Learning Environments Research

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 349–366 | Cite as

A typology of chemistry classroom environments: Exploring the relationships between 10th grade students’ perceptions, attitudes and gender

  • M. Giallousi
  • V. Gialamas
  • E. A. Pavlatou
Original Paper


The present study was the first in Greece in which educational effectiveness theory constituted a knowledge base for investigating the impact of chemistry classroom environment in 10 Grade students’ enjoyment of class. An interpretive heuristic schema was developed and utilised in order to incorporate two factors of teacher behaviour at classroom level, namely, ‘content coverage’ and ‘cognitive teaching processes’, with the patterns of a typology of classroom environments. The latter was drawn from data collected in Attica (a region in Greece) using a new and valid instrument, the How Chemistry Class is Working, while the Enjoyment of Chemistry Lessons scale was used to measure students’ attitudes. A two-step cluster analysis revealed four patterns of the typology that were adaptable to the heuristic schema. The relationship between the patterns and students’ gender, as well the variation in the level of students’ enjoyment among the patterns, were explored. The traditional chemistry classroom environments were found to prevail and to be less enjoyable for the students, especially for the girls. It was found also that students enjoy chemistry lessons more when their goals are taken into account and they have an active role in learning process.


Attitudes Chemistry Classroom environment Educational effectiveness Heuristic schema Secondary education 


