conceptual paper creative writing

7/25/2019 conceptual paper creative writing

1/9

A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment

perceptions, epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches

Kudret Ozkal, Ceren Tekkaya 1, Jale Cakiroglu 2, Semra Sungur

Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, 06531-Ankara, Turkey

A B S T R A C TA R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 8 June 2007

Received in revised form 7 January 2008

Accepted 18 May 2008

Keywords:

Constructivist learning environment

Scientic epistemological belief

Learning approach

This study proposed a conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment

perception variables (Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control, and Student

Negotiation), scientic epistemological belief variables (xed and tentative), and learning approach. It was

proposed that learning environment perceptions predict learning approach directly and indirectly through

scientic epistemological beliefs. Constructivist Learning Environment Survey, Scientic Epistemological

Beliefs, and Learning Approach Questionnaire were administered to 1152 Turkish eight grade elementary

school students to measure constructivist learning environment perceptions, scientic epistemological

beliefs, and learning approach, respectively. Path analysis supported the model in general, although not all

proposed paths were signicant. All constructivist learning environment perception variables were found to

predict learning approach directly and indirectly through tentative beliefs. The relationship between xed

beliefs and learning approach was not signicant. Fixed beliefs were signicantly related only with personal

relevance variable.

2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The importance of the classroom learning environment has been

increasingly recognized internationally over the past 30 years. Research

in education that focuses on classroom and school-level learning

environments has produced promising ndings leading to an enhance-

ment of the teaching and learning process. Learning environment refers

to the social, psychological, and pedagogical context in which learning

occurs and which affects students achievement and attitudes (Fraser,

1998). The role of teachersand studentsperceptions of the classroom

environment in inuencing cognitive and affective outcomes has been

addressed in many learning environment studies and a strong relation

between student outcomes and their perceptions about their learning

environment has been shown by many researchers (Fraser & Fisher,

1982; den Brok, Brekelmans, & Wubbels, 2004).

Studies on the psychosocial learning environment have centered onthe development and validation of instruments (Aldridge & Fraser,

2000; Fraser, Fisher, & McRobbie, 1996), the impact of the learning

environment on studentscognitive and affective learning outcomes in

varioussubjectsand contexts(Goh & Fraser, 1995,1998), thecomparison

of actual and preferred learning environments (Henderson, Fisher, &

Fraser, 2000), and the diversity of the learning environment perceivedby student subgroups (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000). Earlier research also

notes that there are gender, subject, grade-level, school type, school

location (city and rural), and ethnic-related differences in classroom

learning environments (Waldrip & Fisher, 2000).

During the past 30 years, the eld of learning environment has

undergone remarkable growth, diversication, and internationaliza-

tion. Although majority of early learning environment studies have

been conducted in Western countries, Asian researchers in the last

decade have made important contributions to this eld (Fraser, 1998).

Studies conducted in Indonesia (Margianti, Fraser, & Aldridge, 2001),

Singapore (Fraser & Chionch, 2000), Korea (Kim, Fisher, & Fraser, 1999;

Lee & Fraser, 2001) and Brunei (Scott & Fisher, 2001) replicated prior

research in that psychosocial aspects of learning environment were

found to be an important determinant of student outcomes. Despite

the fact that a great deal of learning environment research has been

conducted all over around the world, Turkey, with few related work

(Arisoy, Cakiroglu, & Sungur, 2007; Cakiroglu, Tekkaya, & Rakici, 2007;

Telli, Cakiroglu, & denBrok, 2006) is a relatively new participant in the

learning environment domain.

1.1. The constructivist learning environment

Constructivism has become a leading theoretical position in

education and made a strong impact in science education since

1980 (Tobin & Tippins, 1993). This view of learning has an important

effect on the development of teaching and learning approaches that

Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 71-79

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 2104066; Fax: +90 312 2107984.

E-mail addresses: [email protected](C. Tekkaya),[email protected](J. Cakiroglu),

[email protected](S. Sungur).1 Tel.: +90 312 2104194; fax: +90 312 2107984.2 Tel.: +90 312 2104051; fax: +90 312 2107984.

1041-6080/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.005

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.005http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10416080http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10416080http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.005mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/9

focus on studentsunderstanding. The main tenet of constructivism is

that learner constructs his/her own knowledge by anchoring new

information to pre-existing knowledge (Duffy & Cunnigham, 1996).

The constructivist classroom is a learner-centered environment in

which thepast experience of the students is respected, construction of

knowledge is interactive, inductive, and collaborative, and questions

are valued. In such classroom, the teacher acts as a facilitator, provides

students with variety of experiences from which learning is built and

maximizes social interactions between learners so that they cannegotiate meaning (Brooks & Brooks, 1999). To assess the degree to

which constructivist teaching and learning approaches are established

in the classroom, the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey

(CLES) was developed (Taylor, Fraser, & White, 1994). While the CLES

was developed to assist researchers and teachers to assess the degree

to which a particular classrooms environment is consistent with

epistemological assumptions, it also provides feedback to teachers to

help them to reshape their teaching practices (Aldridge, Fraser, Taylor,

& Chen, 2000). The rst version of the CLES, consistent with radical

constructivism (von Glasersfeld, 1989), was introduced by Taylor and

Fraser in 1991. Six years later, the revised version of the CLES (Taylor,

Fraser, & Fisher, 1997) was developed based on the notions of radical

constructivism and critical theory. Johnson and McClure (2004)

revised the CLES and developed a new shortened version of the

CLES. This new version of the instrument included the ve original

scales but the number of items in each scale was reduced from six to

four.Table 1 provides a description of each of these scales together

with a sample item.

The CLES has been used in several studies conducted in different

parts of the world, including a study of science education reform

efforts in Korea (Kim et al., 1999), a study of the relationship between

classroom environment and student academic efcacy in Australia

and England (Dorman & Adams, 2004), a comparison of classroom

environments in Taiwan and Australia (Aldridge et al., 2000), an

investigation of the relationships between studentsscientic episte-

mological beliefs and their perceptions of constructivist learning

environments (Tsai, 2000), a cross-national validation of the CLES in

mathematics classes in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom

(Dorman, Adams, & Ferguson, 2001), a case study of a tertiary

computer classroom in Thailand (Wanpen & Fisher, 2006). For

example, using qualitative and quantitative methods, Aldridge et al.

