Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 87 91 WCLTA 2010 Physical and psychosocial aspects of science laboratory learning environment Che Nidzam Che Ahmad a*, Kamisah Osman b, Lilia Halim b a Faculty of Education, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim,35900, Perak, Malaysia b Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, 43600, Selangor, Malaysia Abstract This paper reports a survey which was conducted in order to determine teachers and students perception of science laboratory learning environment schools in Malaysia and to compare their perceptions regarding the physical and psychosocial aspects. Teachers and students perception on psychosocial aspects were measured by using Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) while perception on physical aspects was measured using Physical Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (PSLEI). Analysis of findings found that teachers and students demonstrate positive attitudes in all SLEI scales, with an exception in open ended scale. In terms of physical aspects, teachers provide a high level of fitness for lighting and technology while moderate for furniture and equipment, space, air quality and safety aspects scales. while students rate the lightning and space as having high level of fitness while furniture and equipment, technology, air quality and safety aspects scales as moderate. Subsequent analysis also reveals that there exist significant differences between teachers and students perception of physical and psychosocial laboratory learning environment. 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Keywords: Learning environment, science laboratory; 1. Introduction Laboratory learning environment has an important role to science teaching as it offers students an environment different from the conventional classroom. Engaging students in laboratory activities will promote students understanding of scientific concepts, problem solving abilities and attitudes towards science (Arzi, 2003). Therefore, carefully crafted laboratory activities with appropriate physical facilities and positive psychosocial aspects will stimulate intellectual activities, increase social contacts, promote learning and students development as well as limit negative behaviours among students. However a critical review of research on the role of laboratory in science teaching and learning indicated that the research has failed to show the relationship between experiences in laboratory and student learning (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2003). Furthermore, Wellington (1998) states that several weakness of practical work in the laboratory are (1) the noise influence students to be confused, (2) practical work result goes wrong leaving mixed message on students, (3) some students do not like practical work, (4) less effective group work and (5) time consuming. *Che Nidzam Che Ahmad. Tel.:+6 013 3922230; fax: +605-4583607 E-mail address: nidzam68@yahoo.com 1877-0428 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.120 Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
88 Che Nidzam Che Ahmad et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 87 91 One way to avoid these weaknesses is creating positive learning environments. The positive learning environments will help teacher and students to achieve the best performances in learning process. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the learning environments in laboratory. 2. Review of Literature The essence of a learning environment is the interaction that occurs between individuals, groups and the setting within which they operate. The investigation in, and of, learning environment is based on the formula, B=f (P, E) whereby behaviour (B) is considered to be a function of (f) the person (P) and the environment (E). The formula recognises that 'both the environment and its interaction with personal characteristics of the individual are potent determinants of human behaviour (Fraser, 1998). Since learning environment is a place where learners and educators congregate for extended periods of time to participate in the activity of learning, the environment created during this activity is regarded as an important component in the teaching and learning process. Over the past several decades, research has established relationships between the classroom environment and student outcomes as well as evaluated educational programmes and identified determinants of learning environment (Fraser, 1994). In addition, learning environment research in the field of science education has grown vigorously, particularly in the areas of instrumentation and applications. A rich array of instruments have been developed for various types of science classes, such as the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), Classroom Environment Scale (CES), My Class Inventory (MCI), Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI), Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), What Is Happening In This Class? (WIHIC), and Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES). These instruments have been widely used to assess primary and secondary students social and psychological perceptions of their science classrooms. Their reactions to, and perceptions of, this environment have a significant impact on individual and group performance. Indeed, research indicates that student achievement is enhanced in those environments which students feel comfortable within and positive (Waldrip & Fisher, 2003). Furthermore, a favorable science learning environment correlates significantly to student involvement, teacher support, and classroom order and organisation (Fraser & Tobin, 1989). In Malaysia learning environment research is still at an introductory stage According to Lilia (2009), vast research focus on the investigation of the students perceptions of the psychological characteristics of their classroom but little research has been done on physical characteristics of the laboratory that might affect the science learning environment experienced by the students. Therefore, this research tries to identify teachers and students perception of science laboratory learning environment schools in one of the state in Malaysia and to compare their perceptions regarding the physical and psychosocial aspects. 3. Methodology This study tries to explore teachers and students perception on physical and psychosocial aspects of the science laboratory. The study used quantitative methods and all data were collected using questionnaires. A total of 800 science teachers and 800 form four students from 100 secondary schools in Selangor participated in this study. Teachers and students perception on psychosocial aspects were measured by using Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) while perception on physical aspects was measured using Physical Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (PSLEI). SLEI consists of five scales which are students cohesiveness, openendedness, integration, rule clarity and material environment. while PSLEI consists of six scales which are furniture and equipments, space, technology, lightning, air quality and safety aspects. Both instruments have been validated by two experts in science education as well as supervisors. Reliability is also obtained through a pilot study. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) ranged from 0.79 to 0.91 for the five SLEI scales and range from 0.71 to 0.91 for six PSLEI scales. This range is considered acceptable to good (George & Mallery, 2001), since the closer the alpha is to 1, the greater the internal consistency of the items.
Che Nidzam Che Ahmad et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 87 91 89 4. Result and Discussion 4.1. Physical aspects of science laboratory learning environment From physical aspects (Table 1), teachers provide a high level of fitness for lighting and technology while moderate for furniture and equipment, space, air quality and safety aspects scales. Whereas students rate the lightning and space as having high level of fitness while furniture and equipment, technology, air quality and safety aspects scales as moderate. The high level of fitness for lightning from student and teacher perspective may be due to the use of combination of natural and fluorescent light in most of the science laboratory studied. According to Barnitt, (2003), combined this kind of lighting will provide a quality of light. While moderate level of fitness for furniture and equipment, air quality and safety aspects were also reported in previous studies (Giddings & Waldrip, 1993; Che Ahmad et al., 2009). There is a difference in the levels of fitness in technology and space from teacher and student perspective and this may be because of the different roles in the class. Table 1. The average mean for physical aspects of science laboratory from teachers and students perspective Scales Furniture & equipments 3.62 Space 3.6 Lightning 3.78 Technology 3.76 Air quality 3.23 Safety aspects 3.30 Teacher SD 0.71 0.85 0.67 0.76 0.89 0.67 3.53 3.67 3.76 3.62 2.99 3.37 Student SD 0.77 0.79 0.73 0.95 0.95 0.86 Giddings and Waldrip (1993) argued that perceptions about science laboratory facilities are important as these perceptions could affect science teachers and students or apparent used of the facilities. If there is a perception that science laboratory facilities are inadequate, then it could be that these teachers are not maximizing the use of the facilities and these could affect the optimization of educational productivity. Therefore, efforts should be made in completing the equipments and science laboratory facilities in line with the teaching and learning need especially the identified physical aspects in order to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning in science laboratory. This is because the physical environment can be considered as a second teacher in the environment that can motivate students, enhance learning and reduce discipline problems and undesirable behavior (Hamed et al., 2009). In conjunction with that, many countries have been modifying the learning environment of science laboratory, particularly to give students more opportunities to explore and construct knowledge in a more conducive and encouraging learning environment (Arzi, 1998). 4.2. Psychosocial aspects of science laboratory learning environment From psychosocial aspects (Table 2), overall, teachers and students demonstrate positive attitudes in all SLEI scales with an exception in open ended scale. The mean score for the integration scale is the highest of all the scale whereas the open-endedness scale is the lowest (mean intermediate between seldom and sometimes). The high level of integration scale is consistent with the previous studies (Lilia, 2009; Fraser & Lee, 2009).
90 Che Nidzam Che Ahmad et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 87 91 Table 2. The average mean for psychosocial aspects of science laboratory from teachers and students perspective Scales Teacher SD Student SD Student cohesiveness 3.67 0.53 3.74 0.62 Open-endedness 2.60 0.67 2.41 0.66 Integration 3.99 0.55 3.91 0.70 Rule clarity 3.93 0.54 3.78 9.65 Material environment 3.57 0.35 3.43 0.78 Whereas the low level of open-endedness in the laboratory learning environment in this study was also reported in the previous studies in various country (Lee & Fraser, 2001; McEwen et al., 2009; Lilia, 2009; Fraser & Lee, 2009). This may be because in Malaysia, the laboratory activities are mainly to verify knowledge provided by the teacher in the classroom. Fraser and Lee (2009) also state that laboratory activities normally reinforce what students already learned in the classroom. Therefore, teachers and students perceive strong relationship between theory and practical. As a result, students do not have the opportunity to generate ideas and hence hinder the development of their creativity. Therefore, it is argued that improvements should be done in order to provide opportunities for students to generate ideas and build their own knowledge. One of the strategies is by emphasising the use of inquiry methods. This is due to the fact that inquiry in the laboratory could increase the generation of ideas among students (Hofstein, et al., 2001). This approach is also in line with the constructivist view in which learning occurs when students actively participate and interact with partners in the acquisition of knowledge. 4.3. The differences between teachers and students perceptions In order to investigate the differences between the teachers and the students perceptions, a one way MANOVA was conducted. Analysis reveals that there exist significant differences between teachers and students perception of physical and psychosocial laboratory learning environment. From the physical learning environment, there are two aspects that differ significantly which are technology and safety aspect. The mean score for technology aspect for teacher (M=3.81) and students was (M=3.56), and the mean score for safety aspects for teacher (M=3.31) and students (M=3.18) were significantly different. From the psychosocial learning environment, there were three aspects that differ significantly which were open-endedness, integration and rule clarity. The mean score for openendedness aspect for teacher was (M= 2.61) and the students were (M=2.42), the mean score