  1. Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2000). A cross-cultural study of classroom learning environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, 3, 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., & Huang, I. T. C. (1999). Investigating classroom environments in Australia and Taiwan. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Taylor, C. P., & Chen, C. C. (2000). Constructivist learning environments in a cross-national study in Taiwan and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge, J. M., Laugksch, C. R., Seopa, A. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument to monitor outcomes-based learning environments in science classrooms in South Africa. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumert, J., Blum, W., & Neubrand, M. (2001, May). Surveying the instructional conditions and domain-specific individual prerequisites for the development of mathematical competencies. Paper presented at the special meeting on the co-ordination of national teacher components for PISA 2003, Munich.Google Scholar
  6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (Eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brophy, J. (2001). Generic aspects of effective teaching. In M. C. Wang & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Tomorrow’s teachers (pp. 3–15). Chicago: McCutchan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, D. B., Hattie, J. A., & Fraser, B. J. (1986). Student perceptions of preferred classroom environment. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 10–18.Google Scholar
  10. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994a). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  11. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994b). Effective instruction: An empirical basis for a theory of educational effectiveness. In D. Reynolds, et al. (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 189–205). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  12. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Creemers, B. P. M., Kyriakides, L., & Sammons, P. (2010). Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Creemers, P. M. B., Stoll, L., Reezigt, G., & The ESI Team. (2007). Effective school improvement: Ingredients for success: The results of an international comparative study of best practice case studies. In C. Evertson, & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 825–838). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Creemers, B. P. M., & Reezigt, G. J. (1999). The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school learning environments. In H. J. Freiberg (Ed.), School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments (pp. 31–47). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  16. de Jong, O. (2006, August). Making chemistry meaningful: Conditions for improving context-based chemistry education. Paper based on the plenary lecture presented at the 19th ICCE, Seoul.Google Scholar
  17. de Jong, R., Westerhof, K. J., & Kruiter, J. H. (2004). Empirical evidence of a comprehensive model of school effectiveness: A multilevel study in mathematics in the first year of junior general education in the Netherlands. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. den Brok, P., Fisher, D., Richards, T., & Bull, E. (2006). Californian science students’ perceptions of their classroom learning environments. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Driessen, G., & Sleegers, P. (2000). Consistency of teaching approach and student achievement: An empirical test. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Everitt, S. B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). Validity and use of classroom environment scale. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5, 261–271.Google Scholar
  22. Fraser, B. J. (1981). Test of science related attitudes. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  23. Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 3–27). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 451–493). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. 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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser, B. J. (2012). Classroom learning environments: Retrospect, context and prospect. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1191–1239). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fraser, B. J., Fisher, D. L., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996, April). Development, validation, and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  30. Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giallousi, M., Gialamas, V., Spyrellis, N., & Pavlatou, A. E. (2010). Development, validation and use of a Greek-language questionnaire for assessing learning environments in grade 10 chemistry classes. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 761–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gordon, A. R. (1987). Social desirability bias: A demonstration and technique for its reduction. Teaching of Psychology, 14, 40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartman, H. (2002). Human learning and instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York.Google Scholar
  35. Haussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 870–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haydey, C. D., Zakaluk, L. B., & Straw, S. (2010). The changing face of content area teaching. Journal of Applied Research on Learning, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
  37. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knuver, A. W. M., & Brandsma, H. P. (1993). Cognitive and affective outcomes in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Koballa, R. T., & Glynn, Jr. (2007). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Konu, A. I., Litonen, T. P., & Autio, V. J. (2002). Evaluation of well-being in schools: A multilevel analysis of general subjective well-being. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13, 187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krogh, L. B., & Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krosnick, A. J., Judd, M. Ch., & Wittenbrink, B. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In D. Albarracin, T. B. Johnson, & P. M. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Kyriakides, L. (2006). Using international comparative studies to develop a theoretical framework of educational effectiveness research: A secondary analysis of TIMSS 1999 data. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 513–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R. J., & Gagatsis, A. (2000). The significance of the classroom effect in primary schools: An application of Creemers’ comprehensive model of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 501–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kyriakides, L., & Tsangaridou, N. (2004, April). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in physical education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Kyriakydes, L. (2005). Extending the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness by an empirical investigation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(2), 103–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matsagouras, I. (1999). School classroom, space, group, discipline, method. Athens: Gregory. (In Greek).Google Scholar
  49. Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Moos, H., & Trickett, J. (1987). Classroom environment scale manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  51. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  53. Ogbuehi, I. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2007). Learning environment, attitudes and conceptual development associated with innovative strategies in middle-school mathematics. Learning Environments Research, 10, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olson, J., & Platt, J. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2000). Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities and differences between school outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Osborne, J. (2006, July). E-NARST. News, 49(2), 3.Google Scholar
  57. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  58. Owens, L., & Straton, R. (1980). The development of a cooperative, competitive, and individualized learning preference scale for students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Podsakoff, M. P., McKenzie, B. S., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Podsakoff, M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Townsend, T., & Van Damme, J. (2011). Educational effectiveness research (EER): A state of the art review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  63. Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Raych, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Journal of Social Work Research, 27, 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Samdal, O., Wold, B., & Bronis, M. (1999). Relationship between students’ perceptions of school environment, their satisfaction with school and perceived academic achievement: an international study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  66. Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77, 454–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Skordoulis, C., & Sotirakou, L. (2005). Environment, science and education. Athens: Leader Books.Google Scholar
  68. Taylor, P. C., & Campbell-Williams, M. (1993). Discourse toward balanced rationality in the high school mathematics classroom: Ideas from Habermas’s critical theory. In J. A. Malone, & P. C. S. Taylor (Eds.), Constructivist interpretations of teaching and learning mathematics. Proceeding of topic group 10 at the seventh international congress on mathematical education, pp. 135–148. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, P. C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995a, April). Classroom learning environments under transformation: A constructivist perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  70. Taylor, P. C., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. J. (1995b). A constructivist perspective on monitoring learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  71. Taylor, P. C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Teddlie, C. (1994). The integration of classroom and school process data in school effectiveness research. In D. Reynolds, et al. (Eds.), Advances in school effectiveness research and practice (pp. 111–133). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  73. Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  74. Teddlie, C., & Sammons, P. (2010). Applications of mixed methods to the field of educational effectiveness research. In B. P. M. Creemers, L. Kyriakides, & P. Sammons (Eds.), Methodological advances in educational effectiveness research (pp. 115–152). London: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
  75. Tobin, K., Tippins, J. D., & Gallard, J. A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  76. Tsaparlis, G. (2008). The rivalry among the separate science subjects for dominance in secondary education: The case of Greece and beyond. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of the context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 145–159). Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  77. Vamvakeros, X., Pavlatou, A. E., & Spyrellis, N. (2010). Survey exploring views of scientists on current trends in chemistry education. Science & Education, 19, 119–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van de Gaer, E., Pustjens, H., Van Damme, J., & De Munter, A. (2006). Tracking and the effects of school-related attitudes on the language achievement of boys and girls. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27, 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Varelas, M., et al. (2005). Beginning teachers immersed into science: Scientist and science teacher identities. Science Teacher Education. Retrieved from
  80. Walberg, H. J. (1983). Scientific literacy and economic productivity in international perspective. Daedalus, 112, 1–28.Google Scholar
  81. Wheldall, K., & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective classroom learning: A behavioural interactionist approach to teaching. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artefact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., den Brok, P., & van Tartwijk, J. (2006). An interpersonal perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1161–1191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  85. Wubbels, Th., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like: Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  86. Zounhia, K., Kostas, E., Kossiva, I., & Hatziharistos, D. (2002). Perceived effectiveness of Greek secondary school teachers. European Journal of Physical Education, 7, 19–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Early Childhood EducationUniversity of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations