Aldridge, J. M. & Fraser, B. J. (2000)

CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 101

Learning Environments Research 3: 101–134, 2000. © 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

JILL M. ALDRIDGE AND BARRY J. FRASER

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF CLASSROOM LEARNINGENVIRONMENTS IN AUSTRALIA AND TAIWAN

Received 30 November 1998; accepted (in revised form) 15 August 1999

ABSTRACT. This research is distinctive in that it not only provides an example of oneof the few cross-cultural studies in science education, but also it used multiple researchmethods from different paradigms in exploring classroom learning environments in Taiwanand Australia. This article describes the validation and use of an English and Mandarinversion of the What is Happening in this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire in junior highschool science classes in Australia and Taiwan. When the WIHIC was administered to1081 students in 50 classes in Australia and to 1879 students in 50 classes in Taiwan,data analysis supported the reliability and factorial validity of the questionnaire, andrevealed differences between Taiwanese and Australian classrooms. Although the studycommenced from a more positivistic framework, favouring a more objectivist view, asthe study progressed, it employed an interpretative framework and drew on elements ofconstructivist and critical theory paradigms. This article outlines the researchers’ use ofmultiple research methods including classroom observations, in-depth interviews andnarratives. The themes which emerged from the data gathered using these methods helpedto make sense of classroom environments that were created in each country.

KEY WORDS: cross-cultural, high school education, learning environments, scienceeducation

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a growing need for collaboration across countries to help toadvance the efforts and accomplishments of educators world wide(Ferguson & Meyer, 1998). Previous studies which compare scienceclassroom learning environments in different countries have been limited.For example, to date, there are no studies that compare the classroomlearning environments found in Australia with those found in neighbouringcountries of South East Asia. The present research involved six Australianand seven Taiwanese researchers in working together on a cross-culturalstudy involving a comparison of classroom learning environments in thesetwo countries, as well as an investigation of factors that influence thelearning environment in each country.

In his 1996 presidential address at a NARST annual meeting, Fraserclaimed that educational research which crosses national boundaries offers

JILL ALDRIDGE AND BARRY FRASER102

much promise for generating new insights for at least two reasons. First,there usually is a greater variation in variables of interest (e.g. teachingmethods, student attitudes) in a sample drawn from multiple countries thanfrom a one-country sample. Second, the taken-for-granted familiareducational practices, beliefs and attitudes in one country can be exposed,made ‘strange’ and questioned when researchers from two countriescollaborate on research involving teaching and learning in two countries.Such research not only provides a researcher with understanding of scienceeducation in another country, but also sharpens insights into scienceeducation in his or her own country (Fraser, 1996).

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The present study commenced from a more objectivist paradigm, in whichthe main focus of data collection was the large-scale administration ofquestionnaires. This phase sought to provide an overview of the learningenvironment in each country, as well as providing a springboard for furtherdata collection using different research methods. As the study progressed,new research questions emerged and, through critical reflexivity, the studybegan to involve a more interpretative approach that included thecombination of multiple research methods.

The interpretative framework from which the research methods wereselected was guided largely by constructivist (Taylor, 1994; vonGlasersfeld, 1987, 1993) and critical theory (Giroux, 1983, 1988)paradigms. The constructivist perspective assumes that there are multiplerealities in which the researchers and their subjects create their ownunderstandings (von Glasersfeld, 1987, 1993). From this perspective, ourstudy was emergent in both its design and nature. The critical theoryperspective implies that reality is shaped over time by social, political,cultural, ethnic and gender factors (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Epis-temologically, this paradigm assumes that the values of the researchers willinfluence the inquiry. The present study drew on feminism, which is relatedto critical theory, that assumes a materialist-realist ontology from whichthe “real world makes a difference in terms of race, class and gender”(Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 14).

The present study examined and explored the learning environments inscience classes in Taiwan and Australia. The notion that a distinct classroomenvironment exists began as early as the 1930s when Kurt Lewin (1936)recognised that the environment and its interactions with personalcharacteristics of the individual are determinants of behaviour. FollowingLewin’s work, Murray (1938) proposed a Needs-Press Model in which


situational variables in the environment account for a degree of behaviouralvariance. Stern’s (1970) Person-Environment Congruence Theory, basedon Murray’s Needs-Press Model, proposed that more congruence betweenpersonal needs and environmental press leads to enhanced outcomes. Also,following Murray’s Needs-Press Model, Getzels and Thelen (1960) putforward a model for the class as a social system that suggests that theinteraction of personality needs, expectations and the environment predictsbehaviours, including student outcomes. Walberg (1981) has proposed amulti-factor psychological theory of educational productivity which holdsthat students learning is a function of three student aptitude variables (age,ability and motivation), two instructional variables (quantity and quality)and four psychosocial environments (home, classroom, peer group andmass media).

During the progress of the present study, the researchers became awareof the importance of examining social and cultural factors that influencethe learning environment in each country. Culturally sensitive methods ofcollecting data, such as in-depth interviews, narratives written byresearchers and classroom observations, that would take into account thatsocial action is “locally distinct and situationally contingent” (Erickson,1998, p. 1155), were used to help to develop a clearer picture of such factors.

3. BACKGROUND: FIELD OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

This section places the present study of science learning environments inTaiwan and Australia into context by providing (a) a historical perspectiveon past developments in the burgeoning field of learning environments and(b) a review of the limited number of previous learning environment studiesthat have been conducted in Eastern countries.

3.1. Historical Perspectives

A milestone in the historical development of the field of learningenvironments occurred approximately 30 years ago when Herbert Walbergand Rudolf Moos began seminal independent programs of research.Walberg developed the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) as part ofthe research and evaluation activities of Harvard Physics Project (Walberg,1979; Walberg & Anderson, 1968), whereas Moos developed social climatescales for various human environments including the Classroom En-vironment Scale (CES) (Moos, 1979; Moos & Trickett, 1987). Walberg’sand Moos’s pioneering work built on the earlier foundations of Lewin(1936) and Murray (1938) described in the previous section.


A historical look at the field of learning environments over the past fewdecades shows that a striking feature is the availability of a variety ofeconomical, valid and widely-applicable questionnaires for assessing studentperceptions of classroom environments (Fraser, 1998a, 1998b). Few fieldsin education can boast of the existence of such a rich array of validated androbust instruments which have been used in so many research applications.These instruments include the Individualised Classroom EnvironmentQuestionnaire (ICEQ) for open or individualised settings (Fraser, 1990), theScience Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) for laboratory settings(Fraser, Giddings & McRobbie, 1995), the College and University ClassroomEnvironment Inventory (CUCEI) for higher education classrooms (Fraser& Treagust, 1986), the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) forassessing the interpersonal relationship between teachers and students(Wubbels & Levy, 1993), and the Constructivist Learning EnvironmentSurvey (CLES) for assessing the degree to which a particular classroomenvironment is consistent with constructivist epistemology (Aldridge, Fraser,Taylor & Chen, 2000; Taylor, Fraser & Fisher, 1997).

Whilst the instruments described above have been used and validatedin a number of countries, many of the questionnaires overlap in what theymeasure and some contain items that might not be pertinent in today’sclassroom settings. Therefore, in the present study, the recent What isHappening in this Class? (WIHIC) questionnaire (Fraser, McRobbie &Fisher, 1996) was used to collect data because it combines scales from pastquestionnaires with contemporary dimensions to bring parsimony to thefield of learning environments.

Although the use of questionnaires has led to many insights into learningenvironments through the students’ eyes, the field also includes many finestudies that have used qualitative or interpretative methods (Fraser, 1998a),and considerable progress has been made in combining qualitative andquantitative methods in learning environment research (Fraser & Tobin,1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1998). Examples of studies that highlight the benefitsof combining qualitative and quantitative methods in learning environmentresearch include research on exemplary science teachers (Fraser & Tobin,1989), a study of higher-level learning (Tobin, Kahle & Fraser, 1990), andan interpretative study of a teacher-researcher teaching science in achallenging school setting (Fraser, 1999b).

