it is not Janet Ferguson is an associate professor in the School of Education and Human Services. She can be reached at Tel: (716) 888 3293; Fax (716) 888 3299; e-mail: fergusoj@canisius.edu. Jeffrey Dorman is a senior lecturer in the School of Education. He can be reached at Tel: (+61 7) 3855 7219; Fax: +61 7 3855 7247; e-mail: J.Dorman@mcauley.acu.edu.au. Both specialize in the study of classroom environments. 276 Psychosocial Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy designed to assess constructivist classroom environments where students make sense of the world in relation to the knowledge that they have con-structed. Another instrument, the Constructivist Learning Environment Sur-vey (CLES, Fraser, 1998b; Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997) was developed to assist researchers to assess the constructivist dimensions of classrooms. In the present study, seven scales from the W I H I C and three scales from the C L E S were used. Scale selection was based on the descriptions of the scales provided by the developers. Table 1 shows these 10 six-item scales and their descriptions. Perceived academic efficacy refers to students' judgments of their ability to master the academic tasks that they are given in their classrooms. A 7-item scale using items developed by Midgley et al. (1997) in the United States was used to assess perceived academic competence in mathematics classwork. Associations between environment dimensions and academic efficacy were investigated using simple and multiple correlation analyses. To examine the amount of variance in Academic Efficacy explained by the WIHIC and C L E S scales used in the present study, a commonality analysis was conducted (Cooley & Lohnes, 1976; G o h & Fraser, 1998). Estimates of the internal consis-tency of the 10 classroom environment scales and the Academic Efficacy scale were calculated using Cronbach's Coefficient alpha. A l l scales had good inter-nal consistency with coefficients ranging from .75 (Personal Relevance) to .90 (Shared Control) (M=.84, SD=.04). Results Separate simple and multiple correlation analyses were conducted on the data. A l l 10 simple correlations between the classroom environment scales and Academic Efficacy were statistically significant (p<.001). These correlations ranged from .10 for Shared Control with Academic Efficacy to .46 for Task Orientation with Academic Efficacy (M=.25, SD=.12). It is noteworthy that all these simple correlations were positive. Mult iple correlation analyses were conducted. It was found that the 10 classroom environment scales accounted for 31.4% of variance in Academic Efficacy. Standardized regression coeffi-cients for these analyses suggested that Task Orientation had the most potent effect on Academic Efficacy (ß= 0.35). Consideration of the standard deviations for Task Orientation and Academic Efficacy scales (4.19 and 11.26 respectively) and the standardized regression coefficient indicated that a unit increase in Task Orientation w o u l d increase Academic Efficacy by 0.94 units, assuming no influence of Task Orientation on other predictor variables. Results of the commonality analysis indicated that the three C L E S scales accounted for a small amount of unique variance (2%) compared with the variance explained by the seven WIHIC scales (27%). The commonality, that portion of the variance that was shared by both instruments, was 3%. This analysis suggests that the three C L E S scales d id not contribute greatly to explaining variance in Academic Efficacy. Concluding Remarks T w o important conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, the study breaks new ground in that it shows that a number of important classroom environment dimensions are associated significantly with academic efficacy. For example, improved levels of Involvement, Investigation, and Task Orient-277 JM. Ferguson and J.P. Dorman Table 1 Descriptive Information for 10 Classroom Environment Scales Scale Name Scale Description Sample Item Student The extent to which students know, help, and I know other students in Cohesiveness are supportive of one another. this class. Teacher Support The extent to which the teacher helps, The teacher takes a befriends, trusts, and is interested in students. personal interest in me. Involvement The extent to which students have attentive I explain my ideas to interest, participate in discussions, do other students. additional work, and enjoy the class. Investigation The extent to which skills and processes of I carry out investigations inquiry and their use in problem solving and to test my ideas. investigation are emphasised. Task Orientation The extent to which it is important to I pay attention in this complete activities planned and to stay on class. the subject matter. Cooperation The extent to which students cooperate I work with other students rather than compete with one another on in this class. learning tasks. Equity The extent to which students are treated I am treated the same as equally by the teacher. other students in this class. Personal Relevance The extent to which school mathematics I learn how mathematics connects with students' out-of-school can be part of my out-of experiences. school life. Shared Control The extent to which students are invited to I help the teacher to share with the teacher control of the learning decide which activities are environment. best for me. Student Negotiation The extent to which opportunities exist for I talk to other students students to explain and justify to other about how to solve students their newly developing ideas. problems. ation were associated with higher levels of Academic Efficacy. Second, it is clear from the specific results of this study that scales of the WIHIC—a contem-porary instrument designed for conventional classrooms—were better predic-tors of Academic Efficacy than the three C L E S scales. That is, if academic efficacy is a desirable outcome, conventional classrooms rather than construc-tivist environments are a better option for teachers and students. Despite the conceptual distinctiveness of the classroom environment and academic self-ef-ficacy fields, the practical relationship between these two fields is close. Cross-national research exploring this issue with a larger, more diverse sample is currently underway. References Aldridge, J.M., & Fräser, B.J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3,101-134. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. (1976). Evaluation research in education. New York: Irvington. Fräser, B.J. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessments, effects and determinants. In B.J. Fräser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. 278 Psychosocial Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy Fräser, B.J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1,7-33. Goh, S.C., & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments Research, 1, 199-229. Lorsbach, A.W., & Jinks, J.L. (1999). Self-efficacy theory and learning environment research. Learning Environments Research, 2,157-167. Midgley, C , Maehr, M , Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E.M., & Kaplan, A. (1997). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20,426-443. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., & Fisher, D.L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27,293-302. Zimmerman, B.J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 279 

Psychosocial Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy in Canadian High School Mathematics Classes

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/54879/41936

Psychosocial Classroom Environment and Academic Efficacy in Canadian High School Mathematics Classes

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting