CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

369

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DURING THE TRANSITION FROM PRIMARY TO SECONDARY SCHOOL
Received 9 June 1998; accepted (in revised form ) 28 July 1998
ABSTRACT. The study used learning environment variables in investigating changes
occurring as students transfer from primary to secondary school, including the role of student
sex and school size pathway as influencing factors in changes in learning environment
perceptions. The My Class Inventory (MCI) and Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction
(QTI) were used in two data-gathering stages, one in the penultimate month of primary
schooling and the other in the fourth month of secondary schooling. The sample comprised
1040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16 linked secondary schools. The primary
schools ranged from very small isolated country schools to larger city schools with hundreds
of students. Five different school size transition pathways were defined for analysis: smallto-medium, medium-to-medium, small-to-large, medium-to-large and within-school
(involving schools with a K-10 structure, but with separate primary and secondary school
sites within the same campus). Although the classroom climate in secondary schools was
perceived more favourably than in primary schools (especially in terms of less friction and
competitiveness), the quality of teacher-student interaction was perceived to deteriorate on
most dimensions assessed by the QTI (e.g. a reduction in teachers leadership, helping/
friendly, understanding and student responsibility/freedom behaviours). But changes in
environment perceptions across transition varied with student sex and school size pathway.
For example, perceptions of class satisfaction across transition deteriorated for girls, but
improved for the boys. The findings have implications for administrators and teachers,
particularly those with a role within the middle school years.
KEY WORDS: learning environment, school size, student sex, transition to secondary school

Identifying and meeting the specific needs of students during early

adolescence for some time has been a concern for school systems and
researchers (Anderman & Midgley, 1996; Australian Schools Council, 1992;
Cotterell, 1982; Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth
Affairs, 1996; Ferguson & Speering, 1997; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1987; Midgley
et al., 1989, 1991). Much of this research has focused upon the problems
associated with the transition from primary to secondary school that occurs
during this stage of schooling, and some studies have highlighted deterioration
in students attitudes at this time, often describing the alienating nature of
secondary schools for girls (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Hirsch & Rapkin,
1987; Speering & Rennie, 1996). Middle schools of different forms have
existed in some countries for a long time (Hargreaves & Tickle, 1980) and
Learning Environments Research 1: 369383, 1999.
1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

370

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

recently there have been many school-based attempts at different middle

school structures within Australian contexts, as ways of addressing some
of the problems identified in early secondary schooling (Henning, 1997;
Kite, 1996). For the majority of students, the transition from primary to
secondary school remains some form of change from a generalist
environment, in terms of both the physical classroom environment and
teacher background, into one with a more subject specialist focus.
Previous research that has focused upon the primary-to-secondary school
transition has identified detrimental effects that could continue in the secondary
school (Speering & Rennie, 1996) and has highlighted the role that learning
environment perceptions can have within this context (Ferguson & Speering,
1997; Midgley et al., 1991). Speering and Rennies (1996) research on science
learning environments suggests that changes in learning environments across
transition and the role of the teacher within those environments has a lasting
detrimental effect on the attitudes of students, especially girls. An earlier study
by Feldlaufer et al. (1988) found that student perceptions of their teachers
after transition were less favourable than their perceptions of their primary
school teachers, at least in mathematics classes. Another study involving a
small sample (Cotterell, 1992) suggested that the transition pathway taken by
students, in terms of the relative size of schools before and after transition,
also had an impact on students reactions to transition.
The study reported in this article builds upon this earlier research by
making use of learning environment instruments in studying changes across
the primary-secondary transition, including differential changes according
to student sex and school size pathway. In particular, this research drew upon
the model developed by Wubbels et al. (1993) which was devised from earlier
work by Leary (1957) to map teacher interpersonal behaviour as a key aspect
of the learning environment. This model has been used extensively in a range
of international settings (Fisher & Rickards, 1997; Fisher et al., 1997; Goh
& Fraser, 1996, 1998; Wubbels & Levy, 1993) to investigate eight specific
aspects of teacher interpersonal behaviour. These aspects are measured by
the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), an instrument developed
in The Netherlands and based on this model.
In some past studies (e.g. Goh & Fraser, 1998), the QTI has been used
in conjunction with other learning environment instruments derived from
the work of Moos (1974, 1979), Walberg (1976, 1987), Fraser (1994, 1998)
and Fraser and Walberg (1991). For the transition study reported in this
article, the QTI was used in association with the My Class Inventory (MCI),
which has also been used extensively in past research (Fisher & Fraser, 1981;
Fisher et al., 1995; Fraser & OBrien, 1985; Goh et al., 1995), particularly
in primary school contexts. The versions of the MCI and the QTI used within