Literature reviews trace the considerable progress made in the con-ceptualisation, assessment and investigation of the subtle but importantconcept of learning environments over the previous quarter of a century(Fraser, 1994, 1998a; Fraser & Walberg, 1991). For example, the variedtypes of past research on educational learning environments include (a)


investigations of associations between student outcomes and classroomenvironment (McRobbie & Fraser, 1993; Wong, Young & Fraser, 1997);(b) evaluation of educational innovations and systemic reform (Fraser,Kahle & Scantlebury, 1999; Maor & Fraser, 1996); (c) investigation ofdifferences between student and teacher perceptions of experienced andperceived learning environments (Fisher & Fraser, 1983); (d) studies ofchanges in learning environments during the transition from primary tohigh school (Ferguson & Fraser, 1998); (e) teachers’ practical attempts toimprove their own classroom and school environments (Fraser, 1999a;Thorp, Burden & Fraser, 1994), and (f) incorporation of educationalenvironment ideas into the work of school psychologists (Burden & Fraser,1993).

3.2. Past Research in Eastern Countries

Although a recent literature review (Fraser, 1998a) shows that the majorityof the classroom environment studies ever undertaken involved Westerncountries, a number of important studies have been carried out in non-Western countries. Early studies established the validity of classroomenvironment instruments that had been translated into the Indian (Walberg,Singh & Rasher, 1977) and Indonesian (Schibeci, Rideng & Fraser, 1987)languages and replicated associations between student outcomes andclassroom environment perceptions. Recently, Asian researchers workingin Singapore (Chionh & Fraser, 1998; Goh, Young & Fraser, 1995; Teh &Fraser, 1994; Wong & Fraser, 1996) and Brunei (Riah & Fraser, 1998) havemade important contributions to the field of learning environments.

In Singapore, the growing pool of literature related to classroom learningenvironments across different subjects includes computing (Khoo & Fraser,1998), geography (Chionh & Fraser, 1998; Teh & Fraser, 1994), mathematics(Goh et al., 1995) and science (Wong & Fraser, 1996; Wong et al., 1997).Also a study from Brunei investigated how the introduction of newcurricula has influenced learning environments in high school chemistryclasses (Riah & Fraser, 1998). Studies in Singapore (Chionh & Fraser,1998), Brunei (Riah & Fraser, 1998) and Korea (Kim, Fisher & Fraser,1999) were conducted simultaneously with the present study and, like thepresent study, used the What is Happening in this Class (WIHIC)questionnaire to collect data pertaining to the classroom learningenvironment. The studies in Singapore and Brunei validated an Englishversion of the WIHIC questionnaire, whilst the study in Korea validated aKorean version of the questionnaire. The findings in each study replicatethose of past research, reporting strong associations between the learning


environment and student outcomes for almost all scales. Whilst thesestudies provide useful suggestions to educators regarding classroomenvironment dimensions that could be changed in order to improvestudents’ outcomes, they do not identify causal factors associated with theclassroom environments.

In Hong Kong, qualitative methods involving open-ended questionswere used to explore students’ perceptions of the learning environment inGrade 9 classrooms (Wong, 1993, 1996). This study found that manystudents identified the teacher as the most crucial element in a positiveclassroom learning environment. These teachers were found to keep orderand discipline while creating an atmosphere that was not boring or solemn.They also interacted with students in ways that could be considered friendlyand showed concern for the students. Also, in Hong Kong, Cheung (1993)used multilevel analysis to determine the effects of the learning environmenton students’ learning. The findings of this study provide insights that couldhelp to explain why Hong Kong was found to rank highly in physics,chemistry and biology in international comparisons (Keeves, 1992).

The present study went beyond past research in non-Western countriesto involve an English and a Mandarin version of the WIHIC that werevalidated and used in Western Australia and Taiwan, respectively. Inaddition, other research methods, drawn from a range of paradigms, madepossible a more in-depth understanding of social and cultural influenceson the learning environments. The study not only replicated previousresearch, but also explored causal factors associated with students’perceptions of their learning environment.

4. RESEARCH METHODS

The way in which researchers perceive the world is likely to be shaped bythe paradigm which they use (Feyerabend, 1978; Kuhn, 1962; Lakatos,1970). It is widely agreed that multiple methods in comparative researchare useful in achieving greater understanding (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;Keeves & Adams, 1994; Tobin & Fraser, 1998). It was with this in mindthat data collection for the present study involved different sources andkinds of information (as recommended by Erickson, 1998), includingvideotape recordings of science classrooms, fieldnotes, narrative stories,interview comments and tape recordings of interviews. The collection andanalysis of the data were integrally linked, each informing the other duringa recursive process. The idea of ‘grain sizes’ (the use of different sizedsamples for different research questions varying in extensiveness and


intensiveness) in learning environment research (Fraser, 1999b) has beenused effectively in studies that combine different methodologies (Fraser& Tobin, 1991; Tobin & Fraser, 1998), and was used to guide the collectionof data for this study.

Initially, a large-scale quantitative probe (involving samples of studentsin Australia and Taiwan responding to the WIHIC questionnaire and anattitude scale) provided an overview of the learning environments in eachcountry. In the spirit of this interpretative inquiry, the data posed morequestions than it answered. A sense of the problematic was developedduring observations which reshaped the inquiry towards an examinationof social and cultural influences that might affect what was considered ‘adesirable learning environment’ in each country. The data collected usingthe questionnaires were then used as a springboard for further datacollection using different research methods, including interviews withparticipants, observations and narrative stories.

The procedures used in collecting survey data and gathering informationare described below, with reference to: the instruments used for datacollection; translation of questionnaires into Mandarin and back translationinto English; survey data collection for the main study; and the generationand analysis of qualitative data.

4.1. Instruments Used for Data Collection

The recently-developed What Is Happening In This Class? (WIHIC)questionnaire was used to measure students’ perceptions of their classroomenvironment. These data provided an overview of the learning environmentin each country and provided as a starting point from which comparisonscould be made. The WIHIC was developed by Fraser et al. (1996) to bringparsimony to the field of learning environments by combining the mostsalient scales from existing questionnaires with new dimensions ofcontemporary relevance to assess the following seven dimensions of theclassroom environment.

In addition, an eight-item scale was used to assess students’ attitudes interms of enjoyment, interest and how much they look forward to scienceclasses. This was based on a scale from the Test of Science Related Attitudes(TOSRA) (Fraser, 1981).

4.2. Development of a Mandarin Version of the WIHIC

For the purposes of this study, a Mandarin version of the Personal form ofthe What is Happening in this Class (WIHIC)? questionnaire was developed


for use with students in Taiwan. The English version of the WIHICquestionnaire was translated into Mandarin by educators in Taiwan andthen back translated into English by an independent third party asrecommended by Brislin (1970, 1976, 1980; Brislin, Lonner & Thorndike,1973). The back translations were checked, in collaboration with Taiwanesecolleagues, to ensure that the Mandarin version maintained the originalmeanings and concepts in the original English version.

Comparisons between the Mandarin back translation and Englishversions of the questionnaires revealed that, in some cases, the languageused in the back translations was more succinct or simpler than in theoriginal English version. In these cases, we modified the original Englishquestionnaire to make the items clearer. For example, Item 10 in the originalEnglish version read “In this class, I am able to depend on other studentsfor help” and this was changed to “In this class, I get help from otherstudents”.

In other cases, we found that some English words had no direct equivalentin Mandarin. In these cases, the English version was changed so that thewording could be parallel in the versions. For example the term ‘favours’ inthe original item “I do favours for members of this class” was found to haveno direct equivalent in Mandarin. To accommodate this, the original Englishitem was changed to “I am friendly to members of this class”.

There were other cases for which differences in words changed themeaning of the back translation. For example, some items in the backtranslations used the word ‘homework’ (e.g. “When I have problems withhomework, this teacher will help me”), when the original version implied‘class work’ (e.g. “The teacher helps me when I have trouble with thework”). In these cases, where the meanings of the back translations differedfrom those of the English version, amendments were made to the Mandarinversion to ensure consistency.

Once the modifications had been made, the process was repeated toensure that the changes were adequate. A trial of the modified Englishversion of each student questionnaire took place in three science classesin Australia, one from each of Grade 7, 8 and 9. This was followed byinterviews with five students from each class about the readability andcomprehensibility of items. These interviews were used to check whetherstudents had responded to questionnaire items on the basis intended by theresearchers. Similar interviews were conducted in Taiwan by a colleaguefrom National Kaohsiung Normal University.

Insights from the interviews in Australia were compared with thoseconducted in Taiwan and subsequent changes were made to the question-naires. The Taiwanese version was then used to make two questionnaires


in which the items remained identical except that the word ‘biology’ wasused for biology classes and the word ‘physics’ was used for physicsclasses.

4.3. Survey Data Collection

The two questionnaires were administered in each country. In Taiwan,students completed the Mandarin version of both the WIHIC questionnaireand the attitude survey. For the most part, junior high schools in Taiwanare separate from senior high schools and range from Grade 7 to 9 (13–15years of age). A sample of junior high schools, considered representativeof schools in Taiwan, was drawn from three different areas. Schools locatedin northern Taiwan were selected from Taipei, schools in central Taiwanwere selected from the city of Changhua, and schools in southern Taiwanwere selected from Kaohsiung. A total of 25 junior high schools wasselected and the questionnaires were administered to two classes in eachschool, giving a total of 50 classes (25 biology classes and 25 physicsclasses), providing a total sample from Taiwan of 1879 students.

In Western Australia, an English version of the WIHIC questionnaireand the attitude survey were administered to classes from junior highschools (Grades 8–10 or 13–15 year-old students). The schools selectedin Western Australia were restricted to those in which teachers wereprepared to participate. A representative sample of schools was selectedfrom different regions of the state of Western Australia. Of the 50 classes,38 were selected from within the metropolitan area of the capital city, Perth,and the remaining 12 classes were from rural schools. The questionnaireswere administered to two general science classes in each of the 25 schools,providing a sample of 1081 Australian students.

It should be borne in mind that the students’ ages of entrance into thejunior high school, as well as the age for leaving school, are different forboth countries. The science curriculum in each country is also quitedifferent. Despite these factors, attempts were made to ensure that thesamples selected in each of Australia and Taiwan were similar, particularlywith respect to the students’ ages.

4.4. Generation and Analysis of Qualitative Data

The data from the questionnaires were used not only to provide aparsimonious and economical view of learning environments in eachcountry, but also as a starting point from which other data could becollected. Analysis of the survey data revealed that anomalies made the


results hard to interpret without the point-of-view of individual participants.For example, in some cases, the survey data were not congruent with whatwe observed in the classrooms of each country, creating dialectic tensionsthat led to emergent research methods.

From this point, the study employed interpretative procedures (Erickson,1986, 1998) to inform the inquiry. Using a recursive process (Erickson,1998), involving observations and interviews (looking and asking), insightsinto the learning environments in each country were sought. Analyses ofthe data involved critical reflexivity in which assertions and questions weregenerated and reframed throughout the data-collection process. This sectiondescribes the use of classroom observations, interviews with participants,and researchers’ stories to help to capture a richer interpretation of theparticipants’ perspective.

Observations were carried out in the classes of four teachers in each ofAustralia and Taiwan. The selection of these teachers was based on theirwillingness to be involved in the study. Narrative stories, in keeping withDenzin and Lincoln’s (1994) ‘fifth moment’, were used to portrayarchetypes of science classrooms in each country. Stories were used torepresent a way of knowing and thinking (Carter, 1993; Casey, 1995),making use of the researchers’ images, understandings and interpretationsof the learning environments in each country. The stories were used withtheir interpretations and subsequent commentaries to provide a second layerof representation (Geelan, 1997).

At least three students from each of the eight classes were interviewed.Initially, interviews with these students were based on student responsesto selected questionnaire items in addition to questions raised duringclassroom observations. The analysis of these initial interviews invariablyraised a number of questions related to the learning environment andcultural aspects that were unclear. These issues were probed duringsubsequent, more in-depth, interviews.

The teachers of the eight classes were also interviewed to seek theirreasons for various actions and whether the classroom environments createdby different teachers were influenced by social and cultural factors. As withthe students, we found ourselves returning to ask more questions in ourattempt to piece together our understanding of the learning environmentsin each country.

The cross-cultural nature of the present study led to a multimethodapproach to allow triangulation of the methods and cross-validation ofthe data. The data collected using the different methodologies com-plemented each other and together they formed a more complete andcoherent picture of the learning environments in each country (Denzin


& Lincoln, 1994). The results are presented below in three separatesections: analysis of the questionnaire data; findings related to recognisingand minimising cultural bias; and information gathered using observationsand interviews.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA

The analysis of the data collected using the questionnaire and attitude scaleis reported below in terms of the statistical validation of scales anddifferences between scale scores in the two countries.

5.1. Statistical Validation of Scales

During the development of the Mandarin version of the questionnaires, aback-translation check (as described and recommended by Brislin, 1970,1976, 1980) was used to achieve linguistic equivalence with the Englishversion (the development and back translation of which are described inthe previous section). Before valid comparisons could be made betweenthe two countries, based on the WIHIC and attitudes scales, it was importantto establish the conceptual equivalence (Berry, 1980) between the twoversions of the questionnaires. To determine whether the two versions ofthe questionnaire exhibit essentially the same coherence and structureacross the two cultures, the data collected from the 50 classes in Australiaand the 50 classes in Taiwan were analysed to investigate the reliabilityand validity.

Analyses of the data generated statistics were used to determine thereliability and validity of the instruments, including factor structure, internalconsistency reliability, and ability to differentiate between classrooms.

Principal components factor analysis followed by varimax rotationresulted in the acceptance of a revised version of the instrument. Two itemswere omitted from each of the seven scales, resulting in a 56-iteminstrument with 8 items in each scale (see Aldridge, Fraser & Huang, 1999).The a priori factor structure of the final version of the questionnaire wasreplicated in both countries, with nearly all items having a factor loadingof at least .40 on their a priori scale and no other scale (see Table I).Simultaneous studies conducted in Singapore (Chionh & Fraser, 1998),Brunei (Riah & Fraser, 1998) and Canada (Zandvliet & Fraser, 1998) havereported similar factor structures using the WIHIC questionnaire, thussupporting this factor structure.

To establish that each scale has satisfactory internal consistency, or thateach item in a scale assesses a common construct, Cronbach’s alpha

JILL A

LD

RID

GE

AN

D B

AR

RY

FRA

SER

112TABLE I

Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach Alpha Coefficient), and Ability to Differentiate Between Classrooms (ANOVAResults) for Two Units of Analysis for the WIHIC

Item Factor loadingNo Student Teacher Involvement Investigation Task orientation Cooperation Equity

cohesiveness supportAust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw

1 .62 .592 .47 .563 .53 .684 .68 .607 .60 .7189 .64 .6310 .5911 .64 .6712 .68 .6513 .65 .7514 .56 .5515 .63 .6216 .68 .7017 .62 .5919 .4321 .65 .5322 .77 .6523 .4624 .58 .5025 .47 .4126 .49 .45272932 .65 .6133 .58 .6434 .71 .7035 .63 .6136 .64 .6837 .63 .6639 .66 .6640 .61 .64

CR

OSS-C

ULT

UR

AL ST

UD

Y O

F LE

AR

NIN

G E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TS

113TABLE I

(Continued)

Item Factor loadingNo Student Teacher Involvement Investigation Task orientation Cooperation Equity

cohesiveness supportAust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Aust Taiw

42 .65 .4944 .58 .4945 .55 .5946 .62 .5147 .71 .5448 .65 .5849 .67 .6250 .63 .5851 .55 .4452 .59 .4053 .58 .5354 .63 .4755 .65 .4756 .67 .5457 .62 .5858 .52 .5661 .68 .5663 .70 .6564 .69 .6765 .71 .6666 .72 .7167 .74 .5869 .63 .6070 .68 .64% Variance 2.4 4.5 2.5 3.6 1.7 1.5 5.2 29.2 6.1 2.5 4.8 1.8 27.3 6.2Eigenvalue 1.37 2.52 1.41 1.99 0.97 0.82 2.92 16.35 3.43 1.41 2.68 0.98 15.27 3.47Alpha ReliabilityIndividual .81 .86 .88 .87 .84 .85 .88 .90 .88 .86 .89 .87 .93 .90Class Mean .87 .91 .95 .95 .88 .90 .95 .96 .96 .94 .93 .92 .97 .95

Eta2 .11** .07** .14** .34** .09* .11** .15** .22** .14** .36** .15** .28** .15** .24**Loadings smaller than .4 are omitted. The sample consisted of 1081 students in 50 classes in Australia and 1879 students in 50 classes in Taiwan.The eta2 statistic (which is the ratio of ‘between’ to ‘total’ sums of squares) represents the proportion of variance explained by class membership.*p < .05. **p < .01.


coefficient was calculated. The internal consistency of each of the seveneight-item scales is reported in Table I. Using the individual as the unit ofanalysis, scale reliabilities ranged from .81–.93 in Australia and from .85–.90 in Taiwan. Using the class mean as the unit of analysis, scale reliabilityestimates ranged from .87–.97 in Australia and from .90–.96 in Taiwan fortwo units of analysis (individual and class mean). As expected, reliabilityvalues are somewhat higher when the class mean is used as the unit ofanalysis as opposed to the individual student.

The relatively high alpha reliability for each scale of the WIHIC forboth the English and Mandarin versions suggest that the items in a scaleassesses a common concept. These results were comparable to thosefound using the WIHIC in Singapore (Chionh & Fraser, 1998) and Brunei(Riah & Fraser, 1998), which ranged between .71 and .86 using theindividual as the unit of analysis and between .74 and .91 using the classmean as the unit of analysis. These results suggest that the internalconsistency for both the Mandarin and English versions of the WIHICare acceptable.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), using class membership asthe main effect, was used to determine the ability of each WIHIC scale todifferentiate between the perceptions of students in different classes. Theeta2 statistic was calculated to provide an estimate of the strength ofassociation between class membership and each WIHIC scale, in order toascertain whether scale scores varied with class membership. Table Ipresents the ANOVA results which indicate that each of the seven scalesdifferentiated significantly between classes (p < .01) in both Australia andTaiwan. The amount of variance in scale scores accounted for by classmembership (i.e. eta2) ranged from .07–.15 in Australia and from .07–.36in Taiwan for different scales.

5.2. Differences between Australia and Taiwan in LearningEnvironment and Attitude

Table I records the differences in mean environment and attitude scoresfor Taiwan and Australia. Australian students consistently perceived theirlearning environments more favourably than did Taiwanese students. Effectsizes and t tests were calculated to investigate the differences betweenstudents’ perceptions in Australia and Taiwan (Table II). In order to estimatethe magnitudes of the differences (in addition to their statistical significance),effect sizes were calculated as recommended by Thompson (1998a, 1998b).The effect size for five of the seven scales of the WIHIC questionnaireranged between approximately a quarter of a standard deviation (0.27) and


over three quarters of a standard deviation (0.86) for class means. Theseeffect sizes suggest a substantial difference between countries on thelearning environment scales with the exception of Student Cohesivenessand Teacher Support. T tests for independent samples, using the class asthe unit of analysis, were used to investigate whether differences in scalescores between Australia and Taiwan were statistically significant. Studentsin Australia consistently viewed their classroom environment (in terms ofWIHIC scales) more favourably than did students in Taiwan. There was astatistically significant difference (p < .05) for the scales of Involvement,Investigation, Task Orientation, Cooperation and Equity (see Table II).

An interesting anomaly arose in that students in Taiwan expressed asignificantly more positive attitude towards science than did students inAustralia (p < .01). The effect size for student attitudes was over two thirdsof a standard deviation (0.72) for class means, also suggesting a largedifference between countries. Despite students in Australia holding morefavourable perceptions of the learning environment, it appears that studentsin Taiwan had more positive attitudes towards their science classes. Thesefindings prompted the researchers to examine the perceptions of thestudents in each country more closely during the qualitative data collectionwhich is discussed further in the following sections.

6. RECOGNISING AND MINIMISING CULTURAL BIAS

This section explores two factors associated with the bias and assumptionsthat researchers bring to a cross-cultural study. In the first place, critical

TABLE II

Mean, Standard Deviation, Effect Size and T Test for Independent Samples forDifferences Between Australia and Taiwan in Perceptions of Classroom Environment

and Attitude for the Class Mean as the Unit of Analysis

WIHIC scale Mean Standard deviation Difference betweencountries

Aust Taiw Aust Taiw Effect size t

Student 31.61 31.60 1.33 1.54 0.00 0.06cohesiveness

Teacher support 24.68 24.24 2.89 2.79 0.17 0.74Involvement 24.76 23.04 2.09 1.89 0.86 4.60*Investigation 23.56 22.90 2.43 2.54 0.27 1.43Task orientation 31.75 30.98 1.80 2.24 0.38 2.10*Cooperation 30.43 29.56 1.80 2.24 0.43 2.44*Equity 31.68 30.04 2.24 2.81 0.65 3.40*Attitude 23.59 26.43 4.41 3.67 0.70 –3.55*

*p < .05.


auto-ethnographies, defined by Burdell and Swadener (1999, p. 22) as “aform of self-narrative that places the self within a social context”, areused to identify differences in the lenses that researchers of differentcultures brought to the present study and how these affected what theyobserved and how they interpreted their observations. Secondly, aretrospective analysis of stories written during the course of the study isused to explore the notion of crossing cultural boundaries and the journeythat one of the researchers took over the course of the present cross-cultural study.

6.1. Identifying the Different Lenses that Researchers Bring to aStudy

Throughout the study, we found ourselves moving between hermeneuticunderstanding (generating insights into the meaning of others) andphenomenological understanding (a means of gaining insights into ourconscious experiences) (van Manen, 1990). In this study, hermeneuticunderstanding was generated through interviews with teachers, studentsand other researchers, while phenomenological understandings weregenerated through stories written by researchers. In addition, criticalreflexivity was considered an important factor during the present study.Stories, written by one researcher from Taiwan and one from Australia,were made at the end of observations made in each country.

The stories were used to help to identify differences in researchers’perceptions of aspects of the study. One such difference was the researchers’views of what constituted a good teacher. The stories brought to light thatthe researcher from Taiwan considered the most important element of beinga good teacher to be good content knowledge. For the Australian researcher,however, the most important feature was concerned with the interpersonalrelationships developed between the teacher and the students. Thisdifference in perceptions created a different lens through which eachresearcher viewed their observations. The researcher from Taiwan was morelikely to pay attention to the content of the lesson and the depth ofknowledge that the teacher relayed to the students. In contrast, theAustralian teacher was more likely to focus on the teacher’s interpersonalskills and the way in which the teacher related to the students at differentlevels.

The lens through which the researchers observed each lesson was alsocoloured by the view that each held of what constituted ‘active participation’.Prior to observations, we had discussed the importance of ‘activeparticipation’ during a science lesson and, in many cases, we discussed


the degree to which ‘active participation’ had taken place during theselessons. It was not until after we had read a number of stories about ourobservations that we realised that we each held different views. TheAustralian researcher had used this term to describe lessons or activitiesthat encouraged a ‘hands-on’ approach (i.e. more student-centred andinvolving physically manoeuvring, touching and investigating a varietyof materials). The Taiwanese researcher, however, perceived the term‘active participation’ as a ‘minds-on’ phenomenon in which students notonly pay attention to what is taught, but assimilate the new informationwith different or similar information that has been learned. This requiresthe teacher to keep the students interested and attentive to what is beingtaught. Once again, these differences coloured what each of the researchersconsidered important during the observations, and the stories often reflectedthese differences.

6.2. Crossing Cultural Borders

Finally, the researchers’ stories were used to illustrate one of the Westernresearcher’s shift from a largely Eurocentric perception of the educationsystem in Taiwan to a critical awareness of the Australian education system.The stories and their subsequent commentaries, in combination with studentand teacher interviews, were the catalyst for the Western researcher’sexperience of crossing cultural borders, as they helped to redefine self-conscious boundaries that were originally established through cultural-centrism.

In the past, studies involving the notion of border crossing (Giroux,1992) have explored the idea of moving from different cultures andmicro-cultures encountered in everyday life, in several different contexts,including minority groups crossing into the world of white Anglo-Saxons(Lugones, 1987) and students’ journeys from their everyday lives intothe subculture of school science (Aikenhead, 1996; Cobern & Aikenhead,1998). The present study went beyond past research in non-Westerncountries that merely involved translating a questionnaire into anotherlanguage and using it to replicate previous research in Western countries.Through using a range of intensive qualitative methodologies duringnumerous visits to Taiwanese schools, the Western researcher in thepresent study ‘crossed the cultural border’ not only to gain a deeperunderstanding of classroom environments in Taiwan, but also to re-examine her ideas about education in her own country.

The Australian researcher commenced this study with a more Orientalistmind bent, described by Said (1995, p. 45) as the “sense of Western power


over the Orient”. Initially, the Australian researcher tended to use her ownculture as a benchmark to determine whether science classes in Taiwanwere effective or appropriate, and explained differences between thescience classes in Australia and Taiwan using her own experiences andcultural understandings. The initial reactions which she had towards scienceclassrooms in Taiwan and her comparisons of the learning environmentsled her to view education in Australia as more conducive to effectivelearning. The ensuing discourse assumed the role of Orientalism in whichshe “expressed the strength of the West and the Orient’s weakness” (Said,1995, p. 45), as seen by herself, a Westerner.

The concept of border crossing (Giroux, 1992) was used to make senseof the Western researcher’s shift from Orientalism towards rethinking andreinvestigation of assumptions about what she knew to be true of schoolsand the culture in Taiwan. Her initial reaction to science teaching in Taiwanwas one of ‘symbolic violence’ (Bourdieu, 1992), in which she felt thatscience in Taiwan went against much that she had learned to represent goodteaching. However, after subsequent discussions with colleagues andinterviews with teachers, she was able to make sense of particular actionsand to recognise difficulties and pressures under which teachers in Taiwanwork. She began to empathise with these teachers and understand theproblems which they faced. This, coupled with the Taiwanese researcher’sconflicting view of what constituted an effective teacher, forced her to re-examine her own views.

Whilst the examination-driven curriculum in Taiwan appears to haveforged teaching styles different from in Australia, interviews with studentsrevealed that they were not as unhappy with classes in Taiwan as theresearcher had imagined. In fact, students whom we interviewed inTaiwan had more positive attitudes towards science classes than thosein Australia. This disclosure forced the researcher to take a more objectivelook at teaching in her own country and, as a result, she began to findthat perhaps it was not as superior as she had first imagined. She no longerconsidered Australian education to be relatively free of faults and, incontrast, commenced a more critical discourse about Australian ed-ucation.

She had began to recognise that neither system was superior, neitherhad all the answers and, in retrospect, both had a lot to offer the other. Theresearcher’s awareness of Orientalism, and the difficulties that this mindbent could pose, made her more critical of her own reactions towardseducation in Taiwan. This awareness would not have been possible if shehad not felt at ease with her fellow researchers and able to question andprobe aspects of their culture.


7. INFORMATION GATHERED USING OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEWS

The results of the large-scale quantitative probe, in addition to theinterviews based on items of the WIHIC questionnaire, posed anomaliesand dialectic tensions about which the researchers were keen to find outmore. As a result of critical reflexivity and dialectic tensions, there evolvedresearch methods that were more culturally sensitive and that the researchersfelt would help them to understand social and cultural factors that influencethe learning environment. These included observations and interviews withthe participants and narratives. The following section outlines thedifferences between the cultures and education systems of the two countriesand how they might impinge on the learning environment that is created.

This section explores factors that influence the learning environmentin Australia and Taiwan. Data were gathered using classroom observationsand participant interviews from which themes emerged from our findings.

The bricolage method, described by Denzin and Lincoln (1994), wasused to draw together the information collected using a variety of researchmethods. By holding competing perspectives in dialectical tension, we wereable to draw on a variety of paradigms to inform their interpretation in abid to explain the cultural and social factors that could contribute towardsthe learning environments established in each country. The followingcommentary attempts to bring together the pieces that form the bricolage.

The following pages discuss two themes that emerged from fieldnotesof observations and interviews, which are labelled ‘educational aims andthe nature of the curriculum’ and ‘discipline and respect for the teacher’.

7.1. Educational Aims and the Nature of the Curriculum

During our observations and interviews, it appeared that the educationalaims, reflected in the nature of the curriculum, were quite different inTaiwan and Australia. In Taiwan, teachers whom were interviewedindicated that education was focused predominantly on the developmentof academic ability. “With the students, the examination results are mostimportant . . .. If they do not achieve well, then they cannot go on touniversity” (Taiwanese Teacher, Transcript 4.1.13). Social and emotionalaspects of a student’s development were generally considered to be theresponsibility of the family and wider community rather than of the school(Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). In contrast, teachers interviewed in Australiaconsidered academic development to be one of several aspects to bedeveloped in students, with social, emotional, and physical developmentholding equal value. “I think that we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that


education involves the development of the whole child . . .. Too muchimportance can be placed on academic development . . .” (AustralianTeacher, Transcript 3.2.10).

The nature of the curricula in Taiwan and Australia appeared, in manyways, to reflect academic versus whole-student aims. In Taiwan, the natureof the curriculum tended to be more examination-driven and highlycompetitive, when compared to the curriculum in Western Australia. InTaiwan, examination results were of paramount importance to students,as high achievement increased the likelihood of being allocated a positionin a ‘star’ school (i.e. a school with outstanding results as measured by thenumber of students who enter university). In contrast, students in Australiagained access to the high school of their choice without having to take suchexaminations.

It seemed that the educational aims considered important to the teacherand the nature of the curriculum played a significant role in, and in somecases acted as a constraint to, the creation of the ideal learning environment.The competitive nature of the curriculum in Taiwan appeared to encourageteachers to concentrate on developing academic ability as efficiently aspossible. Diversions from teacher-centred methods were viewed as off-taskby many parents, teachers and students.

One such teacher whom we interviewed, Mrs Lee, had a passion forbiology and a love of teaching. However, when the conversation turnedto the biology curriculum, it became clear that Mrs Lee was less thansatisfied. Apparently the latest curriculum has been developed byscientists and much of the content is above the level of her students. Theteacher explained that:

The textbook [upon which examinations are based] is very big and the teacher has to gothrough each stage. There is too much to teach . . . and there isn’t enough time to coverthe content of the book. Ideally I would like to give students the chance to learn what isnot in the textbook . . . (but I) don’t do that . . . because of the shortage of time.

According to Mrs Lee, in her school, formal examinations in biology areheld at least once a month and she spends much time preparing her studentsfor these. She went on to explain that, as a result, alternative methods wereoften not used in her class:

I try to include different methods in my teaching, but it depends on a lot of factors. I tryto use a multimedia approach to keep my students interested but find that I constantlyhave to be aware of the time. Sometimes, I will prepare a lesson using a lot of differentmedia but do not get the chance to use them because of the students’ ability or the amountof content that needs to be covered.


The constraints placed on Taiwanese teachers as a result of the examination-driven curriculum were echoed by Mr Cheung, a teacher whom weinterviewed the day after. He used the expression ‘time is tight’ on a numberof occasions to explain the predicament of teachers in Taiwan. Mr Cheunghad explained that:

The way we teach is constrained. Students have to do the entrance examination to seniorhigh school and they like to be crammed . . .. The examinations, the [content of the]textbook and the amount of homework restrict how much work we can do outside of thetextbook. Every aspect of science education is constrained.

The science curriculum (for both biology and physics) in Taiwan ispresented to students in the form of textbooks, and examinations are basedon the content of these. As a result, it is important for teachers to cover allareas. Teachers whom we interviewed explained that teacher-centredmethods are the most practical way to cover the content in the given timeframe, and that diversions are often not possible.

Without exception, the classes that we observed in Taiwan were teacher-centred and there were generally few opportunities for discussions orquestions. Initially, we had assumed that the teacher-centred nature ofclasses in Taiwan was the result of large class sizes, but speaking to moreteachers convinced us that class size was but one factor (among many) andthe nature of the curriculum was another. When asked whether he useddiscussions in his class, Mr Cheung responded:

Usually no. I don’t give them this kind of chance. In the beginning, in my first year ofteaching, I tried this kind of teaching, but I found that it was too noisy and very difficultto control the class. Most of all, I found that this kind of chance [discussions] takes toomuch time, and sometimes the students are not on task. So, although I have tried, I don’tuse discussions in my teaching now . . .. Under the education system that we have inTaiwan, the lecture kind of teaching is the most efficient way to teach students and get agood score . . .. The students’ time is already very tight and they work too hard already.So [by teaching in this way] I can do something for them.

During our visits to Taiwan, we did observe a teacher who moved awayfrom the teacher-centred approach, but these occasions were few.