(2000) conducted a cross-national study of science classroom

environments in Taiwan and Australia. In this study, the CLES and

the attitude scale were administered to a sample of 1081 grades 8 and9 general science students from 50 classes in Western Australia and

1879 grades 79 students from 50 classes in Taiwan. Results of the

study indicated that science classrooms in each country had a similar

overall emphasis on constructivism, although different aspects are

emphasized more or less in each country. A comparison of CLES scale

mean scores in two countries revealed that Australian students

perceived more Critical Voice and Student Negotiation and less

Personal Relevance, Uncertainty and Shared Control than students in

Taiwan. Authors also noted that the interpretation of data which

measures constructivist approaches from a Western viewpoint, could

be limited if socio-cultural factors are not considered. For that reason,

they suggested that comparisons of the results of surveys adminis-

tered in differentcountries shouldbe done with caution. In Korea, Kim

et al. (1999)assessed new general science curriculum grounded in a

constructivist view. A sample of 1083 tenth and eleventh grade

students and24 science teachersin 12different schools completed the

actual and preferred versions of the CLES and a seven-item attitude

scale. Results showed that Grade 10 students, who were exposed to

the new curriculum, perceived a more constructivist learning

environment than Grade 11 students who were not. Students tended

to prefer a more positive environment than what was perceived to be

present and statistically signicant relationships were found between

classroom environment and student attitudes. The results suggest that

favorable student attitudes could be promoted in classes where

students perceive more personal relevance, shared control with their

teachers and negotiate meaning. In a somewhat similar study,Lee and

Fraser (2001) explored the perceptions that Korean high school

students hold about the constructivist nature of their classroom

environment. A sample of 439 high school students from threedifferent streams namely the humanity, science-oriented, and the

science-independent streams responded to the CLES. The results of

survey data revealed that students in all streams perceived con-

structivist approach as being displayed sometimes in their science

classes. Of the ve scales, students responses to the Shared Control

scale showed lower mean score than any other scale. When the

perceptions of students from three streams were compared, it was

found that science-independent stream perceived their science

classroom more favorably than did other two stream students for all

scales of the CLES. This study replicated ndings of the past studies in

learning environments eld, reporting associations between class-

room environment and student attitudes and provided further

support for reliability and validity of CLES in Korea.

Review of the related literature has provided clear evidence thatthe CLES is a valuable tool to help both teachers and researchers in

measuring the degree to which a classrooms learning environment is

in agreement with a constructivist epistemology (Aldridge et al.,

2000; Johnson & McClure, 2004).

1.2. Epistemological beliefs

It is reported in the literature that epistemological beliefs involve

learnerstheories about knowing, nature of knowledge, and knowledge

acquisition(Hofer, 2000; Hofer& Pintrich,1997; Schommer,1990). Hofer

and Pintrich (1997)dened epistemological belief as How individuals

come to know, the theories and beliefs they have about knowing, and

the manner in which such epistemological premises are part of and an

inuence on cognitive process of thinking and reasoning beliefs about

Table 1Scales, scale descriptions and sample items for the CLES

Scales Scale description Item sample

Personal

Relevance

Extent to which teachers relate

science to students out of school

experiences.

In this science class, I learn about

the world inside and outside of

school.

Student

Negotiation

Extent to which opportunities exist

for students to explain and justify to

other students their newly developing

ideas and to listen and reect on the

viability of other students' ideas.

In this science class, I ask other

students to explain their ideas.

Shared

Control

Extent to which students are invited

to share with the teacher control of

the learning environment, including

the articulation of their own learning

goals, design and management of

their learning activities anddetermining and applying assessment

criteria.

In this science class, I help the

teacher to plan what I am going

to learn.

Critical

Voice

Extent to which a social climate has

been established in which students

feel that it is legitimate and benecial

to question the teacher's pedagogical

plans and methods to express

concerns about any impediments to

their learning.

In this science class, I feel safe

questioning what or how I am

being taught.

Uncertainty Extent to which opportunities are

provided for students to experience

scientic knowledge as arising from

theory dependent inquiry, involving

human experience and values,

evolving and non-foundational, and

culturally and socially determined.

In this science class I learn the

views of science have changed

over time.

Adapted fromTaylor et al. (1997).

72 K. Ozkal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 7179


3/9

the processes of knowing and the nature of knowledge (Hofer &

Pintrich,1997, p. 435). Accordingto Schommer (1990)epistemologyis a

belief system that is composed of several more or less independent

dimensions(p. 498). By systemSchommer means that there is more

than one belief to take into account and the expression more or less

independent she means that students may be sophisticated in some

beliefs but not necessarily sophisticated in others (Schommer,1990). In

line with this idea, Schommer proposed ve dimensions of epistemo-

logical beliefs, whichare omniscient authority, quick knowledge,certainknowledge, simple knowledge, innate ability. Later, Schommer devel-

oped a questionnaire assessing studentsepistemological beliefs in four

dimensions: simple knowledge (knowledge is isolated facts), certain

knowledge (knowledge is unchanging), innate ability (the ability to

learn is xed at birth), and quick learning (learning occurs in a short

amount of time or not at all). Relevant literature showed that above-

mentioned dimensions predict several facet of learning well. For

example,Schommer (1990)reported that the more students believe in

quick learning, the more poorly they understand text and monitor their

understanding; the more students believe in certain knowledge, the

more likely they are to interpret tentative information as absolute. In

another study,Schommer (1993)indicated that these four dimensions

predictedhigh school students gradepoint average. For example,beliefs

that knowledge is a set of isolated facts and that knowledge is certain

were reported to be associated with lower overall GPA s.Tsai (1998a)

investigated the relationships between Taiwanese eighth graders'

science achievement, epistemological beliefs and their cognitive

structure outcomes in terms of recalled scientic information. Students'

science achievement and epistemological beliefs were found to be

correlated with knowledge recall. Students having more constructivist

views about science were likely to recall more information, more

exibility and a higher precision of knowledge recall which imply that

they had a bettermeta-cognitive ability when reconstructingtheirideas

than students holding empiricist-oriented epistemological beliefs.

Students with constructivist epistemological orientations however,

reported to have a slower information retrieval rate.

