ELIMINATED PARTS COMING FROM CHAPTER ONE

Fraser, Giddings and McRobbie (1995) established the Science Laboratory Environment

Inventory (SLEI) to explore school science laboratory learning environments. The focus of this

latent construct is to examine the psychosocial impact of the science laboratory environment,

measured from five dimensions namely (a) Student Cohesiveness, (b) Open – Endedness, (c)

Integration, (d) Rule Clarity and (e) Material Environment (Henderson, Fisher & Fraser, 2000).

Student Cohesiveness is the degree to which students know, help and are supportive of one

another. Open – endedness is the degree to which the laboratory activities emphasize an open –

ended, divergent approach to experimentation. Integration is the degree to which the laboratory

activities are integrated with non – laboratory and theory classes. Rule clarity is the degree to

which behaviour in the laboratory is guided by formal rules while material environment is the

extent to which behaviour in the laboratory is guided by formal rules while material environment

is the degree to which the laboratory equipment and materials are adequate (Fraser, Giddings and

McRobbie, 1995). The laboratory learning environment is not much influenced by the materials

and apparatus as well as the physical setting of the laboratory. But, the dynamics between the

expectations for learning, the interactions between students and teacher and the nature of the

laboratory activities will determine the kind of learning environment which can foster a greater

appreciation towards learning science. The distinct property of a learning environment is to

measure the unique positive behaviour and interaction of learners in a certain learning location,

say for example the laboratory setting.

Aldridge and Fraser (2008) had defined that the concentrations of past learning

environment research had focused on inquiries regarding the relationships between the learners’

perceived psychosocial environment and their cognitive and affective insights. Fraser (2007) had

enriched this claim by affirming that in a review of previous learning environment research,
widespread studies had been steered in a variety of subjects at various grade levels utilizing

numerous outcome measures. The goals of those studies were mostly to determine what are the

distinct learning environments. A general agreement had been made that a considerable

magnitude of variance in learning outcomes of students can be traced back towards their

perceptions to the learning environment they actually belong, and the error terms can be

attributed to their background characteristics. Moreover, several researches had also investigated

some influential elements of the learning environment factors (Fraser, 2007). According to

Velayutham (2012), there is an existing lack of existing studies which covers on examining

which dimensions of the learning environment could serve as determinants of students’ attitude

and learning outcomes. Velayutham (2012) had advanced these by studying how classroom

learning environments had influenced students’ motivation towards science by using

sophisticated statistical techniques, and the study had concluded that indeed, the dimensions of

the classroom learning environment had severely affected students’ general attitudes towards

science in a considerable manner. In a recent study by Olubu (2015), it was found that there was

a significant relationship between the five dimensions of laboratory learning and students’

performance. Moreover, it was emphasized that a considerable amount of variance from the

students’ performance can be attributed to their perceptions of the learning environment.

Velayutham (2012) considered only attitudes but not achievements, while Olubu (2015)

considered achievements but not attitudes. Through these studies, there is a developing

theoretical concern that learning environment could serve as potential predictors of both attitudes

and achievements in science, not just an assessment instrument and a variational parameter, but

instead themselves were acting determinants.