In classes that we observed in Taiwan, we noticed that teachers usedrote learning on a number of occasions. The teacher would ask a question,and students would chorus back the answer. These sessions were used torevise the content of lessons, particularly when a test was close at hand.Through further reading, we became aware that what we perceived as rotelearning (a mechanical procedure requiring little thought) could haveactually been what is referred to as ‘deep memorisation’ (Biggs, 1996; Lee,


1996). Memorisation in the Confucian tradition is seen as a significantpart of learning. It generally precedes understanding and is accompaniedby reflection. When we asked students and teachers for their opinionabout such rote sessions, they generally agreed that this was an effectivemethod of preparing students for examinations. When asked about heropinion on rote learning, one teacher, Mrs Chou, commented: “In oursituation, this kind of teaching is very helpful for preparing students forthe examinations.”

Australian teachers, on the other hand, tended to avoid the use of rotelearning or memorisation of a verbal, repetitious nature and, whenquestioned, generally frowned on this as a viable teaching method. In thislight, one teacher commented that developing the students’ ability aslearners was “more important than pumping them full of information”.Although these teachers expressed a desire to use methods that were notteacher-centred in their science classes, they explained that, for variousreasons, this was not always possible. Generally, however, it was felt that,by incorporating a range of different styles of teaching, they were betterable to cater for the range of learning styles. In addition, teachers felt thattheir students were more likely to understand concepts if they were activelyinvolved in their learning.

Teachers interviewed in Australia indicated that, like Taiwan, the sciencecurriculum in Western Australia is defined by a set content that needs tobe covered. However, unlike Taiwan, where the curriculum is examination-driven and presented in the form of a textbook (whose depth and scopeleave little time for any method of teaching other than teacher-centred),the methods by which the Western Australian curriculum was deliveredwas left largely to the teacher. Consequently, the nature of the curriculumappeared to be largely responsible for the type of teaching approaches usedin each country, and these have led to differences in what were consideredto be ideal learning.

7.2. Discipline and Respect for the Teacher

Classroom observations and interviews suggested that there could bedifferences in the ways in which students regarded their teachers, withstudents in Taiwan appearing to be more respectful of their teachers thanstudents in Australia. The traditional bow of students, at the beginningand end of lessons, is considered to be a mark of respect. Whilst it isdifficult to gauge the degree of respect that students hold for the teacherfrom such rituals, interviews with teachers and students in Taiwanindicated that teachers hold a high status within the community.


According to Huang (1997), Stevenson and Stigler (1992) and Smith(1997), teachers in Taiwan hold a professional status within the com-munity and are respected as experts in their field. Reinforcing their statusand professional standing, some teachers in Taiwan made a point ofintentionally distancing themselves from their students. One such teacherexplained that, in his experience, if he was friendlier towards the students,they were less inclined to study. He added:

If I’m too close or friendly, students feel that I am more of a friend than a teacher. So, ifI’m too close, they won’t feel pressured to study . . . I find that, by distancing myself,they [the students] won’t forget what position they hold or lose respect.

Although the teachers whom we interviewed generally felt this way, therewas an exception. One Taiwanese teacher purposefully created a closerand more personal relationship with some students, paying particularattention to those whom were motivated or interested in biology. Sheencouraged them with excursions and trips to sites of interest on theweekend and took them around the school grounds to teach them morebiology after school.

The degree of respect that the Taiwanese students have for theirteachers could be grounded in the students’ upbringing and in theConfucian ethic of filial piety. According to Bond and Hwang (1990),Lee (1996) and Smith (1997), much of the Chinese social behaviour iscommanded by the teachings of Confucius, or Chung-ni K’ung. One ofthe primary concerns of Confucius is achieving social harmony (Tong,1970). In the Confucian tradition, relationships are considered to be ofparamount importance, with both parties within a relationship beingaccorded rules of correct behaviour. Social harmony is ensured if eachindividual follows the requirements of his or her relationship role, suchas that of the teacher and student.

Students observed in Australia, however, were more likely to interruptor be disrespectful towards the teacher than their counterparts in Taiwan.The socialisation of students could also have a bearing on the degree ofrespect that students have for their teachers. Comparing classrooms inTaiwan and Australia, observations indicated that there was a larger gapbetween the roles of teachers and students. This point was highlightedduring observations of Australian teachers performing tasks, such as givingout papers, that normally would be undertaken by students in Taiwan.Differences in the degree of respect accorded to teachers in each countrycould be related to power differences between teachers and students in therespective countries.


In Hofstede’s (1980, 1983) work-related study, he extracted fourdimensions of cultural variation. One such factor, power distance, can beused to help to explain the relationship between the teacher and studentsin each country:

The extent to which the members of a society accept that power in institutions andorganisations is distributed unequally [differs between countries]. This affects thebehaviour of the less powerful as well as of the more powerful members of society. Peoplein large power distance societies accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has aplace which needs no further justification. People in small power distance societies strivefor power equalisation and demand justification for power inequalities. (Hofstede, 1983,p. 83)

In cultures in which there is an emphasis on filial piety, such as Taiwan,there is a greater likelihood of a larger power distance, according to Bondand Hwang (1990). The differences between power distances in Tai-wanese and Australian classrooms could explain the observed respect orlack of respect for the teachers. A study by Ho and Kang (1984) has shownthat attitudes towards filial piety were correlated with the placing ofgreater emphasis by parents on strictness and discipline and less emphasison the child’s expression of opinions, independence, self-mastery andcreativity.

Although teachers in both countries complained about disciplineproblems, we noted that there was more evidence of disruptive behaviourin science classes in Australia (answering back and chatting betweenfriends) than in Taiwan. It appears that student behaviour in Taiwan couldbe influenced by the degree of discipline and respect for the teacher’sknowledge and ability. According to Smith (1997, p. 43), the disciplineproblems and ills of classroom management prevalent in America are nota problem in schools in Taiwan:

They are simply not part of the culture or social setting; such discipline problems,disrespect, and disruptive and uncontrolled behavior on the part of the students areunacceptable.

One teacher commented that, while corporal punishment is officiallyforbidden in schools in Taiwan (as it is in Australia), some parents suggestto the teachers that they “beat their children so that [they] will be moreafraid and will study harder”. Dr Huang, who has school-age childrenpointed out that, while there are parents in Taiwan who condone and evenencourage teachers to use the cane, not all parents are of this opinion. Sheadded: “Because the competition is very high and they want their child to


do well, they see corporal punishment as a means of helping their childrenby making them study harder.”

This point is reiterated by Parish and Whyte (1978, p. 255) who speakof discipline in the homes and some schools of Taiwan: “Spanking andscolding are the mainstays of discipline . . . there appears to be little relianceon the techniques of persuasion, praise, or withdrawal of love which arefavored by child care authorities in China and America . . ..”

Whether or not the use of such discipline made a difference in howstudents acted towards their teachers, or behaved in class, was difficult totell. During classroom observations, however, we noticed that studentdisruptions in Taiwanese classrooms were minimal, with only brief,whispered discussions with neighbours. Students indicated that these briefwhisperings were related to points that were unclear from the lecture.Moreover, when teachers in Taiwan discussed ‘discipline problems’ withus, these appeared to be associated more with inattentiveness than whatwe, as Australians, would class as disruptive behaviour. Smith (1997) addsthat few discipline problems of consequence exist in Taiwanese classroomsand that such problems are rarely related to violence.

There was no doubt that the students in Taiwan were less likely thanstudents in Australia to say anything negative about their teachers duringthe interviews. The teachers’ knowledge was not questioned by any of thestudents interviewed in Taiwan. They rarely questioned the teachingmethods or the lesson content. As one student commented, “I like whatthe teacher is teaching me. She teaches very well and it is always interesting.So, I don’t need to question the way she teaches.”

In contrast, students whom were interviewed in Australia complainedreadily about their teachers and the teaching methods which they used.Some students complained that they found science lessons boring and manysaid that they would choose to have science taught differently. There werecases of students, particularly in lower-ability classes, who viewed scienceand their science teachers as something to be endured because the subjectwas compulsory.

In science classrooms which we observed in Australia, incidences ofstudents talking between themselves, calling out or answering the teacherback in a less than civil manner were not uncommon. Teachers whom wereinterviewed in Australia expressed the opinion that a lack of discipline wasone of the biggest constraints to their teaching. These teachers complainedthat disruptive students often prevented them from being able to teach inways in which they would ideally like. In some cases, teachers felt thatthey found themselves in the role of counsellor and spent teaching timesorting out students’ problems. Of this, Slee and Knight (1992, p. 8) wrote


that the teacher’s role now comes to include that of “quasi-therapist orcorridor counsellor”.