for integration for teachers were (M= 3.99) and for students were (M=3.91) and the mean score for rule clarity for teachers were (M=3.94) and for students were (M=3.79) were significantly different. When compared, the teachers scores in both aspects of learning environment were higher than the students. The difference may be due to different roles (Fisher & Fraser, 1983) and epistemology view (Tsai, 2003) about science between teachers and students. Teachers seem to perceive more positive learning environment than students (Fisher & Fraser, 1993; Tsai, 2003). Teachers often perceive learning environment better than students because they are disincline towards changes and feel that it is not relevant to their academic goal (Wahyudi & Treagust, 2004). However, if teachers want their students to be more actively engage in the learning process, they need to re-consider the way they teach and use suitable instructional strategies that could lead to active students learning engagement. 5. Conclusion Overall, this study conclude that teachers and students perceptions towards the level of fitness of science laboratories physical aspects were moderate, but demonstrate more convincing views on the psychosocial aspects. However teachers scores in both aspects of learning environment were higher as compared to their students. This gap must be addressed and minimized in order to improve science teaching and learning. Therefore, science teachers should consider the physical and psychosocial aspect of learning environment because those two aspects are correlated with the effectiveness of science teaching and learning. Conducive learning environment that meet the needs of teachers and students can help promote active learning, which eventually enhance their conceptual
Che Nidzam Che Ahmad et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9 (2010) 87 91 91 understanding. Thus, it is suggested that systematic assessment of science learning environments is considered as vital because the information obtained can be used as a basis to improve the quality and effectiveness of teaching in the science laboratories. This will provide assets for teachers in inspiring futuristic features of science laboratories for the next generation. References Arzi, H. (2003). Enhancing science education laboratory environment: More than wall, benches and widgets. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp 595-608). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers Barnitt, H. (2003). Lighting for the Future. Building Services Journal: The Magazine for the CIBSE, 25, 38-39. Che Ahmad, C.N., Halim, L., Meerah, T., Osman, K., & Hassan, A. (2009). Malaysian science laboratory: Issues and constrains, Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 28 th August-4 th September. Fisher, D.L., & Fraser, B.J. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 55-61. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In G. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp 493-541). Washington, D.C. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Fraser, B.J., & Lee, S.S.U. (2009). Science laboratory environment in Korean high school. Learning Environment Research, 12, 67-84. Fraser, B.J., & Tobin, K. (1989). Student perceptions of psychosocial environments in classroom s of exemplary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 19-34. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 10.0 update (3rd ed.). Toronto: Allyn and Bacon Gidding, G. J., & Waldrip, B. G. (1993). Teaching Practices, Science Laboratory Learning Environment and Attitudes in South Pacific Secondary Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA, 12 th -16 th April. Hofstein, A., Levi-Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4, 193 207. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2003). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the Twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-54. Lee, S. U., & Fraser, B. J. (2001). The constructivist learning environment of science classrooms in Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian Association for Research (AARE). Fremantle, Australia, 2 nd - 6 th December. Lajium, D.A.D, Ismail, Z. & Mohd Yunus, H. (2006). Secondry chemistry learning environment and students attitudes towards chemistry. Proceedings of 12th IOSTE symposium, 219-228. Lilia, H. (2009). Improving science literacy through a conducive laboratory learning environment: A proposed model. Plenary paper presented at Third International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (CoSMEd) Penang, Malaysia, 10 th -12 th November. McEwen, L. A., Harris, D., Schmid, R.F., Vogel, J., Western, T., & Harrison, P. (2009). Evaluation of the Redesign of an Undergraduate CellBiology Course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 72 78. Hamed, S., Bahari, P., & Abdullah, A.G.K. (2009). Persekitaran pembelajaran matematik dan hubungan dengan pencapaian matematik. Conference on Science & Social Research, 14 th -15 th March. Tsai, C.C. (2003). Taiwanese science students and teachers perceptions of the laboratory learning environment: Exploring epistemological gap, International Journal of Science Education 25, 847-860. Wahyudi, D., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environment in Indonesian Lower secondary school. Learning Environment Research, 7, 43-63. Waldrip, B., & Fisher, D. (2003). Identifying exemplary science teachers through their classroom interactions with students. Learning Environments Research: An International Journal, 6,157-174. Wellington, J.J. (1998). Practical Work in School Science: Time for a re-appraisal. In J. Wellington (Ed.). Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp 3-15). London: Routledge