See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240433642

Monitoring constructivist classroom learning

environments

Article in International Journal of Educational Research · December 1997

DOI: 10.1016/S0883-0355(97)90011-2

CITATIONS READS

294 3,097

3 authors, including:

Peter Charles Sinclair Taylor

Murdoch University
97 PUBLICATIONS 1,557 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STEAM curriculum development and professional learning of teachers View project

Multi-Paradigm Research : Auto/Ethnographic Inquiries View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Charles Sinclair Taylor on 18 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
MONITORING CONSTRUCTIVIST CLASSROOM LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Peter C Taylor, Barry J Fraser and Darrell L Fisher

Curtin University of Technology, Australia

Abstract
By incorporating a critical theory perspective on the socio-cultural framing
of the classroom learning environment, we developed the Constructivist
Learning Environment Survey (CLES) to enable researchers, teachers and
teacher-researchers to monitor constructivist teaching approaches and to
address constraints to the development of constructivist classroom
climates. This chapter describes the development and validation of the
CLES, which assesses student or teacher perceptions of Personal Relevance,
Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control and Student Negotiation in the
classroom. Reports are given of the use of the CLES in a variety of studies,
ranging from qualitative action research studies of classrooms under
epistemological transformation to large-scale quantitative surveys of
classroom environments associated with the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, and the evaluation of urban systemic
reform in Dallas.

INTRODUCTION

We designed the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) to enable

teacher-researchers to monitor their development of constructivist approaches to
teaching school science and mathematics. The original version of the CLES focused on
However, our ongoing research program revealed major socio-cultural constraints (e.g.,
teachers acting in accordance with repressive cultural myths of cold reason and hard
control) that worked in concert to counter the development of constructivist learning
environments (Taylor, in press). By incorporating a critical theory perspective on the
socio-cultural framework of the classroom learning environment, we hoped that the
new CLES would empower reform-minded teachers to address these constraints. As a
result of that study, we made several changes to the format and structure of the original
CLES (Taylor & Fraser, 1991). (Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994)

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of two subsequent studies in which
we examined the viability of the new CLES for monitoring the epistemology of school
science classrooms. First, we conducted a collaborative action research study of two Grade
10 science classes in which the teacher (i.e., Vaille — a coauthor of this paper)
endeavoured to create a constructivist learning environment in which students reflect
critically on their own values and beliefs about the ethics of human organ
transplantation, share control with the teacher of key aspects of the management of
their learning, and engage in meaningful and self-reflective discourse with fellow
students. Second, we trialled the new CLES among 494 students in 41 science classes, in
Grades 8 and 9, to determine its statistical integrity, especially the internal consistency
and independence of each of the five scales.

In this paper, we present the results of the two studies which provide sound evidence
of the viability of a refined version of the new CLES for monitoring constructivist

Published in the International Journal of Educational Research, 1997, 27(4), 293-302

CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

reform in school science classrooms and raise important issues about learning
environment surveys for monitoring processes of teacher-led epistemological reform.

THE NEW CLES

Critical Constructivism

The scales of the CLES were developed from the perspective of critical constructivism
(Taylor, 1994a) which recognises that the cognitive constructive activity of the
individual learner occurs within, and is constrained by, a socio-cultural context. The
purpose of this social epistemology, which combines key elements of the radical
constructivist theory of Ernst von Glasersfeld (1991) and the critical social theory of Jurgen
Habermas (Habermas, 1978; McCarthy, 1985; Pusey, 1987), is to serve as a referent for
the transformation of the socio-cultural reality of the science classroom environment.

Constructivism and critical theory provide unique and complimentary epistemological

perspectives. Constructivism emphasises individual cognitive activity, but
acknowledges negotiation with others as a means of determining the viability of
knowledge. Critical theory emphasises the socio-cultural legitimation of knowledge,
but argues for the emancipation of the individual from repressive cultural myths that
constitute the social reality of legitimating institutions. Significantly, constructivism
and critical theory share a non-foundational epistemological principle:
Because scientific knowledge arises from our attempts to impose order on our
experiential worlds, scientific knowledge may have only a provisional (rather
than absolute) status.

Critical constructivism is a social epistemology that challenges the fundamental tenets

of institutionalised objectivism and the technical rationality of self-interest, individualism
and exploitation that have governed much of the development of twentieth century
modernity and contributed to a legitimation crisis in the profession of education (Schon,
1982). Most importantly, critical constructivism provides a powerful theoretical
framework for understanding the cultural institution of modern science education and
for setting an alternative agenda of establishing ethical communicative interactions
amongst teachers and students in their endeavour to construct meaningful and viable
scientific knowledge while resisting the enculturating imperatives of technical
rationality.

Whereas constructivism has focused the attention of science educators on the sense-
making processes of individual learners by highlighting the central role of prior
knowledge, critical theory focuses our attention on the science classroom as a socio-
cultural site that legitimates, often in subtle and unannounced ways, key aspects of the
social learning environment. Critical theory draws to our attention the ways in which
the social environment constrains the teacher and students to act in accordance with
political agenda whose interests can be antithetical to good meaning-making and
ethical social interactions. Whereas constructivism entails an instrumentalist ethic —
knowledge is valued because it works, or is viable — critical theory challenges us to
adopt a discourse ethic that values (self-) knowledge for its potential to enable us to
communicate openly and richly, thereby realising the full potential of our species' most
distinctive attribute.

2
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Practical and Emancipatory Interests

Habermas's practical and emancipatory knowledge-constitutive interests arise from an

ethical concern with organising social relations on the basis of communication that is
free from what might seem to be natural constraint but which is, in reality, socially
constructed domination, coercion and distortion associated with technical rationality.
In the social sciences, the practical interest gives rise to hermeneutical, or interpretive,
modes of inquiry that seek to understand the meaning-perspectives of actors in social
situations.

In school science, the practical interest is concerned with establishing open discourse in
which teacher and students act communicatively for the purpose of establishing rich
mutual understanding. Conditions for open discourse include an atmosphere of trust
and mutual respect and a commitment (by teacher and students) to disclose valued
ideals and beliefs. However, a concern only with the practical interest can be
disempowering to the extent that understanding is framed by invisible ideologies
rooted in historical taken-for-granted practices that perpetuate social injustices such as
gender inequality, silencing of voices, and culturally exclusive practices.

The emancipatory interest is concerned with a social turn, that is, for making visible
socio-cultural frameworks, especially repressive myths that 'cement' established social
roles and practices. The means by which an emancipatory way of knowing and acting
can be attained is critical discourse which purposively focuses attention on the (often
implicit) validity claims that underpin the norms of social interactions. Two important
principles of critical discourse in the science classroom are: (1) facilitating equality of
opportunity for participation by avoiding/countering domination of more powerful
others (including teacher and students); and (2) raising critical awareness of everyday
ways of knowing and acting by examining critically normative social practices and
their underpinning assumptions.

A classroom learning environment shaped by practical and emancipatory interests is,

therefore, one in which a major emphasis is placed on facilitating students' involvement
in active negotiation with teacher and peers. The object of negotiation is to make
learning relevant to students' out-of-school lives (i.e., lifeworlds), encourage students to
assume control of their learning, and to engender a critical awareness of shared cultural
values and beliefs (e.g., reproductive nature of schooling, objectivist nature of
knowledge, externalised control of assessment) that restrain constructivist reform of
teaching and learning.

Trial Version of the New CLES

The version of the CLES that we used in our study of the two Grade 10 science classes
— a Student Perceived Form 1 — comprised 35 items arranged in five 7-item scales. This
was a revised form of an earlier version that we trialled in a Grade 8 mathematics class
in which the teacher endeavoured to create a constructivist learning environment

1Other forms of the CLES now available are: Student Preferred Form, Teacher Perceived Form,
Teacher Preferred Form.

3
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

(Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994). As a result of that study, we made the following
revisions to the CLES for use in this study.
1. We worded positively nearly all items in order to avoid conceptually complex
syntax associated with negative wording (and therefore greatly reduced the need to
reverse-score item responses).
2. Associated with this strategy, we worded items to refer only to the presence of
positive attributes of a constructivist learning environment, rather than use
'negative' (or conceptually asymmetric) items that refer to activities associated with
non-constructivist learning environments (the responses to which would have been
reverse-scored).
3. We used the prompt 'In this Biotechnology class. . .' throughout the CLES in order
to focus students' thinking on their current (cf., past) learning environments.

Each of the CLES scales used in the Grade 10 science study was designed to obtain
measures of students' perceptions of the frequency of occurrence of five key dimensions
of a constructivist learning environment. Table 1 presents a sample item of each of the
scales.

Personal Relevance Scale

In taking account of students' prior knowledge, we want teachers to broaden their
pedagogical focus beyond students' abilities to recall accurately previously learned
formulae, rules, and laws, and take account of the rich tapestry of experiences that
students bring with them from their out-of-school worlds. Consequently, the Personal
Relevance scale is concerned with the connectedness of school science to students' out-
of-school experiences. We are interested in teachers making use of students' everyday
experiences as a meaningful context for the development of students' scientific
knowledge.

Student Negotiation Scale

Although we recognise the importance of teacher-student negotiations, we wish to
emphasise in the CLES the importance of developing instructional strategies that
promote student-student negotiations as a central classroom activity. The Student
Negotiation scale focuses on whether teachers' pedagogical attention extends beyond
the traditional social activity of students helping each other to work out the correct
answer to a problem. The scale assesses the extent to which opportunities exist for
students to explain and justify to other students their newly developing ideas, to listen
attentively and reflect on the viability of other students' ideas and, subsequently, to
reflect self-critically on the viability of their own ideas.

Shared Control Scale

From a constructivist perspective, we are concerned that students have opportunities
to develop as autonomous learners. We believe that this can be achieved partly by
providing opportunities for students to exercise a degree of control over their learning
that extends beyond the traditional practice of working 'independently' in class on sets
of teacher-prescribed prescribed problems. The Shared Control scale is concerned with
students being invited to share control with the teacher of the learning environment,
including the articulation of their own learning goals, the design and management of
their learning activities, and determining and applying assessment criteria. The
rationale for this scale fits well with the notion of a portfolio culture (Duschl & Gitomar,

4
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

1991) that places a major emphasis on students evaluating their own conceptual
development.

Critical Voice Scale

Of course, we realise that many teachers will feel constrained, at least in the short-
term, by their externally-mandated interest in delivering the curriculum and covering
curriculum content. This technical curriculum interest directs teachers' sense of
accountability for curriculum implementation away from the classroom and towards
external curriculum and assessment authorities. However, we believe that teachers also
should be accountable to their students for their pedagogical actions. From a critical
theory perspective, which promotes an interest in student empowerment, we would
like teachers to demonstrate willingly to the class their pedagogical accountability by
fostering students' critical attitudes towards the teaching and learning activities. The
Critical Voice scale assesses the extent to which a social climate has been established in
which students feel that it is legitimate and beneficial to question the teacher's
pedagogical plans and methods, and to express concerns about any impediments to
their learning.

Table 1
CLES Scales and Sample Items Used in the Grade 10 Science Study

CLES Scales Sample Items

In this Biotechnology class. . .

Personal Relevance: relevance of learning to (1) I learn about the world outside of school.
students' lives.

Critical Voice: legitimacy of expressing a critical (3) It's OK to ask the teacher "why do we have
opinion. to learn this?"

Shared Control: participation in planning, conduct (4) I help the teacher to plan what I'm going to
and assessment of learning. learn.

Uncertainty: provisional status of scientific (8) I learn that the views of science have
knowledge. changed over time.

Student Negotiation: involvement with other (23) I ask other students to explain their ideas.
students in assessing viability of new ideas.

Uncertainty Scale 2
One of the major constraints to constructivist pedagogical reform is the popular
myth that Western science is a universal, mono-cultural (or accultural) endeavour that
provides accurate and certain knowledge of objective reality. The objectivist myth of
certainty implies that scientific knowledge exists independently of collective human
experience and that it has a privileged status. By contrast, we want teachers to provide

2We decided that it was not appropriate to use the Uncertainty scale in this study because
Vaille felt that reforming her teaching in accordance with the remaining 4 scales provided her
with sufficient challenge at the time.

