MED858 Session 4

Learning points and Reflection 4
Assessing the Classroom Learning Environments 2 – Case Studies
Learning points
Summary of influential figures and their landmark contributions in the field of LE (group learning through WIKI):
Kurt Lewin: personal behaviour is a result of the interaction between the individual and his/her environment; Behaviour = f(Person, Environment), applications of the field theory include group dynamics, experiential learning and action research
Rudolf Moos: 3 dimensions of MOOs's Scheme (relationship, personal development, and system maintenance and change), Classroom Environment Scale (CES) - used to measure the human environment in a variety of places such as hospitals, prisons and classrooms
Theo Wubbels: Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), focuses on the nature and quality of interpersonal relationships between teachers and students, drawn from a theoretical model of proximity (cooperation-opposition) and influence (dominance-submission), developed to assess student's perceptions of eight behavioural aspects
Herbert Walberg: participant perceptions of various learning settings, Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) (from Harvard Project Physics), teacher-centred (Visit our WIKI project at wetpaint for more information)

Others: Henry Murray (Need-Press Theory), Barry Fraser, Darrell Fisher
Influential figures in the field of educational psychology: Piaget, Skinner, Vygotsky and Pavlov
Action research: John Elliot

Reflection
The discussion on modifying CLES was very useful. It is important to think of our own classrooms and ask ourselves two questions: Why modify and How to modify. Through the discussion, many practical issues were raised and the importance of the two questions was better understood.

To me it all boils down to what we truly want from the administration of the instrument. The same set of the instrument may not serve all types of classes well. For example, in my opinion, many questions in CLES may not solicit ‘favourable’ responses from Secondary 4 and 5 classes. To me, it is not because of their classroom learning environments are more ‘inferior’ than those of Secondary 1 to 3. It is more on the learning environments that are driven significantly by the assessment mode (“N” and “O” Level Examinations) for Secondary 4 and 5 classes. Consequently, certain activities under ‘Uncertainty’ scale in CLES may not be carried out in Secondary 4 and 5 classes. As in Physics Uncertainty Principle where we can not measure the dual properties of a particle at the same time, we can not apply the same instrument to different classroom settings.

In the afternoon we attened APERA conference where a group of teachers from Marsiling Secondary shared on the use of Knowledge Forum (KF) in the teaching of D&T. Interesting to find that discussion –based forum is also possible for D&T.

The case study on the three different schools provided a big picture on learning environments. Through group sharing and various activities such as scoring the school on the scales based on SLEQ (Likert scale of 1 to 5) and a skit simulating two contrasting views of two parents on the school (learning environments), I came to realize that a classroom learning environment involves and affects not only students and teachers, but also principal, parents and community.

View our skit on parents' views on School A in the case study:


My (modest) action plan after the course:
1. To decide one instrument to assess my classroom learning environment Hopefully by going through the instrument, I become more aware of Moos's three dimensions of LE and consequently be more competent in facilitating LE
I will probably use CLES as I am more familiar with it after class discussion. It is also quite relevant to my aim to know my students better.
1b. To modify CLES to suit my classroom learning environment
2. To design follow-up actions for improvement based on the result of the assessment