See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225560294

Science Laboratory Environment and Academic Performance

Article  in  Journal of Science Education and Technology · November 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s10956-007-9072-4

CITATIONS READS

24 7,816

2 authors:

Francisca Aladejana Oluyemisi Aderibigbe

Obafemi Awolowo University University of Roehampton
15 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   212 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisca Aladejana on 28 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506
DOI 10.1007/s10956-007-9072-4

Science Laboratory Environment and Academic Performance

Francisca Aladejana Æ Oluyemisi Aderibigbe

Published online: 11 October 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The study determined how students assess the Introduction

various components of their science laboratory environ-
ment. It also identified how the laboratory environment Instructional science laboratories are widely regarded as
affects students’ learning outcomes. The modified ex-post key component of science instruction because most sci-
facto design was used. A sample of 328 randomly selected ences are activity-based explorations into the natural world
students was taken from a population of all Senior Sec- (American Association of Advancement of Science 1993;
ondary School chemistry students in a state in Nigeria. The Bajah 1983). It is widely accepted that science is better
research instrument, Science Laboratory Environment taught using the discovery method (guided or unguided
Inventory (SLEI) designed and validated by Fraser et al. inquiry) or the experimental approach. For example Piaget
(Sci Educ 77:1–24, 1993) was administered on the selected (1969) encouraged children to discover for themselves
students. Data analysis was done using descriptive statistics through spontaneous interaction with the environment.
and Product Moment Correlation. Findings revealed that The use of this method is based on student participation
students could assess the five components (Student cohe- and involves amongst others identifying problems, posing
siveness, Open-endedness, Integration, Rule clarity, and relevant questions, performing efficient and effective
Material Environment) of the laboratory environment. experiments, and making judgments on alternative
Student cohesiveness has the highest assessment while hypotheses and interpretation of data (Aladejana 2006;
material environment has the least. The results also showed Adelson 2004; Mayer 2003; Hung and Chin 1988). Stu-
that the five components of the science laboratory envi- dents therefore learn to discover, learn from discovery and
ronment are positively correlated with students’ academic learn by discovery. This method requires a high level of
performance. The findings are discussed with a view to interaction between the learner, the teacher, the area of
improving the quality of the laboratory environment, sub- study, available resources, and the learning environment.
sequent academic performance in science and ultimately Major benefits of this activity-based learning are that it
the enrolment and retaining of learners in science. makes the subject matter more comprehensible, minimizes
forgetting, and is more likely to lead to transfer of
Keywords Environment
Integration
Rule clarity
knowledge and to acquire favorable attitudes toward a
Material environment
Open-endedness
particular subject and toward learning in general. Also, it
Student cohesiveness makes it easier for the student to progress from elementary
to advanced knowledge. Thus, students are likely to be
highly motivated, score higher on all types of test, gain
F. Aladejana (&)
Institute of Education, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, critical insight and participate in out of class study (Burton
Nigeria and Stanley 1968; Combs and Snugg 1995; Bigge 1993). It
e-mails: faladeja@oauife.edu.ng; faladeja@yahoo.com has been found that achievement and skills improved when
students were taught science in an activity-based curricu-
O. Aderibigbe
Department of Special Education and Curriculum Studies, lum (Turpin and Cage 2004; Welch and Walberg 1972;
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria Fraser 1986; Bredderman 1983).