A study by Elder (1999) pointed out that elementary grade students

hold beliefs about the nature of scientic knowledge as well. Studying

with 5th grade students, Elder examined the relationship betweenepistemological beliefs and science learning. She found that elemen-

tary-aged students rely on specic constructs like the changing nature

of knowledge andthe purpose of science while tryingto comprehend a

larger eld of epistemological beliefs and that may initially come to

understand the nature of scientic knowledge in a very situated,topic-

dependent manner. Her study also showed that 5th grade students

beliefs were modestly related to their science learning. One recent

study of epistemological beliefs, which attempted to describe the

changes in elementary students epistemological belief in science,

indicated that over time students became more sophisticated in their

belief about source and certainty of knowledge. No changes were

reported, however, in justication and development of knowledge

(Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri, & Harrison, 2004).

1.3. Learning approaches

The ways students approach learning have been the focus of

several studies (BouJaoude, 1992; BouJaoude & Giuliano, 1994;

BouJaoude, Salloum, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2004; Cavallo & Schafer,

1994; Cavallo, Rozman, Blickenstaff, & Walker, 2003; Cavallo, Potter,

& Rozman, 2004; Saunders, 1998). Earlier studies indicated two

contrasting view of approaches to learning; rote (surface) and

meaningful (deep). Learners preference of using memorization as a

mode of learning has been called rote learning orientation (Cavallo &

Schafer, 1994). In rote learning, learners do not construct relationships

between concepts or integrate new concepts to their prior knowledge.

Instead, they rely on memorizing and employ a surface approach to

learning. However, learnerslearning orientation has been known as

deep or meaningful when they deal with a learning task by attempting

to form relationship between newly learned concepts and previously

learned concepts (Cavallo & Schafer, 1994; Novak, 2002). Therefore,

deep approach to learning is characterized by an intention to

understand and elaborate the material being studied by connecting

different concepts with each other, a surface approach, on the other

hand, is characterized by an intention to reproduce the material being

studied by using routine procedures (Burnett & Proctor, 2002; Diseth,

Pallesen, Hovland, & Larsen, 2006).Studies exploring the learning approaches in relation to students

science achievement reported that students with meaningful learning

approaches accomplished more meaningful understanding of science

concepts than those with rote learning approaches (e.g. BouJaoude &

Giuliano,1994; BouJaoude et al., 2004; Cavallo,1996; Cavallo & Schafer,

1994). In an earlier, BouJaoude (1992) reported that students who

learned by rote had less understanding and more misconceptions

concerning chemistry concepts than meaningful learners. Similarly,

the work ofCavallo and Schafer (1994) demonstrated that students

with meaningful learning approaches accomplished more meaningful

understanding of genetics concepts than those with a rote learning

approaches. All together, studies focusing on the learning approaches

have suggested that there is a statistically signicant association

betweenstudents learningapproaches and theirscience achievement.

1.4. Epistemological beliefs, learning environment and learning approach

To date, there has been little research on the interrelation between

epistemological beliefs, learning environment and learning approach.

Available literature on the relationship between epistemological beliefs

and learning approaches, for example, has revealed that students

epistemological beliefs play an important role in determining their

approaches to learning.Tsai (1998b) asserted that learners scientic

epistemological beliefs, by shaping their meta-learning assumptions,

affect their learning approaches. Studying with 8th grade Taiwanese

students, he demonstrated that students having constructivist episte-

mological beliefs about science had a tendency to learn through

constructivist-oriented instructional activities, and used more mean-

ingful strategies when studying science, whereas students holdingepistemological beliefs more aligned with empiricism, tended to use

more rote-like strategies to promote their understanding of science.

Studying with college students, Holschuh (1998) found a weak

relationship between epistemological beliefs and strategy use. While

students with more mature epistemological beliefs reported the use of

more deep approaches, students with more nave epistemological

beliefs reported more surface strategy use. Both epistemological

beliefs and strategy use were also found to contribute to college GPA,

and biology course grade. Holschuh demonstrated that students

holding mature epistemological beliefs and thosewho employed deep

strategies for learning were likely to perform better than those with

nave beliefs or adopting surface strategies forlearning. In other study,

Chan (2003) investigated the relationship between epistemological

beliefs and approaches to learning among teacher education students.Chan found a positive correlation between xed ability and surface

approach. No relation was found between xed ability and deep

approaches. Authority knowledge, while negatively related to deep

approach, was positively related to surface approach. Moreover, a

positive association was reported between certainty knowledge and

surface approach. It is concluded that learners who believed that (a)

ability is xed and innate, (b) knowledge is handed down by

authorities, (c) knowledge is certain and unchanged were likely to

adopt surface approachrather than deep approach.On theotherhand,

learners who thought that learning requires effort and a process of

understanding were likely to employ deep approach while studying.

In a separate study,Cano (2005)reported that epistemological beliefs

affected academic achievement directly and also indirectly through

students

approaches to learning. The study also indicated while

73K. Ozkal et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 71-79


4/9

studentsepistemological beliefs become more realistic and complex,

their learning approaches become less meaningful over time.

Tsai (2000) claimed that learners perception of their learning

environments signify their epistemological beliefs as well.Tsai (1996)

stated that we should note that in science classrooms, how we

present information can be important in modeling students episte-

mological belief in science and learning orientation. That is, the

learning environment created by the science teachers also plays a role

in determining students

perceptions of the way science is practicedand how new knowledge is created (p.2). Studying with 48

Taiwanese junior high school students, Tsai found that students

with epistemological beliefs more oriented to constructivist views of

science were more likely to show preferences for constructivist

learning environments. It is also reported that while empiricist-

oriented learners have a tendency to employ more rote learning

approaches to improve their understanding, constructivist-oriented

learners tended to use meaningful learning approaches in their

science learning. Students with more constructivist views and less

empiricist views about science appeared to show preferences to learn

in the constructivist environments where they could (1) interact,

negotiate meaning and reach consensus with others, (2) have enough

time to use prior knowledge and experiences to construct new

knowledge, and (3) have meaningful control over their learning and to

some extend think independently. However, both knowledge con-

structivists and empiricists tended to rely on teachers authority for

lesson planning (Tsai, 1996). To explain the possible link between

epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning

environments, Tsai (2000) also examined the relationship between

10th-grade Taiwanese studentsscientic epistemological beliefs, and

their perceptions of constructivist learning environments. His study

showed some associations between learnersscientic epistemologi-

cal beliefs and their perceptions of constructivist learning environ-

ments. Tsai reported that students holding epistemological beliefs

toward constructivist views of science were more likely to prefer

constructivist learning environments and also believed that their

actual learning environment did not offer enough opportunity for

Student Negotiation and for integration of pre-existing knowledge.