During a group interview, the question of discipline arose and thissparked off a discussion of the problems which they encountered in theirclassrooms. The teachers all were in agreement that they were running outof avenues to which they could turn to for help, and we got the distinctimpression that each teacher felt alone in his/her dealings of individualproblems. The teachers relayed a variety of ‘horror’ stories of experienceswith students, some of which drew laughs as the events were recalled. Oneof the teachers mentioned the Education Department’s bid to cut down thenumber of suspensions in their school which led to a discussion on the needfor suspensions. These teachers repeatedly expressed that they felt that theyhad a lack of means with which to deal with disruptive students.

In Western Australia, teachers usually follow a procedure laid down inschool policy (known as the Managing Students’ Behaviour Policy) whichoutlines the steps which teachers should take to resolve a conflict, whichis supported at the local, district and state levels. Attempts made to integratediscipline into the texture of the school have been termed a ‘whole schoolapproach’ (McWilliam, 1999) and, according to Partington (1998), the actof removing students from the classroom is widely practised in WesternAustralia.

It is very possible that the degree of respect that students had for theirteachers and the discipline problems experienced had a marked effect onthe types of learning environments created by the teachers in theirrespective countries.

8. DISCUSSION

The research described in this article is different from the large majorityof studies in science education in that it extended beyond the confines ofa single country to involve researchers from two different countries inworking collaboratively in pursuing the same research questions both in theirown country and in the other country. This study is also distinctive in that itwent beyond past cross-national research which was restricted to translatinga questionnaire developed in the West into another language, and then usingit in another country to replicate previous research in Western countries. Thisstudy used a multimethod approach in which the use of qualitative researchmethods (observations, interviews and narrative stories) augmentedquestionnaire data to provide richer interpretations and insights. Overall, thestudy highlighted the importance of cross-cultural studies to help our


understanding not only of classroom environments in other countries, butalso of classroom environments in our own country, it supported the valueof using multiple research methods, and it enabled the researchers to ‘crossthe border’ into the world of science education in another country.

The quantitative data, collected using the What is Happening in ThisClass? (WIHIC) questionnaire and an attitude scale in the first phase ofthis study, supported the reliability and validity of both the English andMandarin versions of all scales. The final 56-item version of the classroomenvironment questionnaire had 8 items in each of the 7 scales. The a priorifactor structure was replicated with nearly all of the items loading on itsown factor and no other factor. Internal consistency (alpha reliability) fortwo units of analysis and ability to differentiate between classrooms werefound to be satisfactory. Overall, the study provides very strong supportfor the reliability and validity of a widely-applicable learning environmentquestionnaire for use in two countries and in two languages.

A comparison of scale means between the two countries revealedinteresting anomalies that, in the spirit of the interpretative approach,prompted the researchers to seek why differences might occur. The initialdata indicated that Australian students consistently perceived theirclassroom environments more favourably than did students in Taiwan onall scales but, in contrast, Taiwanese students had a more positive attitudetowards their science classes. To explore these findings in more depth,the researchers took the roles of ‘bricoleur’ as described by Denzin andLincoln (1994), in that they pieced together the data collected usingdifferent methodologies to gain deeper insights into the learningenvironments.

Whilst the quantitative data made an important contribution to thebricolage of information built up during the study, it was limited when usedfor comparative purposes. We found that students from Australia andTaiwan responded to questionnaire items in ways that were meaningful totheir own situations and were often influenced by social and cultural factors.Consequently, the interpretation of the data became more meaningful whencombined with data gathered using other research methods. This provideda precautionary note regarding ‘imposed etic’ (Berry, 1969), experiencedwhen researchers use a questionnaire framed in one cultural context andimpose those categories, variables, concepts and constructs on a differentculture.

The generation and analysis of data collected using classroomobservations, interviews with participants and narrative stories allowed theresearcher to explore the students’ perceptions of the learning environment;identify factors which influence the learning environments in Taiwan and


Australia; and make meaningful interpretations which took into accountthe background, culture and situation of individuals. Through adopting aninterpretative approach that enabled the researchers to weave together thedata collected from multiple paradigms and methodologies, it was possibleto examine components which could be influenced by culture such as“situational and contextual factors, . . . [including] social expectations,norms, task definitions and social cues” (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980, p. 8)that otherwise might be overlooked.

The learning environments created in each country were found to beinfluenced by the nature of the curriculum, with the more examination-driven curriculum in Taiwan leading to more teacher-centred approachesin the classroom. Consequently, emphases considered important to scienceeducation in Western Australia, such as involvement, are not always asimportant or possible in Taiwan. The pressures experienced by teachers ineach country appear to influence the learning environment and in somerespects appear to be on opposing ends of a pendulum swing. Whilst thereare pressures related to an examination-driven curriculum, there also arepressures related to implementing innovative ideas and tailoring a lessprescriptive curriculum to students’ needs.

The degree of respect that students held for their teacher appeared toinfluence the classroom environment. The decidedly rowdier environmentin Australia, where students appeared to be more disruptive in class, washeld in contrast to the classes in Taiwan that were comparatively quiet andfree of students’ disruptions. There were points, good and bad, to be saidfor both learning environments, with students in Taiwan being less inclinedto ask the teacher questions than their Australian counterparts, but withAustralian students being more likely to encounter occasions when learningwas interrupted by the disruptive behaviour of others.

It was felt that each country has much to learn from the other with regardto the development of a learning environment which fosters positiveattitudes and a love of learning. The comparative nature of the present studyof learning environments in Taiwan and Australia made possible theexamination of similarities and differences between the learning environmentand students’ perceptions in each country. By comparing the learningenvironments in two such different cultures, the researchers were able toidentify the qualities inherent in each. As such, cross-cultural comparisonsof this type have the potential to provide understanding of concepts as seenby the people within the culture under study, generating new insights(Brislin, 1980; Fraser, 1999b; Stigler & Hiebert, 1997) and making possiblethe inclusion of the social context in which behaviours occur (Bilmes &Boggs, 1979; Tseng & Hsu, 1980). Comparative studies of this nature


enable researchers, teachers and teacher educators to gain better un-derstandings about their own beliefs and the social and cultural restraintsto their teaching.

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of sci-ence. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, T.-C. I. (1999). Investigating classroom environ-ments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple research methods. Journal of Educa-tional Research, 93, 48–62.

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 Journalof Science Education, 22(1), 37–55.

Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychol-ogy, 4, 119–128.

Berry, J. W. (1980). Introduction to methodology. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–28). London:Allyn and Bacon.

Biggs, J. (1996). Western misperceptions of the Confucian-heritage learning culture. InD. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural psychological andcontextual influences (pp. 45–68). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Edu-cational Research.

Bilmes, J., & Boggs, S. (1979). Language and communication: The foundations of cul-ture. In A. Marsella, R. Tharp, & T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-culturalpsychology (pp. 47–76). New York: Academic Press.

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1990). The social psychology of the Chinese people. InM. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–266). Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.

Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 1, 185–216.

Brislin, R. W. (1976). Translation: Applications and research. New York: Wiley.Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H.

Triandis, & J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology(Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). London: Allyn & Bacon.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. W. (1973). Cross-cultural research meth-ods. New York: Wiley.

Burdell, P., & Swadener, B. B. (1999). Critical personal narrative and autoethnographyin education: Reflections on a genre. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 21–26.

Burden, R., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Use of classroom environment assessments in schoolpsychology: A British perspective. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 232–240.

Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in teaching and teacher education. EducationalResearcher, 22(1), 5–12.

Casey, K. (1995). The new narrative research in education. Review of Research in Edu-cation, 21, 211–253.


Cheung, K. C. (1993). The learning environment and its effects on learning: Product andprocess modelling for science achievement at the sixth form level in Hong Kong.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 242–264.

Chionh, Y. H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). Validation and use of the ‘What is Happen-ing in this Class’ (WIHIC) questionnaire in Singapore. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Cobern, W. W., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1998). Cultural aspects of learning science. In B. J.Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitativeresearch. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 1–17). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hand-book on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser& K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 1155–1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Ferguson, D. L., & Meyer, G. (1998). Talking across borders and languages: Encourag-ing international research discussions and collaboration. International Journal of Edu-cational Research, 29, 89–93.