5
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

opportunities for students to experience the inherent uncertainty and limitations of

scientific knowledge. The Uncertainty Scale has been designed to assess the extent to
which opportunities are provided for students to experience scientific knowledge as
arising from theory-dependent inquiry, involving human experience and values,
evolving and non-foundational, and culturally and socially determined.

Additional Attitude Scale

For the purpose of better understanding students' responses to the classroom

learning environment, we included in this study an additional scale to assess students'
attitudes towards their science class. Normally, the scale is not part of the CLES. The
Attitude scale comprised items that asked students about their anticipation of the class,
their sense of the worthwhileness of the class, and the impact of the class on their
interest, enjoyment and understanding. The Attitude scale was based partly on items in
the Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA: Fraser, 1981).

Format and Scoring

Learning environment researchers have used a technique that enables teachers to

readily hand-score the results of questionnaires administered to their own classes.
Items are arranged in a cyclic format: items are groups such that the first item of each
group belongs to the first scale, the second item of each group belongs to the second
scale, and so on. This approach was adopted for the administration of the CLES to
students in the Grade 10 science study. Table 2 shows the allocation of the 42 items of
the questionnaire (35 CLES items, 5 Attitude Scale items).

The version of the CLES that we used in the Grade 10 science study had a 5-point
Likert-type frequency response scale which comprises the categories: Almost Always (5
points), Often (4), Sometimes (3) Seldom (2), and Almost Never (1). Therefore, the
maximum possible score of each 7-item scale was 35 and the minimum possible scale
score was 7.

However, because Vaille's teaching approach deliberately eschewed formal summative

assessment of students' learning outcomes, we excluded two assessment-related items
of the Shared Control scale (i.e., item 28*: I have a say in deciding what will be on the
test; item 40*: I have a say in deciding how my learning is assessed). For this 5-item
scale the maximum possible score, therefore, was 25 and the minimum possible score
was 5. The adjustment to the Shared Control scale resulted in a restriction in the range
of scores for the scale, an outcome that has implications for comparative analysis of
scale scores. The restricted range is indicated in the graphical presentation of results by
changes in the maximum and minimum graphs and an alternative labelling of the y-
axis (in parentheses) (see Figs 1 & 2).

6
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Table 2
Allocation of Items to CLES and Attitude Scales
(7 items/scale)

CLES Scale Item Numbers

Personal Relevance 1 7 13 19 25 31 37
Uncertainty 2 8 14 20 26 32 38
Critical Voice 3 9 15 21 27 33 39
Shared Control 4 10 16 22 28* 34 40*
Student Negotiation 5 11 17 23 29 35 41

Attitude Scale 6 12 18 24 30 36 42

Items without their item numbers underlined are scored 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, respectively, for the responses
Almost Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom and Almost Never. Items with their item numbers underlined
are scores in the reverse manner. Omitted or invalid responses are scored 3. Items 28*, 40* omitted from
analysis of Grade 10 science study.

THE GRADE 10 SCIENCE STUDY

At the time of this study, Vaille was teaching science on a full-time basis in an
independent all-girls secondary school in the Perth metropolitan area and was enrolled
on a part-time basis in a 'Master of Science in Science Education' degree course at
Curtin University. At school, Vaille was teaching a Biotechnology course that she had
designed as part of a compulsory Grade 10 course entitled 'Women and Technology'. In
designing the Biotechnology course, Vaille had drawn on her experiences in an earlier
career as a medical technology researcher to provide students with opportunities to
examine important ethical issues associated with human organ and tissue
transplantation policies and practices.

Critical Constructivist Pedagogy

Vaille had been influenced strongly by coursework that she had completed at Curtin
University and decided to reshape the pedagogy of her Biotechnology course in
accordance with key principles of constructivism and critical theory. The goal of her
reconstructed pedagogy was to enable students to articulate and evaluate their
established ethical values and beliefs by engaging in critical self-reflective thinking,
rather than to memorise factual information for end-of-course assessment. In order to
help achieve this goal, Vaille formally severed the relationship between learning and
summative assessment by abandoning end-of-course grading. Vaille's emancipatory
interest also caused her to consider ways of reducing the power differential between
herself and students. She committed herself to establishing with students a 'caring and
sharing' relationship, rather than a relationship defined in terms of powerful teacher
and powerless students. Vaille reported how she endeavoured to shape her classroom
learning environment in accordance with these pedagogical ideals:

7
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

The students and I interacted as a seminar group on a relatively equal footing

rather than as a 'powerful teacher' and 'powerless pupils'. Firstly, the importance
of students' prior knowledge and values was acknowledged by listening to and
accepting students' views on transplantation. Secondly, students had ample
opportunities to discuss, debate, and reflect on their existing and developing
understandings and values through discussion with the teacher and their peers.
This cooperative learning environment provided opportunities for students to
clarify, question and modify their own belief systems. Both planned and
unplanned discussions occurred, and I preferred to deflect questions back to
students rather than supply a direct answer. Video segments, written case
studies, and role play were used to stimulate debate. (Dawson, 1994, p. 19)

Collaborative Action Research

For her dissertation, Vaille adopted an action research approach and focused her
study on the efficacy of her constructivist teaching innovations in the Biotechnology
course. Action research involves teachers in becoming researchers in their own
classrooms and addressing problems of immediate practical significance to their
teaching (Grundy, 1987; Kemmis & McNiff, 1993; McTaggert, 1991). Vaille decided to
investigate the impact of her constructivist teaching strategies on students' attitudes
and on their abilities to clarify, reflect critically on, and modify their understandings of
ethical issues associated with transplantation. At the end of the year, Vaille presented a
dissertation on her action research study (Dawson, 1994) which was examined by a
third party who had no involvement in any aspect of the study (and who awarded the
report a high distinction grade).

Another member of the research team (Peter), who served as Vaille's research
supervisor, collaborated with her in the role of co-researcher. Collaborative classroom
based research is well-recognised for the benefits that can acccrue to both educational
research and teaching practice (Kyle & McCutcheon, 1984; Saphier, 1982; Shymansky &
Kyle, 1991; Watt & Watt, 1982). What is less-well documented are the dilemmas that
can arise from performing these sometimes conflicting dual roles (Taylor, 1994b; White,
1994). The collaboration between Vaille and Peter broadened the research agenda by
including the CLES as an additional method of generating research data. In the context
of this paper, the research question that framed the generation and analysis of data
occurred within an interpretive case study framework (Erickson, 1986) and asked:

To what extent can the CLES provide a plausible perspective on a constructivist classroom
learning environment for school science?