Tsai concluded that students epistemological beliefs were related totheir perceptions of learning environments.

In addition, Smith, Maclin, Houghton, and Hennessey (2000) tested

the hypothesis that elementary school students held coherent

epistemological commitments and they could make signicant

improvement in developing a sophisticated scientic epistemology

when they are taught science using constructivist pedagogy. The

authors reported that students in constructivist classroom developed

an epistemological view toward science that concentrated on the

central role of ideas in theprocess of knowledge acquisition andon the

kinds of mental, social, and experimental work involved in compre-

hension, developing, testing, and revising these ideas. Students in the

comparison science classroom, however, developed a knowledge

unproblematic epistemology that focus on science as involving simple

activities and procedures, or acquiring factual knowledge. Further-more, Brownlee, Purdie and Boulton-Lewis (2001) performed an

experimental study to examine whether it is possible to effect

university studentsepistemological belief through learning environ-

ments. They designed and implemented a teaching program to

enhance the reection on and development of more complex

epistemological beliefs. In their study, students experienced with

reective practices showed signicant change towards more sophis-

ticated epistemological beliefs compared to those who were not

exposed to reective practices. More recently, Tolhurts (2007)

conducted a study to examine whether students epistemological

beliefs would be effected by a novel course where students were

actively engaged in their own learning processes. Changes in students

epistemological beliefs during the implementation were found.

Students having complex epistemological beliefs attained better

results in the nal grades for the course. He concluded that students

epistemological beliefs have an effect on their learning.

The study byCampbell et al. (2001) investigated the associations

between learning approaches and secondary students perceptions of

classroom environment. In their research, students with preferences for

deep approaches tended to show more sophisticated understanding of

learning opportunities provided to them compared to students with

surfaceapproaches.Studentswho had surface approacheswere likelyto

lack comprehension of their teachers

efforts to employ more con-structivists teaching and learning strategies. They preferred to remain

focus on transmission and reproduction of information.

Briey, these studies indicated that students with constructivist-

oriented epistemological beliefs were more like to hold favorable

attitudes and appropriate learning beliefs towards school science;

demonstrate greater preference for constructivist learning environment

and utilize meaningful learning strategies when studying science.

As seen from the abovementioned studies, high school and

university students perceptions of classroom learning environments

have received growing interest from educators. Most of the existing

research, however, has concentrated on the relationship between

students perceptions of learning environments and their cognitive

and attitudinal outcome. Some other research on this eld documen-

tedthat student perceptions of learningenvironments are also related

to their epistemological beliefs and learning approaches. However,

there have been no attempts to relate young learners perceptions of

learning environments to their epistemological beliefs and their

approaches to learning. Moreover, available studies conducted mainly

for older students in Western countries, while relatively less has been

done in non-Western countries. This study was conducted with 8th-

graders in Turkey which is an intercontinental country spanning the

continents of Europe and Asia and therefore has a socio-cultural

background that differs from other nations. Therefore, present study

could be viewed as an attempt to examine interplay among young

students epistemological beliefs, perceptions of constructivist learn-

ing environment and learning approaches in different context.

Accordingly, current study presents a conceptual model explaining

the relationships among constructivist learning environment percep-

tion variables (Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice, SharedControl, and Student Negotiation), epistemological belief variables

(xed and tentative), and learning approach. Specically, in this study,

we sought to investigate the following main research question: In

what ways are constructivist learning environment perception

variables, epistemological belief variables related to learning

approach? It was proposed that learning environment perceptions

predict learning approach directly and indirectly through epistemo-

logical beliefs.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Thedata forthe current study were obtained from 1152 eight gradeelementary school students (46.1% girls, 53.9% boys) with a mean age

of 14 yearsattending publicelementary schools from one large district

of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Cluster random sampling integrated

with convenience sampling was used to obtain the sample.

In Turkey, education system falls under the supervision of the

Ministry of Education, which determines educational programs in

elementary and secondaryschools. Elementary education (Grades 1 to

8) is the foundation of the national education system and it is

compulsory for every Turkish citizen from the age of six to the age of

fourteen, regardless of sex, and is free-of-charge in public schools. The

duration of compulsory education was extended from ve to eight

years and put into practice at the beginning of the 19971998 school

year, throughout thecountrywith a view to ensuringorganicunity and

continuity in the educational program (Ministry of Education,1998).



5/9

2.2. Measures

The data collected from students included three kinds: (1)

responses to the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (2)

responses to scientic epistemological belief instrument, (3) responses

to learning approach questionnaire.

All instruments were administered to the participants after getting

permission from the administration. The rst author collected the

data from 1152 eighth grade students by visiting 7 schools in twoweeks. It took approximately 50 min for the students to complete the

survey. All the necessary explanations were done and the directions

were made clear by the researcher before the students completed the

survey. Participants were assured that any data collected from them

would be held in condence. The researcher was in the classes during

the administration of the survey and no specic problems were

encountered.

2.2.1. Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)

The CLES was used to assess students perceptions of constructi-

vist learning environment (Johnson & McClure, 2004). It consists of

20 items with 4 items in each of the ve dimensions namely;

Personal Relevance (PR), Uncertainty (U), Shared Control (SC),

Critical Voice (CV), and Student Negotiation (SN) (seeTable 1). Each

item in the surveyconsists of a statement inviting a student response

on a ve-point scale with the following alternatives: (1) Almost

Never, (2) Seldom, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, (5) Almost Always. For

this study, reliability coefcients were found to be .72 for the

Personal Relevance, .57 for the Uncertainty, .69 for the Critical Voice,

and .74 for the Shared Control, .69 for the Student Negotiation

dimensions.

2.2.2. Scientic Epistemological Beliefs (SEB)

The instrument wasadapted by Saunders (1998) from the existing

questionnaires (Rubba, 1977; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992) to assess the

scientic epistemological beliefs of the students with two dimen-

sions as xed and tentative views. Beliefs used in this study

specically refer to the beliefs about science and scientic knowl-

edge as being either xed or tentative. Items were rated on a 4 pointLikert Scale. Fixed views (8 items;= 50) are related with traditional

views and describe scientic knowledge as unchanging truth beyond

doubt that is discovered by a few experts by using valid scientic

method objectively (e.g. Scientic knowledge is unchanging). On the

other hand, tentative views (8 items; =60) are related with

constructivist views and describes the tentativeness of scientic

laws, theories and concepts in the face of new evidence and scientic

knowledge as subject to review and change in the light of solid new

observations by means of the creativity of scientists and accepts the

fact that historical, cultural, and social settings can lead to variations

in scientic questions, methods and results and the subjectivity of

the scientists (e.g. Scientic knowledge expresses the creativity of

scientist).

