CHACUN SON STYLE!

There is a wide range of quantitative learning environment instruments that have been successfully used throughout the world in learning environment research. However, this particular research required an instrument to measure the learning environment as perceived by students in the context of science classrooms in New Zealand. All the classes in this research were from English medium secondary schools, so no translation into Te Reo Māori was necessary. The quantitative instrument requirements for this research were:

 concise with carefully selected scales that focused on socio-constructivist ideas;

 a survey that was short enough so that 13-14 year old students could quickly respond to the questions and not be onerous for them;

 having both actual/preferred forms. The actual form would measure the immediate learning environment. The preferred form would be concerned with goals and value orientations; this would measure the students’ perceptions of the science classroom ideally liked;

 a survey which used appropriate language that 13-14 year old students could understand and relate to.

It was important the students did not have to spend a lengthy period of time answering the script. The researcher was conscious that the students would have to repeat the survey later in the year, and with some classes, again in the following years. The teachers involved were requested to give up some of their teaching time to administer the scripts, so the survey had to be efficiently, but at the same time effectively, done in science time. The CLES seemed ideal and furthermore, had been validated in many countries. Comparisons could be made with other research coupled with the data coming in from each year in New Zealand. Most importantly, the researcher required an instrument that teachers could pick up and quickly recognize that the socio-constructivist dimensions of the classroom were being examined.

The administration of the CLES actual and preferred forms was initiated in March of 2009 and the post actual CLES in November of the year 2009 with 327 students participating in the CLES survey including 185 female and 142 Male students in 13 schools.

The CLES was repeated again, both actual and preferred forms in March of 2010, the post actual CLES in November/December of 2010 with 362 students participating in the CLES survey including 223 female and 139 male students in 12 schools.

The actual form of the CLES survey had a blue highlighted heading on the script and the preferred form had a red highlighted heading, so confusion was minimized. Teachers were sent the scripts in the post about a week before the time of administration and also in the enclosed bag were written instructions for the teachers

on how to administer the scripts. There was a teacher professional learning workshop at the beginning of each school year on the 16/17th February 2009 and on the 15/16th February in 2010. In one of the sessions at these workshops, the researcher explained the administration method of the survey and the ethical considerations of the research. Teachers in the project would then have a consistent method of administration of the scripts. The significance of time of the day and the sequence of administering the scripts was also explained to the teachers.

There was no student identification on the scripts, due to ethical considerations of individual student recognition. Therefore, a method was constructed to give an opportunity for students to have their own secret number and a group number (If they were working in groups). A student was then able to decide on a number and write the number on the script, where there was a box labelled: My Secret Number. Some groups had group names rather than numbers, so some scripts ended up with names of groups written down. The sole purpose of the secret number was that the researcher could marry up the actual data, the preferred data and the post actual for each student for the year. This was particularly important when professional discussion with the teachers concentrated on preferred and actual environments per student and groups of students. The researcher could also evaluate groups of students working together in the class and evaluate overall trends over the entire cohort. Students were requested to remember their secret number over the course of the year verbally by the teacher and in writing on the instructions when the CLES was administered.

The ethnicity of the student was labelled: NZ/NZ Māori/Pasifika/Other in a box, with students requested to circle one of the options.

The gender of the student was labelled: Male/Female, with students requested to circle one or the other. The students were given 50 minutes to one hour (one period in duration) to complete the questionnaire. The actual form was requested to be completed first then the preferred form later in the week. It is important to note that the students had been with their teacher for a good portion of the first term so class routines were in place and also the students had had time to get to know their teacher and their classmates. The actual and preferred forms were usually administered by

the earliest time in March to towards the end of April hence the students would have attended approximately 7-9 weeks of contact time with their teacher.

There was a box on the script at the end of the 25 items labelled: If you wish you can

add any comments about your learning here. This was an opportunity for students to

write a response if they wanted to in this space. This was done for both the actual and preferred forms.

There was no change to the overall content, items, headings, and scale or student instructions of the CLES itself. Taylor & Fraser, Curtin University, March 1998

version was labelled at the bottom right of every page printed.

Table 3.2

The Descriptions of the CLES Scales

Scale Name Description Sample Item (Actual form)

Personal Relevance Learning about the world I learn about the world outside of school Uncertainty Learning about science I learn that science has

changed over time

Critical Voice Learning to speak out It’s Ok for me to express my opinion

Shared Control Learning to learn I help the teacher to plan

what I’s going to learn Student Negotiation Learning to communicate I get the chance to talk to

other students