Data Generation and Analysis

In writing this paper, we generated data from multiple sources both during the
course of the study and as we reflected retrospectively on the data and on our
individual and collective experiences.

Vaille's perspective was elicited from: (1) extracts of the personal journal that she had
maintained during her study; (2) the dissertation that she presented for her Masters
degree (Dawson, 1994); and (3) her contribution to drafts of this paper. Students'
perspectives were elicited from: (1) transcripts of interviews of selected students

8
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

conducted both during and on completion of the 10-week course; (2) a video-recording
of several lessons; (3) the results of a survey of perceived usefulness of teaching
strategies administered on completion of the course; (4) the results of administering
towards the end of the course four of the five scales of the CLES, together with an
additional attitude scale; and (5) transcribed recordings of some of the research team's
discussions.

Rigor and Ethics

We attempted to optimise the plausibility of the results of the study by means of the
strategy of triangulating data (Denzin, 1988) from multiple sources. As we analysed the
data and developed interpretive assertions, we purposively sought disconfirming
evidence and examined discrepant cases. For example, as well as focusing our analysis
on several students in Class C — Julie, Alex, Susan — who accepted readily Vaille's
invitation to participate in transforming the classroom learning environment, we
included Kirsti, one of four Class B students who seemed to feel uncomfortable with
their new learning roles. We modified our assertions by taking into account the full
range of students' perspectives and actions. Fig 2 displays questionnaire results of two
students with widely differing attitudes and classroom learning environment
perceptions (i.e, Alex and Kirsti).

Permission was sought formally from parents for the participation in the study of their
daughters. Vaille explained to students the purpose and nature of her study but,
because of logistical problems, could not allow students the option of transferring to a
Grade 10 Biotechnology class that was not involved in her study. All information
obtained from individual students (i.e., questionnaires, interviews) was recorded with
consent. In reports on the study, the name of the school has been ommitted and
students have been given pseudonyms to protect their identities. Vaille decided that
she wished to be identified as a full participant in the study and to have her real name
published in reports on the study.

Results

The results of the Grade 10 science study are expressed in the form of interpretive
assertions which constitute emergent theory grounded in empirical data (Erickson,
1986). Evidentiary warrants for each of the assertions are presented below.

Assertion 1 When combined with data from other sources, the CLES can provide
plausible accounts of constructivist learning environments in school
science.

Assertion 2 In a classroom under epistemological transformation, multiple and

conflicting learning environments can coexist as different students
embrace or reject epistemological change. Teaching strategies aimed
at creating learning environments for empowering students (eg.,
critical voice, shared control) can be counter-productive for students
who prefer more teacher-centred learning environments.

Table 3 shows the results of the questionnaire (4 CLES scales, 1 attitude scale) for each
of Classes B and C. These results have been displayed graphically in Fig 1, from which

9
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

it is apparent that the two classes had generally positive learning environment
perceptions. The two classes recorded almost identical positive perceptions on two key
dimensions of the learning environment (i.e., personal relevance, critical voice). However,
the learning environments of the two classes differed in other respects (i.e., shared
control, student negotiation). Overall, Class C students perceived a more positive
learning environment and reported a generally more favourable attitude towards
lessons.

Measures of the perceptions and attitudes of two students — Kirsti and Alex — are
presented in Table 4 and displayed in Fig 2. Alex represents the majority of conforming
students, especially in Class C, who reported positive learning experiences and
favourable attitudes. Kirsti was one of the four dissident students of Class B who
reported a much less favourable attitude and less positive learning experiences.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of CLES Scales and Attitude Scale for Classes B & C

Class B Class C
(N=9) (N=10)

Scale Mean Score Standard Mean Score Standard

Deviation Deviation

Attitude 22.1 4.8 25.8 4.3

Personal 25.6 5.2 26.5 4.8

Relevance
Critical Voice 28.0 3.9 27.9 2.8

Shared Control 14.1 5.2 19.5 3.4

Student 23.9 4.8 25.8 4.3

Negotiation

Personal Relevance

In both classes, most students perceived that what they were learning in class often was
related directly to the world outside of school. Students' perceptions of the high degree
of connectedness between classroom activities and the outside world is not surprising
when one considers that one of Vaille's main goals was to engage students in thinking
critically about their own (often implicit) views of the ethics of human organ
transplantation which is a social issue that attracts much attention in the daily print and
electronic media. Many of the learning activities were designed to 'bring the outside
world into the classroom' and to challenge students to explore their own ethical beliefs
as they considered the experiences and values of people involved directly in the
practice of transplantation.

10
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

In response to a questionnaire that Vaille had designed to evaluate her teaching

strategies, most students reported that amongst the most useful activities were role
playing a hospital ethics committee and analysing by means of 'conflict mapping'
video-recorded case studies of transplant recipients and donor families (Dawson, 1994).
For example, consider the following extract of a student interview:
Vaille: The activity that we did today, which is a 'conflict map'. . . what did
you think of that?
Julie: Yes, that was quite good, because you get to consider what the people
are sort of going through at the time of the transplant. You sort of
have to think about what the donor's family are feeling, and what the
recipients are feeling. (Dawson, 1994, p. 38)

36
Almost Always max
34
32
30
28
Often
26
Class C
(AA) 24

22
Class B
Sometimes
(Ofn) 20
18
16
(Sms)
Seldom 14
12

(Sdm) 10
8
Almost Never min
6
(AN) 4
Relevance Voice Control Negotiation Attitude
Figure 1. Learning environment perceptions and attitudes of Classes B and C

However, some students did not appreciate the relevance of activities such as class
discussion that were designed to promote critical self-reflective thinking. Instead, they
focused on the factual content of the course and complained that the course had not
taught them much more than what they had not known already. For example, consider
the following comments of Kirsti who was one of the group of four students in Class B
with relatively unfavourable attitudes toward the class:
Kirsti: I think it's good to have like open discussions in this type of subject. But
you don't need it in maths and science, as I said before, because what you're
going to learn can't be changed by discussing it.
Peter: You didn't feel like you learned anything new?
Kirsti: [A]fter the first couple of lessons. . . . I felt we'd learnt it all. . . . [It was]
general knowledge basically, and it was obvious.