It is necessary to note that the reliability coefcients of the SEB-xand CLES-uncertainty dimensions, computed by Cronbach Alpha

estimates of internal consistency, were found to be low but acceptable

for educational studies (Pomeroy, 1993; Diakidoy, Kendeou, &

Ioannides, 2003; Pinarbasi, Canpolat, Bayrakceken, & Geban, 2006).

Still, while interpreting the results of current ndings, these low

reliabilities should be taken into consideration.

2.2.3. Learning Approach Questionnaire (LAQ)

The Learning Approach Questionnaire is a 22-item, 4-point Likert

instrument designed to measure students' orientations to learning

ranging frommeaningful (e.g.As I am reading newmaterials in science,

I try to relate what I already know on the topic) or rote (e.g. I learn

things by rote, going over and over them until I know them by heart)

(Cavallo, 1996). Students responded to each statement by indicating

their agreement, ranging from A (never true) to D (always true). Rote

scores from theLAQ were reverse-scored so that a high scoreshowed a

more meaningful learning orientation and low scores showed a more

rote learning orientation. For this study, Cronbach alpha coefcient for

the LAQ was calculated as .83.

All instruments were translated and adapted into Turkish by the

researchers and pilot tested by 270 elementary students. The

researchers revised the Turkish versions of the instruments so that

the students understand the items easily and clearly before used inthis study.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics concerning students responses to construc-

tivist learning environment survey, epistemological beliefs question-

naire and learning approach questionnaire are presented in Table 2. As

reported inTable 2, students perceived moderate levels of Personal

Relevance, Student Negotiation, Critical Voice, Shared Control and

Uncertainty in their classrooms because mean scores of each of the

constructivist dimensions is close to 3 suggesting that each of the

constructivist dimensions measured by the CLES occurs Sometimes.

This suggests that students perceived their science classroom learning

environment as emphasizing relevance to everyday life, inquiry-

centered learning, and student negotiations. In this classroom,

teachers are sharing aspects of learning science with their students

and students feel free to express their thoughts and criticisms about

their learning and how it might be improved. It is also necessary to

note that while Personal Relevance has the highest mean value

(M=3.35; SD=.97), but the lowest mean value appears for the Shared

Control scale (M=2.48; SD= .99). For epistemological belief, both

dimensions (xed and tentative)have mean scores below 3, indicating

an even use of tentative and xed approaches by the participants.

Again, the mean score of Learning Approach Questionnaire which was

above the midpoint of 2 implies that participants of this study tend to

use meaningful learning approaches while studying science.

3.2 . Inte rrelat ion shi ps among scient ic epistemological beliefs,

constructivist learning environment and learning approaches

In the present study, a path model (see Fig. 1) was proposed to

explore the relationships among students constructivist learning

environment perceptions (Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical

Voice, Shared Control, and Student negotiation), scientic epistemo-

logical beliefs (tentative and xed), and learning approach. The

proposed model was assessed through LISREL 8.30 program. Results

showed that the model explained the data well. Indeed, t indices

were indicative of adequate model-to-data t: The GFI, the NFI, and

the CFI were all found to be .99 and the SRMR was found to be .03

which was well below .09. Since t indices implied a theoretically

sound model, standardized path coefcients for direct, indirect, andtotal effects were examined (Table 3).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics concerning variables of the study

Variables M SD

Personal Relevance 3.35 .97

Uncertainty 3.00 .85

Critical Voice 3.25 .96

Shared Control 2.48 .99

Student Negotiation 3.00 .92

Fixed Beliefs 2.66 .44

Tentative Beliefs 2.93 .45

Learning Approach 2.71 .33



6/9

The path model presented in Fig. 1 assumes that constructivist

learning environment perceptions inuence learning approach

directly and indirectly through their effect on scientic epistemolo-

gical beliefs.

Majorityof the path coefcients were statistically signicant. Paths

from Uncertainty, Critical Voice, Shared Control, and Student

Negotiation toxed beliefs andfromxed beliefs to learning approach

were non-signicant. The standardized path coefcients for direct

effects are graphically shown inFig. 2.

In the model, Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice,

Shared Control, and Student Negotiation accounted for 3% of the

variance in xed beliefs. Parameter estimates showed that all of the

related paths were non-signicant except for the path from Personal

Relevance to xed beliefs (= .11). It appeared that students perceiving

higher levels of personal relevance of the classroom activities tend to

holdxed beliefs.

On the other hand, Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical Voice,

Shared Control, and Student Negotiation accounted for 49% of the

variance in tentative beliefs. Parameter estimates revealed that there

was a positive association between Personal Relevance (=.11),Uncertainty (= .13), Critical Voice (= .12), Student Negotiation

(=.14) and tentative beliefs. These ndings indicated that classroom

environmentsproviding opportunities for personalrelevanceof course

content, uncertainty, critical voice, and student negotiation are related

to tentative beliefs about knowledge. In other words, such learning

environments are found to be associated with the belief that knowl-

edge is evolving and changeable. However, a negative relationship was

found between Shared Control and tentative beliefs (= .16).

Results also showed that Personal Relevance, Uncertainty, Critical

Voice, Shared Control, Student Negotiation, xed and tentative beliefs

explained 19% of the variance in learning approach. Tentative beliefs

were found to be positively associated with learning approach. Thus,

students with tentative beliefs appeared to adopt meaningful learning

approaches. On the other hand, the relationship between xed beliefs

and learning approach was non-signicant. The strongest positive total

effect on learning approach was from the Student Negotiation (.22). The

indirect effect of the Student Negotiation on learning approach was .02.

Indirect effects of personal relevance, uncertainty, critical voice, and

shared control on learning approach were .01, .02, .2, and .03,

respectively. Effects of constructivist learning environment perceptions

on learning approachwereall mediated through theireffect onxedand

tentative beliefs.

In summary, as can be seen from the aforementioned path

coefcients, all dimensions of constructivist learning environments

except for shared control were positively related to tentative beliefs.

Students holding tentative beliefs appeared to use learning strategies

resulting in deeper processing of information. On the other hand,

association between all dimensions of constructivist learning envir-onments except for Personal Relevance and xed beliefs were non-

signicant. Direction of relation between Personal Relevance andxed

beliefs was positive.

4. Discussion

In the present study, we proposed a model that assumes that

student perceptions of constructivist learning environment inuence

learning approach directly and indirectly through their effect on

scientic epistemological beliefs. The results of path analysis revealed

that, as proposed that, studentsperceptions of constructivist learning

environment inuence learning approach directly and indirectly

through their effect on scientic epistemological beliefs.

As far as the relationship between studentsperceptions of learningenvironments and theirscientic epistemologicalbeliefs are considered,

the present study revealed that four dimensions of CLES except for

Shared Control were positively related to tentative beliefs. This implied

that students who nd personal relevance in their studies, feel free to

express concern about their learning, view science as ever changing and

interact with each other to improve comprehension were more likely to

hold tentative beliefs. However, students who thought the benet of

taking role in the decision making process of what will go on in the

lesson were less likely to believe the tentative nature of knowledge. In

fact considering the mean values, participants of the study had a less

positive perceptions of the Shared Control scale than other scales

(M=2.48), with majority of responses well below the midpoint of the 5

point Likert scale. This means that Shared Control scores may not be a

good representative of full range of the possible values. Findings

Table 3

Path coefcients

Var iables Fixed belief s Tent ative belief s Lear ning appro ach

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Personal

Relevance

.11 .11 .11 .11 .18 .01 .19

Uncertainty .03 .03 .13 .13 .15 .02 .13

Critical

Voice

.02 .02 .12 .12 .16 .02 .18

Shared

Control

.03 .03 .16 .16 .08 .03 .11

Student

Negotiation

.01 .01 .14 .14 .20 .02 .22

Fixed

Beliefs

.05 .05

Tentative

Beliefs

.16 .16

Fig. 1.Proposed model.Fig. 2.Path coefcients of constructivist learning environment perceptions, epistemo-

logical beliefs, and learning approaches.



7/9

concerning the relationship between Shared Control and other

variables, therefore, should be interpreted cautiously (Gravetter &

Wallnau, 2004). In the present study, low mean score obtained from

Shared Control scale, which means that teachers seldom invite their

students to take responsibility in the decision making process, can be

attributed partly to the classroom practices in which learning activities

are generally designed, planned and managed by science teachers.

Concerning the relationship between constructivist learning environ-

ment perceptions and

xed beliefs, results showed non-signi

cantassociations between all CLES dimensions and xed beliefs except

Personal Relevance. Thus, these ndings revealed that students

perceiving their science learning environment connected with their

everyday experiences tend to hold xed beliefs as well as tentative

beliefs. At this point, it is important to note that in thepresent study, the

role of only classroom environment perceptions in students scientic

epistemological beliefs was investigated. However, there can be some

familial and social-cultural factors inuencing students scientic

epistemological beliefs. Therefore, results of the present study should

be interpreted with caution since these factors may interact with each

other leading to different ndings in different context. This considera-

tion may warrant further investigation.

In general, however, the ndings concur with those demonstrated

by earlier studies that students scientic epistemological beliefs are

related to their perceptions of learning environment (e.g., Brownlee et

al., 2001; Smith et al., 2000; Tsai, 1999, 2000; Tsai & Chuang, 2005).

For example,Tsai (2000)reported the presence of some associations

between learnersscientic epistemological beliefs and their percep-

tions of constructivist learning environments. In his study, students

holding epistemological beliefs toward constructivist views of science

were more likely to prefer constructivist learning environments. He

suggested that teachers should take students scientic epistemolo-

gical beliefs into consideration when designing learning activities. In a

separate study,Tsai (1999)indicated that learners with constructivist

views of science were more likely to focus on negotiating the meaning

of laboratory experiments with their friend compared to learners with

empiricist views of science. Also, constructivist learners found to

perceive their laboratory learning environment as less open-ended,

divergent approaches to experimentation and less-integrated withtheory class. Learners having epistemological beliefs more oriented to

empiricist views of science, however, found to be focused on

performing the laboratory activities by following the procedures

written in their textbooks.Smith et al. (2000) showed that students in

constructivist classroom developed an epistemological view toward

science that concentrated on the central role of ideas in the process of

knowledge acquisition and on the kinds of mental, social, and

experimental work involved in comprehension, developing, testing,

and revising these ideas.Tsai (1996), however, reported no signicant

correlation between studentsepistemological beliefs and the extent

of their preferences to experience learning as a process of creating and

resolving personally problematic experiences.

Our model also showed a statistically signicant direct inuence of

all dimension of the CLES on learning approaches. While the directionof relations was positive for Personal Relevance, Critical Voice, Student

Negotiation, it was negative for Uncertainty, and Shared Control.

These ndings suggest that students who nd personal relevance in

their studies, interact with each other to improve comprehension and

feel free to express concern about their learning tend to learn science

by forming relationships among concepts. In contrast, students who

view science as ever changing, and shared control over their learning

were less likely adopt meaningful approach while learning science.

Similarly, a study of pre-service teachers by Petegem, Donche, and

Vanhoof (2005) revealed that pre-service teachers learning

approaches, such as learning conceptions, learning strategies, and

learning orientations, were related with their preferences for

constructivist learning environments. However, studying with high

school students,Dart, Burnett, and Purdie (2000)demonstrated that

offering a learning environment where learners feelings are taken

into account, individual interactions with learner take place, and

learners are helped when necessary, has no direct effect on the use of

deep approaches to learning.

Concerning the relationship between scientic epistemological

beliefs and learning approach, the current study demonstrated that

there was a positive relationship between learning approach and

tentative belief. In other word, students who believed thatknowledge is

tentative appeared to use learning strategies resulting in deeperprocessing of information. These resultsare consistent with thendings

of previous research in which tentative belief was related to meaningful

learning (e.g., Holschuh, 1998; Saunders, 1998; Tsai, 1998a,b). For

example, Tsai (1998b) showed that 8th grade students having

constructivist epistemological beliefs about science had a tendency to

use more meaningful strategies when studying science, whereas

students holding epistemological beliefs more aligned with empiricism,

tended to use more rote-like strategies to promote their understanding

of science. Similarly, the study by Holschuh (1998)showed that while

students with more mature epistemological beliefs reported to use of

more deep approaches, students with more nave epistemological

beliefs reported to use more surface strategy.