123
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 501

The learning environment and its determinants play a prompting thoughtful responses and dialogue. Thus, a good
major role in improving activity-based teaching and learn- science classroom welcomes all students and strives to
ing in primary, secondary and higher education. According enable all motivated students to be successful.
to Wong and Fraser (1996), an important determinant of Five different dimensions of classroom environment
student learning is the classroom-learning environment. have been identified. These are: Student cohesiveness, SC
Fraser (1986) reviewed over 60 studies in which the effects (degree to which students know, help and are supportive of
of classroom environment on science students’ outcomes one another); Open-endedness, OE (degree to which the
were investigated and the findings suggested that students’ laboratory activities emphasis an open-ended divergent
outcomes can be improved by creating classroom environ- approach to experimentation); Integration, IN (degree to
ments, which are conducive to learning. Also, some which the laboratory activities are integrated with non-labo-
researches on classroom environment have indicated posi- ratory and theory classes); Rule Clarity, RC (degree to which
tive associations between the nature of the class behavior in the laboratory is guided by formal rules) and
environment and pupils’ attitudinal and academic achieve- Material Environment, ME (degree to which the laboratory
ment outcomes (McRobbie and Fraser 1993; Goh et al. equipment and materials are adequate (Quek et al. 1998).
1995; Wong and Fraser 1996; Chin et al. 2004). Factors In most Nigerian secondary schools, a lot of students
related to teaching styles, classroom design, and the learn- show little interest in science education because most of
ing environment interact to influence students’ satisfaction them fail science subjects and some others perceive science
with learning (Zandvliet and Buker 2003; Dorman 1995). education to be difficult. According to Owokade (2006),
The classroom environment is more than just the phys- the average performance at credit level in the West African
ical space; it is the entire setting for learning. It School Certificate Examinations (WASCE) between 2001
encompasses the variety of tools and information resour- and 2005 in mathematics, electronics, biology, and build-
ces, the interactions, the relationships between and among ing construction was 30% credit pass.Also, enrolment in
students and teachers, as well as the expectations and WASCE science was generally low, apart from mathe-
norms for learning and behavior. Positive classroom envi- matics and biology, which is compulsory for all students,
ronments are associated with a range of important enrolment in physics and chemistry between 2001 and
outcomes for students. The laboratory is a major part of the 2006 was an average of 30% and 1% in technical subjects.
setting for learning and most science activities designed for The state of science and technology education in
learning take place in it. Hence, the laboratory classroom Nigerian schools and universities is a matter for consider-
environment is also very important for effective learning. able concern, for while there is an increase in the study of
The laboratory classroom environment is a subtle some ‘soft’ science subjects, such as economics and psy-
concept that can be better understood in terms of its chology in schools, the enrolments for ‘hard’ science
components, which can either be physical or abstract. subjects such as physics and chemistry continue to decline
The physical laboratory climate includes the location, the (Owokade 2006). There are similar concerns about enrol-
amount of light that gets into it, the furniture and the ments and staffing provisions in basic science subjects.
arrangement of the furniture. The science equipment and Therefore, some positive actions need to be taken to halt
materials available for laboratory teaching, the construc- this serious decline by encouraging brightest young people
tion and the ventilation of the laboratory also constitute to choose science-based study and careers.
part of the physical climate. The abstract climate has to do The main purpose of this study therefore is to assess the
with the non-physical structure in the laboratory which existing science laboratory environment, and consequently
includes the teachers’ personality, the student–teacher determine the relationship that exists between the science
relationship, how the teacher can effectively manage the laboratory environment and academic performance of stu-
laboratory class, noise control and the population of the dents in scientific tasks. The specific objectives of the study
students in the class (Silberman 1973; Wilson 1996). are to:
According to Instructional Philosophy (2004), a pro-
1. determine how students assess the various components
ductive laboratory environment is a learner-centered
of their science laboratory environment,
classroom, which is comfortable and open exchange is
2. identify how the laboratory environment affects
promoted by treating all members of the class and their
students’ learning outcome by analyzing the correla-
ideas with respect and thoughtful consideration and where
tion between the two factors.
tasks and activities should be selected to support specific
learning goals. A good laboratory environment promotes The study is predicated on the theoretical framework of
student curiosity, rewards creativity, encourages a spirit of constructivism, a philosophy of learning founded on the
healthy questioning, avoids dogmatism, and promotes premise that by reflecting on our experiences, we construct
meaningful understanding, where wait-time is essential in our own understanding of the world we live in. According

123
502 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506

to the constructivist view, meaningful learning is a cogni- Environment. All the items are structured statements. The
tive process in which individuals make sense of the world response alternatives for each item are: Almost Never,
in relation to the knowledge, which they already have Seldom, Sometimes, Often, and Very Often. They have
constructed (Wilson 1996). summated rating scale ranging from 5, 4, 3, 2, to 1. The items
According to Hanley (1994), meaning is intimately are arranged in cyclic order and in blocks of five to enable
connected with experience. Inferences, elaborations and ready hand scoring. The first item in each block assesses
relationships between old perceptions and new ideas must Student Cohesiveness (SC), the second item assesses Open-
be personally drawn by the student in order for the new endedness (OE); the third item assesses Integration (I); the
idea to become an integrated and useful part of his/her fourth item assesses Rule Clarity (RC); and the last item in
memory. Windschitl (2002) identified some features of the each block assesses Material Environment (ME).
constructivist classroom setting to include carrying out Thus, the seven items measuring each of the scales are:
challenging experiments, engaging in meaningful problem-
based work and working collaboratively with each other
Student cohesiveness 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31
such that the learner can construct knowledge and skills
through his/her own experience. The laboratory setting is Open-endedness 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32
one major avenue for the learner to actively carry out such Integration 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33
experiments and construct new information onto his/her Rule Clarity 4, 9, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34
existing mental framework for meaningful learning to Material Environment 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35
occur (Huitt 2003; Sherman 1995).

The validated final form recommended by Fraser et al.

Research Methodology (1993), for use by science teachers to assess environments
of their laboratory classrooms was used in the study. The
The ex-post-facto design was used for the study. According reliability of the instrument determined using the split-half
to Watson (2000), this design is aimed at identifying the reliability method gave the reliability coefficient of 0.86 for
possible causes of a behavior by comparing study partici- the complete instrument, and for the items assessing each
pants in whom the behavior is present with similar of the dimensions, r values of 0.70 for OE, 0.72 for IN,
participants in whom it is absent after the independent 0.79 for ME, 0.81 for RC and 0.84 for SC were obtained.
variable has occurred. For the purpose of this study, this In carrying out the data analysis, the positive items had
method was used with the independent variable (classroom the responses: Almost Never, Seldom, Sometimes, Often,
environment) of study investigated for possible relationship and Very Often are given the scores of 1, 2, 3, 4, and
to and effect on the dependent variable (performance). This 5, respectively. Items scored this way are 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11,
design is used instead of the experimental method, as it 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35.
is impossible to introduce the treatment of exposing stu- Reverse scoring was used for the remaining items, which are
dents to laboratory classes for at least 2 years. designated as negative, where 5 is given for Almost Never,
The population for the study consisted of students at the and 1 for Very Often. Omitted or incorrectly answered items
Senior Secondary School two (SSS II) who offered are given a score of 3. The total score for each of the scales
Chemistry in Ife Central Local government area of Osun (Student Cohesiveness SC, Open-endedness OE, Integrated
state, Nigeria. This class is selected because it is expected IN, Rule Clarity RC and Material Environment ME) was
that the students have had adequate exposure to laboratory obtained by adding the score for the seven items belonging
classes to enable them to assess the climate of their labo- to the scales. The students’ achievement scores were
ratory classes. The sample of 328 students consisted of 82 obtained from the schools’ record for examinations.
students who were randomly selected from each of the four Data analysis was carried out using descriptive statistics
purposively selected schools based on the presence of a and Product Moment Correlation.
laboratory for science teaching.
The research instrument is a questionnaire designed
especially for assessing the environment of science class- Results
room classes in upper secondary and higher education
levels by Fraser et al. (1993). The instrument, the Science To Determine how Students Assess the Various
Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) consists of 35 Components of their Science Laboratory Environment
items measuring the five different dimensions of the
classroom environment—Student Cohesiveness, Open- The results showed that students assessed student cohe-
endedness, Integration, Rule Clarity and Material siveness, the degree to which students know, help and are