Ferguson, P. D., & Fraser, B. J. (1998). Changes in learning environment during thetransition from primary to secondary school. Learning Environment Research, 1, 369–383.

Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.London: Verso.

Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroomenvironment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 20, 55–61.

Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). Melbourne, Australia:Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne,Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Hand-book of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York:Macmillan.

Fraser, B. J. (1996, March). NARST’s expansion, internationalization and cross-nation-alization: History in the making. Presidential address presented at the annual meetingof the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.

Fraser, B. J. (1998a). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determi-nants. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The international handbook of scienceeducation (pp. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B. J. (1998b). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity andapplications. Learning Environment Research, 1, 7–33.

Fraser, B. J. (1999a). Using learning environment assessments to improve classroom andschool climates. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving andsustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 65–83). London: Falmer Press.

Fraser, B. J. (1999b). ‘Grain sizes’ in learning environment research: Combining quali-tative and quantitative methods. In H. C. Waxman, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), New


directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 285–296). Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.

Fraser, B. J., Giddings, G. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Evolution and validation of apersonal form of an instrument for assessing science laboratory classroom environ-ments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 399–422.

Fraser, B. J., Kahle, J. B., & Scantlebury, K. (1999, March). Classroom, home and peerenvironment influences on student outcomes: An analysis of systemic reform data.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research inScience Teaching, Boston.

Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1996, April). Development, validationand use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, New York.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1989). Student perceptions of psychosocial environments inclassrooms of exemplary science teachers. International Journal of Science Educa-tion, 11, 14–34.

Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods inclassroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Educationalenvironments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271–292). London:Pergamon.

Fraser, B. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessingclassroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37–57.

Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation,antecedents and consequences. London: Pergamon.

Geelan, D. R. (1997). Weaving narrative nets to capture school science classrooms. Re-search in Science Education, 27, 553–563.

Getzels, J. W., & Thelen, H. A. (1960). The classroom as a unique social system. In N. B.Henry (Ed.), The dynamics of instructional groups: Sociopsychological aspects ofteaching and learning (pp. 53–82) (Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education, Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition.South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. (1988). Critical theory and the politics of culture and voice: Rethinking thediscourse of educational research. In R. Sherman, & R. Webb (Eds.), Qualitative re-search in education: Focus and methods (pp. 190–210). New York: Falmer Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education.New York: Routledge.

Goh, S. C., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student out-comes in elementary mathematics classrooms: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Ex-perimental Education, 64, 29–40.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ho, D. Y. F., & Kang, T. K. (1984). Intergenerational comparisons of child-rearing atti-tudes and practices in Hong Kong. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1004–1016.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work relatedvalues. London: Sage.


Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countries and three regions.In J. B. Deregowski, S. Dziurawiec, & R. C. Annis (Eds.), Expiscations in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 335–355). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Huang, I. T. C. (1997). Science education in Asia. The Interdisciplinary Journal of StudyAbroad, 3(2), 13–24.

Keeves, J. P. (1992). The IEA study of science III: Changes in science education andachievement: 1970 to 1984. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Keeves, J. P., & Adams D. (1994). Comparative methodology in education. In T. Husén,& T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.,pp. 948–958). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Khoo, H. S., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). Using classroom environment dimensions inthe evaluation of adult computer courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Kim, H.-B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1999). Assessment and investigation ofconstructivist science learning environments in Korea. Research in Science & Tech-nological Education, 17, 239–249.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. InI. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning inthe Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins, & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:Cultural psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Melbourne, Australia:Australian Council for Educational Research.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principals of topological psychology. New York: McGraw.Lugones, M. (1987). Playfulness, ‘world’-traveling, and loving perception. Hypatia, 2(2),

3–13.Maehr, M., & Nicholls, J. (1980). Culture and achievement: A second look. In N. Warren

(Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 221–267). London: AcademicPress.

Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluat-ing inquiry-based computer assisted learning. International Journal of Science Edu-cation, 18, 401–421.

McRobbie, C. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1993). Associations between student outcomes andpsychosocial science environment. Journal of Educational Research, 87, 78–85.

McWilliam, E. (1999). Individuality in education. In D. Meadmore, B. Burnett, & P.O’Brien (Eds.), Understanding education: Contexts and agendas for the new millen-nium (pp. 26–31). Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, find-ings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom Environment Scale manual (2nd ed.).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Parish, W. L., & Whyte, M. K. (1978). Village and family in contemporary China. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.Partington, G. (1998, April). Power, discipline and minority students in high school.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, San Diego, CA.


Riah, H., & Fraser, B. J. (1998, April). The learning environment of high school chemis-try classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, San Diego, CA.

Said, E. W. (1995). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. London: Penguin Books.Schibeci, R. A., Rideng, I. M., & Fraser, B. J. (1987). Effects of classroom environments

on science attitudes: A cross-cultural replication in Indonesia. International Journalof Science Education, 9, 169–186.

Slee, R., & Knight, T. (1992). Introduction. In R. Slee (Ed.), Discipline in Australianpublic education: Changing policy and practice (pp. 1–12). Melbourne, Australia:Australian Council for Educational Research.

Smith, D. C. (1997), Middle education in the Middle Kingdom: The Chinese junior highschool in modern Taiwan. London: Praeger.

Stern, G. G. (1970). People in context: Measuring person-environment congruence ineducation and industry. New York: Wiley.

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failingand what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: SummitBooks.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathemat-ics instruction: An overview of the TIMSS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14–21.

Taylor, P. C. (1994). Collaborating to reconstruct teaching: The influence of researcherbeliefs. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp.267–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroomlearning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.

Teh, G., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). An evaluation of computer-assisted learning in terms ofachievement, attitudes and classroom environment. Evaluation and Research in Edu-cation, 8, 147–161.

Thompson, B. (1998a). Review of “what if there were no significance tests?” Educa-tional and Psychlogical Measurement, 58, 334–346.

Thompson, B. (1998b, April.). Five methodology errors in educational research: Thepantheon of statistical significance and other faux pas. Invited address presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,CA.

Thorpe, H., Burden, R. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1994). Assessing and improving classroomenvironment. School Science Review, 75, 107–113.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of class-room learning environments. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), The internationalhandbook of science education (pp. 623–640). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (Eds.). (1990). Windows into science classes:Problems associated with higher-level cognitive learning. London: Falmer Press.

Tong, K. M. (1970). Educational ideas of Confucius. Hong Kong: Youth Books.Tseng, W. S., & Hsu, J. (1980). Culture and psychotherapy. In A. Marsella, R. Tharp, &

T. Ciborowski (Eds.), Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology (pp. 333–345). NewYork: Academic Press.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sen-sitive pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Learning as constructive activity. In E. von Glasersfeld (Ed.),The construction of knowledge: Contributions to conceptual semantics (pp. 307–333).Salinas, CA: Intersystems Publications.


von Glasersfeld, E. (1993). Questions and answers about radical constructivism. In K.Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science and mathematics education(pp. 23–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Walberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1979). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policyand productivity. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. Farley, &N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education: The state of the union (pp. 81–108).Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.

Walberg, H. J., Singh, R., & Rasher, S. P. (1977). Predictive validity of students’ percep-tions: A cross-cultural replication. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 45–49.

Wong, A. F. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Environment-attitude associations in the chemis-try laboratory classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education, 64, 29–40.

Wong, A. F. L., Young, D. J., & Fraser, B. J. (1997). A multilevel analysis of learningenvironments and student attitudes. Educational Psychology, 17, 449–468.

Wong, N. Y. (1993). Psychosocial environments in the Hong Kong mathematics class-room. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 12, 303–309.

Wong, N. Y. (1996). Students’ perceptions of the mathematics classroom in Hong Kong.Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 4, 89–107.

Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonalrelationships in education. London: Falmer Press.

Zandvliet, D., & Fraser, B. (1998, April). The physical and psychosocial environmentassociated with classrooms using new information technologies. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego,CA.

JILL M. ALDRIDGE AND BARRY J. FRASER

Science and Mathematics Education CentreCurtin University of TechnologyGPO Box U1987PerthWestern Australia 6845[Correspondence to: Jill M. Aldridge. E-mail: [email protected]]

Documents

Aldridge, J. M. & Fraser, B. J. (2000)