Regarding the relationship between xed beliefs and learning

approaches, in contrast to non-signicant association found in this

study, Saunders (1998) reported that students with xed beliefs

tended to learn by rote. In Cano's (2005) study with secondary

students, quick learning associated negatively with deep approach,

positively with surface approach. Simple knowledge positively

correlated with both deep and surface approaches. Certain knowledge

positively related with surface approaches. Likewise, Chan (2003) who

reported that surface approach is related to the belief that ability to

learn is xed, knowledge is handed down by authority and that

knowledge is unchanging. Chan claimed that depending on context,

the belief in certain knowledge may be linked with a surface or deep

approach. Author mentioned that students who believed that knowl-

edge is certain, unchanged, and handeddown by authority were likely

to utilize surface approach instead of a deep approach in their study.

To sum up, the ndings of currents study revealed that students

who perceived their learning environment more constructivistsoriented believed that knowledge is changing and were more likely

to adopt meaningful learning approaches while studying science.

Learning environments where students construct their knowledge

through experimentation, observation, questioning, and negotiations

with peers and teachers can help students realize that scientic

knowledge is evolving and subject to change. Therefore in such

learning environments students can feel less dependent on external

authorities and more empowered over learning which may lead to

meaningful learning rather than rote learning.

There may be some recommendations for further research studies

to illuminate the results of the present study. Given the importance of

the interplay among classroom learning environment, scientic

epistemological beliefs, and learning approaches, the present study

suggested that teachers need to provide such a classroom environ-ment that fosters studentsbeliefs about tentative nature of scientic

knowledge which in turn encourages them to be meaningful learners.

This can be achieved by creating learning environments which

emphasize the link between science and students daily life experi-

ences, encourage students to express concern about their learning, to

view science as evolving and to share their ideas with each other. In

such classroom, the teacher account of what students know,

maximizes social interactions between learners so that they can

negotiate meaning and provides a variety of experiences from which

learning is built. In line with this idea, it is suggested that elementary

science curriculum should emphasize both scientic knowledge and

the role that science plays in development of such knowledge. To this

end, it may be necessary for teacher education programs to offer

courses which will foster teachers epistemological understanding



8/9

about science (Tsai, 1998a,b). Consequently, to promote meaningful

learning approaches and students views about scientic knowledge

and how it is practiced, this study supplies signicant data to teachers

for creating constructivist learning environment in their science

classrooms.

This study has some limitations to consider in any attempt to

generalize the ndings. First, the study was limited by its reliance on

self-reported data. Subsequent research is needed to verify the

consistency and accuracy of the present

ndings through use ofmultiple methods and measures. Second, we conducted this investi-

gation with 1152 Grade 8 Turkish students at public schools located in

a large urban area. Data from other school districts and from other

school types might provide different results. The results may not be

reliable if generalized beyond students enrolled in a similar situation

and similar cultural context. Therefore, the generalization of the

results from this study should be viewed with caution.

To conclude, the current study was designed to add to the growing

body of literature regarding the interplay among classroom learning

environments, scientic epistemological beliefs and learning

approaches. It is hoped that this investigation will serve as a

motivating force for further research in the area of science education.

References

Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learningenvironments in Australia and Taiwan.Learning Environments Research,3, 101134.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, P. C., & Chen, C. -C. (2000). Constructivist learningenvironments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International

Journal of Science Education,22, 3755.Arisoy, N., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2007). A canonical analysis of learning

environment perceptions and motivational beliefs. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, USA.

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999).In search of understanding: The case for constructivistclassrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment.

BouJaoude, S. B. (1992). The relationship between studentslearning strategies and thechange in their misunderstandings during a high school chemistry course. Journalof Research in Science Teaching,29, 687699.

BouJaoude, S. B., & Giuliano, F. J. (1994). Relationships between achievement andselective variables in a chemistry course for nonmajors. School Science andMathematics,94, 296302.

BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selectivecognitive variables and studentsability to solve chemistry problems.InternationalJournal of Science Education,26, 6384.

Brownlee, J., Purdie, N., & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs inpreservice teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education,6, 247268.

Burnett, P. C., & Proctor, R. M. (2002). Elementary school studentslearner self-concept,academic self-concepts and approaches to learning. Educational Psychology inPractice ,18, 325333.

Cakiroglu, J., Tekkaya, C., & Rakici, N. (2007). Learning environments, teacherinterpersonal behavior, and studentsattitudinal outcomes in science classrooms:A Turkish context. In K. Mutua, & C. S. Sunal (Eds.), The enterprise of educationresearch on education in Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East(pp. 291311).Greenwich CT: Information Age Press.

Campbell,J., Smith, D., Boulton-Lewis, G., Brownlee, J., Burnett,P. C.,Charrington,S., et al.(2001). Studentsperceptions of teaching and learning; the inuence of studentsapproaches to learning and teachers approaches toteaching.Teachers and Training:Theory and Practice,7, 173187.

Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their changethrough secondary school and their inuence on academic performance. British

Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 203221.Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students under-

standing and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching,33, 625656.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Potter, W. H., & Rozman, M. (2004). Gender differences in learningconstructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achieve-ment in a structured inquiry, yearlong college physics course for life science majors.School Science and Mathematics,104, 288300.

Cavallo, A. M. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1994). Relationships between students meaningfullearning orientation and their understanding of genetics topics.Journal of Researchin Science Teaching,31, 393418.

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Learning, reasoning,motivation and epistemological beliefs: Differing approaches in college sciencecourses.Journal of College Science Teaching,33, 1823.

Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students' epistemological beliefs andapproaches to learning.Research in Education,69, 3650.

Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemologicalbeliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29 ,186204.

Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., & Purdie, N. M. (2000). Students conceptions of learning, theclassroom environment, and approaches to learning. The Journal of EducationalResearch,93, 262270.

Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects oftext structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary EducationalPsychology,28, 335356.

den Brok, P., Brekelmans,M., & Wubbels, T. (2004). Interpersonal teacherbehaviour andstudent outcomes.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,15, 407442.

Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Hovland, A., & Larsen, S. (2006). Course experience, approachesto learning and academic achievement.Education and Training,48, 156169.

Dorman, J., & Adams, J. (2004).Associationsbetween students perceptions of classroom

environment and academic efcacy in Australian and British secondary schools.Westminster Studies in Education,27, 6985.Dorman, J. P., Adams, J. E., & Ferguson, J. M. (2001). Psychosocial environment and

student self-handicapping in secondary school mathematics classes: A crossnational study.Educational Psychology,22, 499511.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design anddelivery instruction. In D. H. Jonasses (Ed.), The handbook of research on educationalcommunications and technology (pp. 170198). New York: Macmillian.

Elder, A.D. (1999). An exploration of fth grade students epistemological beliefs inscience and an investigation of their relation to science learning. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.

Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity andapplications.Learning Environments Research,1, 733.

Fraser, B.J.,& Chionh,Y.H.(2000). Classroomenvironmentself-esteem,achievement, andattitudesin geographyand mathematics in Singapore. Paper presented atthe annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, CA.

Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting students' outcomes from their perceptionsof classroom psychosocial environments.American Educational Research Journal, 19,498518.

Fraser, B., Fisher,D., & McRobbie, C. (1996). Development,validation,and use of personaland class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Goh, S.C., & Fraser, B.J. (1995). Learning environment and student outcomes in primarymathematics classrooms in Singapore. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Goh, S. C., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Interpersonal teacher behavior, classroom environmentand student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning EnvironmentsResearch,1, 199229.

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences , (6th ed.)Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Henderson, D., Fisher,D., & Fraser, B. (2000). Interpersonal behavior, laboratory learningenvironments, and student outcomes in senior biology classes.Journal of Researchin Science Teaching,37, 2643.

Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemol-ogy. Contemporary Educational.Psychology,25, 378405.

Hofer,B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Thedevelopmentof epistemological theories:Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning.Review of EducationalResearch,67, 88140.

Holschuh, J.L. (1998). Epistemological beliefs in introductory biology: Addressingmeasurement concerns and exploring the relationship with strategy use.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens.

Johnson, B., & McClure, R. (2004). Validity and reliability of a shortened, revised versionof the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). Learning EnvironmentsResearch,7, 6580.

Kim, H., Fisher,D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999).Assessment and investigationof constructivistscience learning environments.Research in Science and Technological Education,17,239249.

Lee, S., & Fraser, B.J. (2001). High school science classroom learning environments inKorea. Paper presented at annual meeting of the National Association for Researchin Science Teaching, St. Lois, MO.

Margianti, E.S., Fraser, B.J., & Aldridge, J.M. (2001). Investigating the learningenvironment and students outcomes at the university level in Indonesia. PaperPresented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research inEducation, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Ministry of Education (1998).Faculty-school partnership. Ankara: National Education Press.Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in

limited or appropriate propositional hierarchies (LIPHS) leading to empowermentof learners.Science Education,86, 548571.

Petegem, V. P., Donche, V., & Vanhoof, J. (2005). Relating pre-service teachersapproaches to learning and preferences for constructivist learning environment.Learning Environment Research,8, 309332.

Pinarbasi, T., Canpolat, N., Bayrakceken, S., & Geban, O. (2006). An investigation ofeffectiveness of conceptual change text-oriented instruction on students under-standing of solution concept. Research in Science Education,36, 313335.

Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers beliefs about the nature of science:Comparison of the beliefs of scientist, secondary science teachers, and elementaryteachers.Science Education,77, 261278.

Rubba, P.A. (1977). The development, eld testing and validation of an instrument toassess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scienticknowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Studentspreconceptions about the epistemologyof science.Science Education,76, 559580.

Saunders, G.L. (1998). Relationships among epistemological beliefs, gender, approachesto learning, and implementation of instruction in chemistry laboratory. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma.



9/9

Scott, R., & Fisher, D. (2001). Science learning environments at the elementary schoollevel in Brunei Darussalam. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science teaching, St Louis.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehen-sion.Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 498504.

Schommer, M. (1993).Epistemological development and academic performanceamongsecondary students.Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 406411.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students'epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemo-logical development.Cognition and Instruction,18, 349422.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher,D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroomlearning

environments. International Journal of Educational Research,27, 293302.Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B.J., & White, L.R. (1994). CLES: An instrument for monitoring thedevelopment of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Telli, S., Cakiroglu, J., & den Brok, P. (2006). Turkish secondary education students perceptions of their classroom learning environment and their attitude towardsbiology. In D. L. Fisher, & M. S. Khine (Eds.),Contemporary approaches to research onlearning environments: World views (pp. 517542). Singapore: World Scientic.

Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. InK. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in education (pp. 321). New Jersey:Lawrence-Erlbaum, Hillsdale.

Tolhurts, D. (2007). The inuence of learning environments on students epistemolo-gical beliefs and learning outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education,12, 219233.

Tsai, C.-C. (1996). The interrelationships between junior high school students scienticepistemological beliefs, learning environment preferences and cognitive structureoutcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Tsai, C. -C. (1998). An analysis of Taiwanese eighth graders' science achievement,scientic epistemoiogical beliefs and cognitive structure outcomes after learningbasic atomic theory.International Journal of Science Education,20, 413425.

Tsai, C. -C. (1998). An analysis of scientic epistemological beliefs and learningorientations of Taiwanese eighth graders.Science Education,82, 473489.

Tsai,C. C. (1999). Laboratory exercises helpme memorizethe scientic truths: A studyof eighth graders scientic epistemological views and learning in laboratoryactivities.Science Education,83, 654674.

Tsai, C. -C. (2000). Relationships between student scientic epistemological beliefs andperceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42,193205.

Tsai, C. -C., & Chuang, S. -C. (2005). The correlation between epistemological beliefs andpreferences toward internet-based learning environments. British Journal ofEducational Technology,36, 97100.

vonGlasersfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. InT. Husen & N. Postlewaite(Eds.),International encyclopedia of education(pp.162163). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Waldrip, B.G., & Fisher, D.L. (2000). City and country students perceptions of teacher-student interpersonal behavior and classroom learning environments. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.

Wanpen,S., & Fisher, D.L. (2006).Creatinga collaborativelearningenvironment ina computerclassroom in Thailand using the CLES. In D. L. Fisher, & M. S. Khine (Eds.),Contemporaryapproaches to research on learning environments: World views(pp. 297312). Singapore:World Scientic.


conceptual paper creative writing

Documents

Transcript of conceptual paper creative writing