11
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

(CLES Interview, p. 8)

Fig 2 indicates that Kirsti perceived her learning activities to be personally relevant only
a little more than sometimes. She seemed unable to make sense of activities that
involved class discussion, particulary when discussion involved the expression of
students' opinions. For Kirsti, expressing personal opinions is an activity that detracts
from the relevance of learning science. Learning science is relevant when she is
involved in a fact-gathering activity that adds to her store of knowledge about the
external world, rather than a discursive activity that challenges her to reflect critically
on her scientific knowledge or on the usefulness of that knowledge in the social world
beyond the classroom.

For teachers who wish to make learning science an activity that is directly related to the
social world outside of the classroom, a major challenge lies in convincing students
such as Kirsti that science is much more than a technical body of objective facts. The
intersection of science and society provides teachers with a compelling context for
enabling students to consider how scientific knowledge can challenge society's
established views of ethical practices and how emergent ethical positions can, in turn,
shape the conduct of science.

Table 4
Scale Scores of Selected Students

Scale Scores

Student Attitude Relevance Voice Control Negotiation

Alex 33 32 33 19 30

Kirsti 20 23 31 11 23

12
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

40
38
36
Almost Always max
34
32
30 Alex
Often 28
26
(AA)
24
22
Sometimes
(Ofn) 20
18
Kirsti
(Sms) 16
Seldom 14
12
(Sdm) 10
8
Almost Never min
6
(AN) 4
2
0
Relevance Voice Control Negotiation Attitude

Figure 2. Learning environment perceptions and attitudes of Alex and Kirsti

Student Negotiation

One of the main ways in which Vaille endeavoured to facilitate students expressing
their own ideas in class was to create an empathetic and safe environment that
encouraged students to disclose and discuss their feelings. Because of the sensitive
nature of the topic, which was heightened by some students' personal family
involvements in organ transplantation, Vaille was assiduous in her attempts to
establish and maintain social norms for a 'caring and sharing' classroom learning
environment. This meant that, from time to time, she focussed discussion on the issue
of appropriate rules of classroom discourse. Amongst these rules were 'respect for
others' opinions' and 'tolerance of diversity of opinion'. It was Vaille's belief that these
rules were essential for creating a learning environment in which students listened
attentively to other students, expressed openly their own thoughts and feelings and,
consequently, reflected self-critically on their own established ethical beliefs and values.

In Class C, students reported that the opportunity for negotiation with their peers
occurred often (see Fig 1). From Vaille's perspective, students in this class became
increasingly willing to share their private thoughts as they came to realise that their
views would be listened to in an empathetic manner. In small group activities, such as
role playing a hospital ethics committee whose task was to select and reject potential
organ recipients (including children), these students generally expressed their feelings
and ideas forcefully but constructively as they struggled to reach consensus on 'life and
death' issues. The extent to which students in this class valued these experiences is
encapsulated in the following extracts of Vaille's interview of two students:

13
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Vaille: There has been quite a bit of discussion with other students. How do
you find that?
Alex: Actually, at the start, when we were having our discussion I was
thinking what I had to say: and then I heard all these different points
of view which was really interesting.
Julie: [S]ometimes you don't think of everything, and you're sort of getting
other people that sort of make you think 'Oh yes, why didn't I think of
that?'. . . You sort of get to voice your own view more, which is sort of
like philosophy where you talk a lot.
(Dawson, 1994, p. 56)

By contrast, Class B students perceived opportunities for negotiation with their peers to
have occurred less frequently. Although some 'successful' negotiation took place in
small groups, in the whole class forum students tended to talk at each other rather than
with each other. This unreflective type of discourse originated from the four students
with relatively unfavourable attitudes. They frequently punctuated whole-class
discourse with disgruntled outbursts that had the effect of countering Vaille's attempts
to create conditions for a caring and sharing atmosphere. Although they were keen to
voice their opinions, the four students were unwilling to listen attentively to, or respect
the views of, their peers. Kirsti admitted that, although frequent opportunities existed
for negotiation with fellow students, to consider the views of other students was of
little benefit to her because of her unwillingness to change her established mind-set:
Teacher: What about the discussion of other students? Does that have any
effect on your own views?
Kirsti: Not really. Only like for me to argue against them . . .
Teacher: Is that because you already have made up your mind on what you
think?
Kirsti: Yes, If my mind's set then I don't change my view of what we're
talking about.
(Dawson, 1994, p. 40)

For students such as Kirsti, who do not attach much value to open discourse in science
class and whose interest in science learning is shaped largely by a conception of adding
to their individual knowledge store, there is not much benefit to be gained in taking
seriously the personal opinions of other students.

For teachers who wish to foster conditions for the type of open discourse that
flourished in Vaille's Class C, the challenge is to persuade students such as Kirsti of the
legitimacy of negotiation as a normal part of both science and learning science. In order
to change their habituated discursive practices, students might need to be convinced
that science, itself, is constituted by discourses, and that a rich understanding of science
involves learning how to participate in a discourse of not only 'talking science' (i.e., the
technical agenda) but also of 'talking about learning science'. In creating conditions for
the meta-discourse of talking about learning science, teachers need to foster in students
a need for mutual respect and understanding, and a need for constructive self-
disclosure of their concerns about strange new ways of learning that involve
collaboration with other students.

Shared Control

14
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

A major difference in the learning environments of the two classes was the extent to
which students perceived that they shared control with Vaille of their learning
activities. Figure 1 shows that, although Class C students perceived that they often (on
the modified response scale) had opportunities to be involved in the classroom
management of their own learning, the students of Class B perceived this to happen
much less frequently. Although Vaille did not involve students in selecting the teaching
strategies, as the course progressed she actively encouraged students to modify the
manner in which teaching strategies were implemented.

For example, one of Vaille's teaching strategies involved students in the design of a
questionnaire that they used subsequently to interview up to ten people about their
views towards human organ transplantation. Not only was this activity designed to
enable the students to reflect on and clarify their own views, but also it provided
opportunities for students to accept responsibility for the management of their own
learning. Vaille negotiated with the class about the size of their working groups and the
time for completion of the activity. She also gave them opportunities in class to
determine the content and length of their own questionnaires.

Because of Vaille's success in creating conditions for open discourse in Class C, students
felt that they shared control with their teacher of the classroom learning environment,
particulary in relation to assessing the success of their own learning. In Class C,
students generally responded positively to opportunities for self-determination and, as
the course progressed, engaged with increasing enthusiasm in interactive and self-
reflective activities. The openness of the classroom learning environment for enabling
students to disclose to Vaille their tentative understandings and the progress of their
small-group projects is evident in the following extract of an interview about students'
responses to the CLES.
Peter: [Item] Number 10: 'I help the teacher decide how well my learning is
going'.
Alex: I said 'Almost Always'. . . because we just have a really open
relationship with the class, so . . . you were able to tell [the teacher] if
you were understanding things and, you know, how progress was
going with your decisions.
(CLES Interview, p. 5)

By contrast, Vaille reported that the four dissident students of Class B were at their
most restless during this type of activity. They did not respond positively to
opportunities in class to manage positively their own learning. Indeed, they perceived a
lack of opportunity to control their own learning. For example, Figure 2 shows that
Kirsti perceived that she seldom had opportunities to control her own learning.
Although Kirsti and her friends had the same opportunities for managing their own
learning as other students, they were reluctant to do so. Although they conformed to
Vaille's requirements for undertaking small-group activities, they did so begrudgingly
and directed little creative energy or enthusiasm into their work. During whole-class
discussions, they frequently seized the (counter-productive) opportunity to voice
personal animosities with other students, action that probably is attributable to their
dissatisfaction with unfamiliar teaching and learning roles and challenging classroom
social dynamics. They seemed to respond most favourably when the goals of the lesson
were relatively straightforward and explicit, that is, when the classroom approximated
a 'normal' teacher-centred learning environment that offered them little direct control of

15
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

their learning activities. These students may be likened to Belenky et al's. (1986) separate
knower who views the teacher as a provider of external knowledge. When Vaille did not
subscribe to their learning role expectations as passsive receivers of official knowledge
they responded by rejecting her attempts to transform the classroom environment.

Teachers who wish to share control with their students of the classroom learning
environment are likely to face a dilemma, especially when they wish to engage students
in transforming the learning environment:
How to foster students' participation in creating a more student-centred learning
environment without imposing the requirement on unwilling students?
Part of the solution might be to avoid sudden and dramatic change that is likely to
threaten insecure students, especially students who already have a less than favourable
predisposition towards science, the teacher, or the school, or whose epistemological
mind-set is likely to militate against the demands of constructing new learning roles
that require the seemingly perverse mix of increased autonomy and increased social
accountability.

Critical Voice

The other similarity in the learning environment of the two classes was the common
student perception that expressing a critical opinion about teaching and learning
activities had a high degree of legitimacy (critical voice scale). Vaille deliberateley
adopted a teaching role that, as the school term progressed, changed from provider of
factual information (eg., biomedical technicalities of organ transplantation) to facilitator
of students expressing their own ideas, especially in the forum of the whole class. In the
latter role, she endeavoured to empower students by inviting them to provide critical
commentary on the efficacy of her innovative teaching strategies and by showing
respect for students' opinions by taking seriously their feelings and involving them in
decisions about teaching strategies.

For example, after the first three weeks of the course, Vaille invited students to be
critical of the usefulness of their personal journals. She had introduced this activity in
an attempt to facilitate students' self-reflective thinking. Although a few students
valued the activity, most students rejected it as lacking relevance to them. Vaille was
faced with a dilemma. Although she believed that this activity was potentially
beneficial for students inasmuch as it would facilitate their self-reflective thinking by
providing an audit trail of their conceptual development, she felt that it was better not
to compel them to undertake such a highly unpopular activity. Consequently, she
discontinued the use of personal journals as a mandatory learning activity.

Although both classes had identical perceptions of the extent to which it was legitimate
to express critical opinions of the learning environment, there was a distinct contrast
between Classes B and C in the way in which students sought to express their critical
voices. Class C students (who welcomed the teaching innovations) responded
positively to opportunities to provide Vaille with constructive criticism about the
impact on their learning of innovative teaching strategies. However, Vaille reported
that these students tended to express their criticism in an almost apologetic manner.
During an interview about students' responses to the CLES, it became apparent that
some students who had had very positive learning experiences during the course felt
very uncomfortable with the idea of expressing themselves in a way that might be

16
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

interpreted as being critical of the teacher, especially when they did not believe that
criticism was warranted:
Peter: The first question is: 'It's OK to ask the teacher 'Why do we have to
learn this?''.
Susan: I had 'seldom'. . . [because it] sounds like a very negative thing to say.
. . . Everything we did in the course was relevant to the topic we were
doing, so she didn't go off on something else.
(CLES Interview, p. 3)

By contrast, Class B students were very willing to offer critical comments to Vaille
about the efficacy of her innovative teaching strategies. For example, consider the
following extract of an interview that Vaille conducted with Kirsti about the use of
personal journals:
Vaille: Some of the activities that we've done so far, I just wanted to ask you
what you thought about them. What about the personal journal?
Kirsti: It's pointless. . . . We don't even refer back to it. . . . I don't, and I don't
think anybody else does. And we don't need it. What use has it got to
us?
(Dawson, 1994, p. 44)

In the context of the classroom, the responses of Class B were dominated by the four
students with unfavourable attitudes who exploited the opportunity of engaging in
critical discourse to pursue their personal agendas by expressing animosity toward
other students and 'testing' the limits of acceptable classroom behaviour. This
unexpected response indicates the 'double-edged' nature of the 'sword' of student
empowerment.

A challenge for teachers who wish to foster critical discourse in their science classes is,
therefore, to harness the discourse in such a way that it focuses students' self-reflective
critical thinking on the socio-cultural barriers that hinder their learning. For example,
critical discourse might induce students to reflect self-critically on their understandings
of the nature of science or on the implicit social norms that constrain their classroom
roles as social learners. Used with care and respect, critical discourse might prove to be
an invaluable means of deconstructing barriers to open discourse in which students'
valued beliefs are disclosed and examined non-judgementally. It seems likely, however,
that critical discourse can be potentially threatening, disruptive and divisive, and that
students could benefit best from a gradual initiation. Some students are likely to need
encouragement to be critical and others are likely to need to be restrained. In both
cases, the teacher should ensure that the legitimacy of critical discourse is understood
to depend on mutually agreed social norms that govern its use; the 'bottom line' is to
maintain a sharing and caring environment of mutual respect.

Plausibility of the CLES

The Grade 10 study provides compelling evidence of the viability of the CLES for
providing a plausible perspective of a teacher's attempts to transform her classroom
learning environment in accordance with a critical constructivist epistemology. By
triangulating data from a variety of sources, including the teacher, selected students,
and a collaborative researcher, we were able to formulate a grounded theory (i.e.,
Assertion 1) that signals the potential explanatory power of the CLES for other teacher-

17
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

researcher studies that have a similar transformative agenda. In this study, the
explanatory power of the CLES was evidenced by its ability to identify multiple
learning environments within the one classroom. By focusing our analysis of CLES data
on selected students, we were able to discriminate between the somewhat conflicting
learning environments of students who embraced epistemological reform and those
who tended to reject it (i.e., Assertion 2).

REFINEMENTS TO THE NEW CLES

In response to the results of the Grade 10 science study and an earlier Grade 8
mathematics study (Taylor, Fraser & White, 1994), we made a number of refinements to
the new CLES. Of particular concern to us were the numerous complaints from
students who perceived a repetitiveness amongst items of the CLES. Some students
wrote critical comments next to CLES items; and other students, particularly those with
less than favourable attitudes towards their teachers' constructivist reforms, either
failed to respond to all items or resorted to selecting only the 'Sometimes' response
category. Subsequent interviews with some of these students indicated a need for
greater meaningfulness when completing the CLES.

It has been a tradition of learning environment research to organise the presentation of

questionnaire items in a format that prevents respondents from identifying the scales to
which items belong. The underpinning assumption, which derives from the
psychometric research paradigm, is that respondents should answer each question 'on
its merits' rather than engage in an interpretive exercise that might result in them
developing an understanding of what the questions are 'really asking'. It has been
assumed that if respondents understand the significance of an item, from the
researcher's perspective, then their response might be biased by their attitude towards
the purpose of the research. In other words, traditional approaches to research have
sought to find ways of making the research agenda invisible to respondents. However,
the results of our research on the new CLES caused us to challenge our assumption that
by presenting items in a decontextualised way meaningful responses can be ensured.

We endeavoured to provide students with a more meaningful context for responding to

the CLES items by making the following refinements to the new CLES , a copy of which
is contained in the appendix.
1. We abandoned the traditional cyclic format of learning environment instruments in
favour of presenting items grouped in their respective scales, and provided a 'user-
friendly' title for each scale and for the whole questionnaire.
2. We produced a more economical 30-item version by reducing each of the five
seven-item scales to a total of six items, by rejecting items whose wording was
conceptually complex, and by minimising the use of negatively-worded items so
that only a single negatively-worded item remains (i.e., Item 6).
Table 5 shows the scale membership of items in our refined version of the new CLES.

Table 5
Allocation of Items to Refined CLES Scales
(6 items /scale)

18
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

CLES Scale Item Numbers

Personal Relevance 1 2 3 4 5 6

Uncertainty 7 8 9 10 11 12

Critical Voice 13 14 15 16 17 18

Shared Control 19 20 21 22 23 24

Student Negotiation 25 26 27 28 29 30

NB Item 6 should be reverse-scored

Of course, further research is needed to determine the viability of these changes to the
CLES, changes that might be regarded as somewhat radical when viewed from the
perspective of the tradition of learning environment research. We have taken a step in
that direction by conducting a large-scale survey of the refined 30-item CLES.

LARGE-SCALE SURVEY

We were interested in determining the viability of the refined 30-item Student

Perceived version of the CLES for use in large-scale survey research, especially research
associated with systemic teacher professional development programs that utilise
constructivism as a major referent. The potential usefulness of the CLES would be
enhanced by evidence of its statistical robustness, particularly the soundness of the five
scales. We seized the opportunity of including the CLES in the Australian component
of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) that was about to be
conducted in Australian secondary schools. The TIMSS is the latest in a series of
worldwide studies sponsored by the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) which examines the systemic provision of educational
opportunity and its relationship with educational attainment. The Australian
component of the study is organised by the Australian Council for Educational
Research (ACER).

In Western Australia, the ACER randomly selected a sample of the State's 13-year old
student population in Grades 8 and 9 in both government and independent schools.
During November 1994, selected schools which agreed to participate in the TIMSS were
sent a package of pencil-and-paper instruments designed to obtain measures of student
background information, achievement and attitude. We included the CLES in the
package and, subsequently, received completed CLES questionnaires from a total of 494
13-year old students in 41 Grade 8 and Grade 9 science classes from 13 schools.

The CLES data were entered into an electronic file for statistical analysis. Missing
responses were assigned the mid-range value of 3, which corresponds to the frequency
response category 'Sometimes'. The data were subjected to item analysis using the
individual student as the unit of analysis.

19
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Internal Consistency of 30-Item CLES Scales

Table 6 shows the mean scale scores and standard deviation values. These results are
useful inasmuch as they provide the first set of normative data for comparing the
results of future research studies in school science that make use of the 30-item CLES.

Of particular interest in this study are the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients which
provide a measure of the internal consistency of each of the five CLES scales. In
learning environment research, alpha coefficient values in excess of 0.70 are regarded
generally as indicating satisfactory degrees of internal consistency (Fraser, 1986).

In the case of the 30-item CLES, four of the scales (i.e., Personal Relevance, Critical Voice,
Shared Control, Student Negotiation) have alpha reliabilities that greatly exceed this value
and can be regarded, therefore, as having highly satisfactory degrees of internal
consistency for the sample of 494 13 year-old science students involved in this study,
especially for relatively short scales containing only six items. Although the remaining
scale (Uncertainty) has a relatively lower alpha value (r=0.72), it also has satisfactory
internal consistency for this sample.

Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of 30-Item CLES (N=494)

CLES Scale Mean Score Standard Deviation Alpha Reliability

Personal Relevance 20.6 4.8 0.82

Uncertainty 18.7 4.3 0.72

Critical Voice 18.7 6.2 0.88

Shared Control 10.9 5.1 0.91

Student Negotiation 19.9 5.5 0.89

Independence of Each 6-Item CLES Scale

In learning environment research, it is important that each scale of a multi-scale

instrument is sufficiently independent of the other scales for it to provide a measure of
a unique construct. One way of determining statistically the independence of a set of
scales is to calculate a scale intercorrelation matrix which provides a measure of the
extent to which the scores of each scale are independent of those of the other scales.

Table 7 shows the intercorrelation matrix for the 30-item CLES scores obtained from the
494 13 year-old science students. The values range from a low of 0.17 (Shared Control-
Personal Relevance) to a high of 0.38 (Critical Voice-Student Negotiation), and indicate, for
this study, that each of the five CLES scales has a satisfactory degree of independence.
It appears that the CLES scales assess distinct, but somewhat overlapping, aspects of
classroom environments.

20
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Table 7
Intercorrelation of Scale Scores for 30-Item CLES (N=494)

Uncertainty Critical Voice Shared Control Student Negotiation

Personal 0.33 0.28 0.17 0.35

Relevance

Uncertainty 0.29 0.28 0.28

Critical Voice 0.30 0.38

Shared Control 0.27

Future Use

The analyses of the data from our survey of 494 13 year-old science students provide
positive indications of the statistical robustness of the 30-item CLES. These results
encourage us to recommend that the CLES be used in evaluations of systemic reform
initiatives that utilise constructivism as a major referent for the transformation of school
science classroom learning environments.

CONCLUSION

This study has provided substantial evidence that the Student Perceived version of the
new Constructivist Learning Environment Survey can be used to monitor the
development of constructivist learning environments.

Our collaborative classroom-based case study of a teacher's attempts to transform the

social reality of her Grade 10 science class in accordance with a constructivist
epistemology showed the value of the new CLES for highlighting the somewhat
beguiling co-existence of multiple learning environments. Analysis of multiple sources
of data led us to attribute this phenomenon to students' varying responses to the press
for radical changes to their learning roles. We are confident that teacher-researchers
conducting action research studies of their own teaching, particularly studies that
involve a constructivist transformation of their classroom environments, will find the
new CLES valuable for contributing to the compilation of fine-grained analyses that
yield rich profiles of selected students. In this type of study, the CLES can be used as a
heuristic device to enrich a teacher-researcher's understanding of the impact on
students of her teaching innovations and, importantly, alert her to the possible counter-
productive impact of her reform endeavours.

We must remind the reader that only four of the five scales of the CLES were examined
in the Grade 10 science study. The conceptual viability of the Uncertainty scale, which
focuses on the provisional status of scientific knowledge, remains to be tested
empirically. As a result of this study, we produced a refined 30-item version of the
CLES by departing somewhat radically with established learning environment

21
CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

conventions. We eliminated most negatively-worded items and grouped items in their

respective scales.

The statistical viability of all five scales of the 30-item CLES was examined in our large-
scale study of nearly 500 13 year-old science students. The results show that, for this
randomly-selected sample, the six-item CLES scales have highly satisfactory degrees of
internal consistency and independence. Therefore, we are confident in recommending
the CLES for use in monitoring systemic constructivist-oriented reforms in science
education.

REFERENCES

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of
knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Connelly, M. & Clandinin, J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of
experience. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dawson, V. (1994). An emancipatory approach to the teaching of ethics. Unpublished MSc
thesis. Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Denzin, N. K. (1988). Triangulation. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research,
methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 511-513). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-159). New York: Macmillan.
Fraser, B.J. (1981). Test of science-related attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Fraser, B.J. (1986). Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.
Fraser, B.J. (1994). Research on classroom and school learning climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 493-541). New York:
Macmillan.
Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.) (1991). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation,
antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: The Falmer Press.
Habermas, J. (1978). Legitimation crisis. T. McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Kemmis, S & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed). Geelong: Deakin
University Press.
Kyle, D. W. & McCutcheon, G. (1984). Collaborative research: Development and issues.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(2), 173-179.
McCarthy. T. (1985). The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas (3rd printing). Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
McNiff, J. (1993). Teaching as learning: An action research approach. London: Routledge.
Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas. London: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock
Saphier, J. (1982). The knowledge base on teaching: It's here, now! In T. M. Amabile &
M. L. Stubbs. (Eds.), Psychological research in the classroom (pp. 76-95). Brandeis
University: Pergamon Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic
Books.
Shymansky, J. A. & Kyle, W. C. (1991). Establishing a research agenda: The critical issues of
science curriculum reform. Manhattan, KS: The National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Kansas State University.

22
 CLES Taylor, Dawson & Fraser

Taylor, P.C. (1992). An interpretive study of the role of teacher beliefs in the implementation of
constructivist theory in a secondary mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral thesis.
Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Taylor, P.C. (1993). The influence of researcher beliefs on constructivist teaching
practice. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics
education (pp. 267-297). Washington, DC: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Taylor, P.C. (1993, Nov). Teacher education and interpretive research: Overcoming the myths
that blind us. Paper presented at the 1993 International Conference on Interpretive
Research in Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei,
Republic of China, November.
Taylor, P.C. (1994a). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Science
and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Taylor, P.C. (1994b, Dec). Collaborative classroom-based action research: Persuasion or
coercion? Paper presented at the symposium on Contemporary Approaches to
Research in Mathematics, Science and Environmental Education, Deakin
University, Burwood, Victoria.
Taylor, P.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1991, April). Development of an instrument for assessing
constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L.A.
Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J. & White, L.R. (1994, April). The revised CLES: A questionnaire for
educators interested in the constructivist reform of school science and mathematics. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Watt, D. H. & Watt, H. (1982). Design criteria for collaborative classroom research. In T.
M. Amabile & M.L. Stubbs (Eds.), Psychological research in the classroom (pp. 134-143).
Brandeis University: Pergamon Press.
White, L. (1994, March). Mathematics/science teacher, teacher/researcher, constructivist:
Multiple roles and multiple dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual conference of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim, California.

23

View publication stats