123
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 503

supportive of one another highest with a mean score of Table 1 Students’ assessment of the components of their science
129.14. This indicates that about 73.79% of the students laboratory environment
agreed that they relate well with other students in the S/N Environment dimensions X SD Mean %
laboratory class, get help from and can depend on
1 Student Cohesiveness SC 129.14 3.01 73.79
members of the laboratory class, get to know other stu-
dents well and work cooperatively during the laboratory 2 Open-endedness OE 71.09 1.40 40.62
class. 3 Integration IN 86.75 2.10 49.58
The second highest assessed component is Rule Clarity, 4 Rule Clarity RC 121.32 2.25 69.33
degree to which behavior in the laboratory is guided by 5 Material Environment ME 68.05 3.73 38.89
formal rules with a mean score of 121.32. With this score, 6. Total Environment TE 95.27 2.76 54.44
69.33% of the students agreed that there are clear rules to Maximum assessment score = 175
guide laboratory activities, the class is formal with many
rules imposed for learners to follow and that the teacher The Science Laboratory Environment has a Significant
outlines safety precautions at the beginning of the practical Effect on the Students’ Academic Performance
classes.
The third rated component is Integration, the degree For data analysis, paired sample correlations was carried
to which the laboratory activities are integrated with out between the students’ performance scores in the pro-
non-laboratory and theory classes with a mean score of motion examination and the students’ scores in each of the
86.75. This result indicates that only 49.58% of the five dimensions as well as the total score in the SLEI for
students agreed that what their laboratory work is quite their laboratory environment. The results of the analysis
related to their regular science classes and that what is showed that there is a significant correlation between the
learnt in the theory classes is useful in the practical type of science laboratory environment and students aca-
classes. The remaining half of the respondents feel that demic performance. The simple correlation values r have
laboratory work and regular theory class are unrelated significant values for all the five dimensions (IN = 0.83;
and that the practicals do not help to understand the ME = 0.77; SC = 0.71; OE = 0.59; RC = 0.55) and the
regular science. total environment, TE = 0.65, (Table 2). In particular,
The fourth rated is the open-endedness component, Integration, Material Environment, and Student Cohesive-
which is the degree to which the laboratory activities ness were strong correlates of achievement.
emphasize an open-ended divergent approach to experi-
ment with a mean score of 71.09. Thus, only 40.62% of the
students agreed that there is an opportunity to pursue their Discussion
science interests in the laboratory class, and that they can
be required to design experiments to solve given problems, The study has been able to revalidate the SLEI in Nigeria
gather data, allowed to go beyond regular science class as it was found to have high validity as an instrument for
sessions, and decide the best ways to proceed in an assessing the total laboratory environment as well for
experiment. Most of the students, (59.38%) feel that
teachers decide the best away to proceed during laboratory
activities and that all students are likely to be carrying out 140
Mean X
the same experiments.
Students' Assessment

120
The least rated is the Material Environment, the degree 100
to which the laboratory equipment and materials are
80
adequate with a mean score of 68.05. Only 38.89% of
the students assessed that the equipment and materials 60
needed for laboratory activities are really adequate. Most 40
of the students (61.11%) agreed that the laboratory is
20
often crowded, that they are ashamed of the appearance of
the laboratory, that the available equipment are not in 0

working order and the laboratory is not attractive. On the

TE
E

E
C

IN

RC
.O

.M
.S

whole the students assessed their laboratory environment

n

v.
ity
oh

tio

nv

En
En

ar
tC

ra

lE

just a little above average with a mean score of 95.27.

Cl

al
n

g
en

ia
pe

te

t
To
le

er
ud

In
O

About 50% of the students feel that the total environment

Ru

at
St

is not adequate with one form of lapses or another

(Table 1; Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Students’ assessment of laboratory environment

123
504 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506

Table 2 Correlation analysis of performance against assessment of environment

S/N Students’ assessment of dimensions Performance P
X SD X SD r

1 Student Cohesiveness SC 129.14 4.01 97.86 4.04 0.71 *\0.05

2 Open-endedness OE 71.09 1.40 140.91 1.37 0.59 *\0.05
3 Integration IN 86.75 2.10 121.17 2.33 0.83 *\0.05
4 Rule Clarity RC 121.32 2.25 158.23 1.88 0.55 *\0.05
5 Material Environment ME 68.05 3.73 88.76 4.11 0.77 *\0.05
6 Total Environment 95.27 2.76 121.39 2.41 0.65 *\0.05
Maximum assessment score = 175
Maximum performance score = 200
*Significant

assessing the five components of the environment. This is carrying out the same experiments and cannot go beyond
contrary to findings of Chin et al. (2004) who found low what is stipulated by the teacher. The students are not
reliability for items assessing OE and RC in Singapore. The likely to use their initiative to do any activity and inno-
study has also confirmed that it is possible for the teacher to vations are not likely to come up. This type of laboratory
assess the laboratory environment. This is especially environment is just a replica of the typical theory class-
important as it will be possible for the teacher to correct room setting where the teacher is in control and presents
any lapses in the quality of the environment, improve upon him/herself as the repertoire of knowledge. The lab envi-
it, and by such enhance the students’ performance. ronment must move away from this setting to one of freer
The highest assessment for SC indicates a high level of open-endedness where learners can take initiative.
cooperation, help and support among the students. It also The least rating of material environment confirms the
indicates a high level of interaction between the learners. fact that equipment and materials needed for laboratory
RC, which was assessed second highest shows that there activities are generally inadequate that the laboratories are
are clear cut rules that learners must follow in the labora- crowded, and the appearance unattractive. The quality of
tory classes amongst which are precautions rules. However this dimension can affect the quality of the other dimen-
it must be noted that the laboratory classes need not be too sions, for example when the ME is poor, students cannot
formal as it can detract from the quality of interaction even have facilities to try out their initiatives. Equipping
between learners and between learners and teachers. the laboratories have been a major problem for schools and
The study has revealed that there is no adequate inte- this might not be unconnected with factors such as funding
gration of laboratory activities with non-laboratory and and lack of commitment by government. On the whole,
theory classes. Thus, the students find that what they do many of the students did not assess the laboratory envi-
in the laboratory are usually unrelated to the theory, and that ronment well as it was assessed just above average. This is
their regular science is not integrated with laboratory a clear indication that there is the need for a lot of
activities. What they do in the laboratory quite often does improvement on the various dimensions.
not help them to understand the theory covered in the reg- This study found that the quality of the science labora-
ular science class. They most likely see practicals as new tory environment and the way learners perceive it have a
concepts to be learnt. In this way, students are likely not to significant effect on the performance of the learners and
be adequately interested in their laboratory activities nor be agrees with Chin et al. (2004), Combs and Snugg (1995),
able to understand them well. This defeats the purposes of Fraser and O’Brien (1985) and Wong and Fraser (1996)
such activities. The laboratory classes should emanate from that the quality of the environment determines the type of
theory classes such that students can actually see science as understanding and memory of the subject that a child
one to be learnt by activity and discovery and not by develops. The investigatory or inquiry method, which is the
memorizing notes of the theory classes. The laboratory method of science, is carried out largely in the laboratory
classes are not just to be entrenched in the theories learnt but and requires the student to work in a conducive environ-
must reveal productivity and usefulness in solving societal/ ment in order to develop the right attitudes. The science
environmental problems where necessary. laboratory environment is where the student develops the
Most of the students see themselves as just carrying out skills of observation, inquiry, accurate reporting, creativity,
whatever activities are designed by the teacher. Thus, in generalization and the need for safety and caution; all of
this type of laboratory environment, all students are these determine performance in science.

123
J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506 505

There is a strong positive correlation found between American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Bench-
pupils’ perception of integration and the material envi- marks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New York
Bajah T (1983) Teaching integrated science creatively. Ibadan
ronment with achievement. The strong positive correlation University Press, Ibadan, pp 51–59
found between pupils perception of the material environ- Bigge O (1993) Learning to teach in secondary school, 2nd edn.
ment with performance also reiterated the importance of Susan Capel & Co., London and New York
the material environment in the learning of science. Bredderman T (1983) The effects of activity-based elementary
science programme on students’ outcomes and classroom
The results also reiterate the importance of the appropriate practices. Rev Educ Res 53(4):499–518
integration of laboratory activities with theory and the Burton RR, Stanley E (1968) The psychology of learning. Robert
availability of adequate equipment and resources in helping Bordger and A.E.M. Seaborne Penguin Books, pp 40–45
pupils in the learning of science. Science laboratory classes Chin TY, Wong FL, Angela (2004) Pupils classroom environment
perceptions, attitude and achievement in science at the upper
that integrate knowledge learnt from science lessons and primary level. J Curriculum Leadersh 40(2):34
provide conducive material environment may ultimately Combs AW, Snugg D (1995) Psychology applied to teaching, Biehler,
have a positive impact on how pupils learn, pupils’ attitude 2nd edn. Houghton Mifflin Company, GA, USA, pp 23–67
towards science and their achievement in science. Dorman JP (1995) Associations between school-level environment
and science classroom learning environment in secondary
schools. Res Sci Educ 25(3):333–351
Fraser BJ (1986) Classroom Environment. Croom–Helm, London
Conclusion Fraser BJ, O’Brien P (1985) Student and teacher perceptions of the
environment of elementary school classrooms. Elem School J
85:567–580
The study has revalidated the SLEI in Nigeria and con- Fraser BJ, Giddings GJ, McRobbie CJ (1993) Development and cross-
firmed that teachers can assess their students’ perception national validation of a laboratory classroom environment
of the science laboratory environment using a standard instrument for senior high school science. Sci Educ 77:1–24
instrument. The knowledge of this can enable them to Goh SC, Young DJ, Fraser BJ (1995) Psychosocial climate and
student outcomes in elementary mathematics classrooms: a
identify inadequacies in the quality of the environment. multilevel analysis. J Exp Educ 64:29–40
The science laboratory environment is an important Hanley S (1994) On constructivism. Maryland collaborative for
determining factor of the academic performance of stu- teacher preparation http://www.inform.umd.edu/UMS+State/
dents in science as it has been found that there is a high UMD-projects/MCTP/Essays/Constructivism.txt
Huitt W (2003) Constructivism. Educational psychology interactive.
positive correlation between the quality of the various Valdosta State University, Valdosta. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/
dimensions of the environment and students’ academic whuitt/col/cogsys/construct.html
performance. It is hoped that improved science laboratory Hung FU, Chin AK (1988) Sharing of experiences-application of
environment will improve science instruction and discovery method to teaching. Educ J 16(1):85–96
Instructional Philosophy (2004) Classroom Environment. http://www.
learning. biologylessons.org/
Based on these findings it is recommended that there is Mayer RE (2003) Learning and instruction. Pearson Education, Inc,
the need to improve on the quality of the laboratory envi- Upper Saddle River, pp 287–288
ronment to enhance students’ academic performance. McRobbie CJ, Fraser BJ (1993) Association between student
outcomes and psychosocial science environment. J Educ Res
Students should be given better opportunity to know each 87:78–85
other closely and to work cooperatively with each other in Owokade OO (2006) Facilitating effective performance of students in
the laboratory. They should be provided with the required mathematics, science and technology in secondary schools.
equipment and materials needed for the laboratory activi- Paper presented at the FGN-UNESCO Workshop for Inspectors,
University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria, Dec 2006
ties and encouraged to be creative by allowing them Piaget J (1969) The Mechanism of perception. Routledge and Kegan
occasionally to purse their own science interests and Paul, London
designing their own experiments. Laboratory classes Sherman LW (1995) A postmodern, constructivist and cooperative
should be less formal to allow for better interaction of the pedagogy for teaching educational psychology, assisted by
computer mediated communications. In: Proceedings of
pupils, however safety rules and code of conduct are CSCL 95’ Conference. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/
essential in a laboratory setting. Dhsiao/theories.html
Silberman CE (1973) The open classroom readers. Random Press,
New York
Turpin T, Cage BN (2004) The effects of an integrated activity-based
References science curriculum on student achievement, science process
skills and science attitudes. Electron J Lit Sci 3:1–17
Adelson R (2004) Instruction versus exploration in science learning. Watson J (2000) Research designs, RGS 6035 http://www.ecourse.
PsychNet, American Psychological Association 35(6):34–47. amberton.edu/grad/RGS6035E1/READ4.HTM
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/instruct.html Welch WW, Walberg HJ (1972) A national experiment in curriculum
Aladejana FO (2006) Concept of teaching. In: Ehindero OJ, evaluation. Am Educ Res J 9:373–383
Aladejana FO (eds) Introduction to the teaching profession. Wilson BG (1996) Introduction: what is a constructivist learning
Literamed Publications Ltd, Lagos, pp 12–19 environment? In: Wilson BG (ed) Constructivist learning

123
506 J Sci Educ Technol (2007) 16:500–506

environments. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Quek CL, Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1998, April). Teacher–student
Cliffs, pp 3–8 interaction among gifted chemistry students in Singapore
Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the secondary schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of
negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, peda- the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San
gogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers. Rev Diego
Educ Res 72(2):131–175 Zandvliet DV, Buker L (2003) The Internet in B.C. classrooms:
Wong AFL, Fraser BJ (1996). Environment attitude associations in learning environments in new contexts. Int Electron J Leadersh
the chemistry laboratory classroom. Res Sci Technol Educ Learn 7(15). http://www.ucalgary.ca/*iejll/volume7/zandvliet.
14:91–102 htm

123

View publication stats