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

371

this study (both short versions) had the advantages of requiring less time
for completion by students and involving language appropriate for the
targeted age group (primary/early adolescence).
This study investigated changes in students learning environment
perceptions across transition, and the role of student sex and change in school
size as influencing factors in changes in perceptions as students transfer from
primary to secondary school. Students perceptions of the learning
environment were collected in the final stages of primary school and again,
for the same students, after their initial term in secondary school. A
comparison of the two data sets provided insights into how students
perceptions changed as a result of their first exposure to subject-specialised
learning environments and teachers, and how these changes in perceptions
during transition depended upon student sex and school size pathway.
The present research is important because it partially answers questions
related to the alienation of students during early secondary school.
Specifically, this research extended the scope of previous studies in two ways.
First, it made use of both a measure of classroom climate (the MCI) and of
teacher interpersonal interaction with students (the QTI). Second, the
research involved a relatively large sample size of 1040 students from across
a range of transition settings and many secondary subject areas, in contrast
to earlier research involving small samples from a limited range of transition
experiences (Cotterell, 1992; Speering & Rennie, 1996) or focusing upon
specific school subjects (Ferguson & Speering, 1997; Midgley et al., 1991).

1. METHODOLOGY
The study was longitudinal with two data-gathering stages, one at the end
of Grade 6 (November of the last year of primary school) and one in
Grade 7 (May of the first year of secondary school). The sample comprised
1040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16 linked secondary
schools. The primary schools ranged from isolated country schools, with a
transition cohort of only six students, to larger city schools with hundreds
of students. All schools were coeducational and the number of male and
female students was approximately equal. All schools were situated within
Tasmania, Australia and the sample of schools was representative of the
range of transition options experienced within this state.
Five different school size pathways were defined for analysis: small-tomedium, medium-to-medium, small-to-large, medium-to-large and withinschool. The within-school pathway consisted of schools with a K-10
structure, but with separate primary and secondary school sectors on the

372

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

same campus. The small, medium and large classifications equated to

transition cohort sizes, respectively, of under 10 students, 1080 students
and over 80 students.
Prior to analysis, any student who did not complete both pretest and
posttest questionnaires was discarded. This left a total of 1040 students for
analysis. For the transition pathway comparisons, the sample size was
reduced to 1008 because 32 students followed atypical pathways in that
they moved to other schools within the study but outside of the district within
which the remainder of the cohort transited. It was thought that this group
could unfairly bias comparisons and so were not included.
The learning environment was measured with the My Class Inventory
(MCI; Fisher & Fraser, 1981) and the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction
(QTI; Wubbels, 1993) short form. The version of the QTI used in the present
study incorporated some changes to the previous version to accommodate
insights gained during a pilot study. Students completed the instruments both
prior to and after transition. A pilot study involving 150 students was
undertaken for the purposes of refining the instruments. This was undertaken
with the transition cohort 12 months prior to the main study. The quantitative
data collected with the MCI and QTI were complemented by qualitative data
collected via interviews with teachers and students, as recommended by
Tobin and Fraser (1998).
The MCI assesses the five classroom climate scales of Satisfaction,
Friction, Difficulty, Cohesiveness and Competitiveness (Fraser & OBrien,
1985). A sample item for each MCI scale is provided in Table I.
The eight specific aspects of teacher-student interaction measured by the
QTI are organised according to an influence dimension (DominanceSubmission) and a proximity dimension (Cooperation-Opposition). These
dimensions provide the model with an overall structure represented by the
eight sectors shown in Figure 1. The dimension represented by a particular
sector within the model should correlate most positively with those sectors
adjacent to it and most negatively with those opposite. The QTI assesses
teacher-student interactional behaviour with the eight dimensions of
Leadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding, Student Responsibility/
Freedom, Uncertainty, Dissatisfaction, Admonishing and Strict behaviour.
Table I contains sample items for the QTI.
To make comparisons between the generalist primary classes and teachers
and the subject specialist ones of the secondary schools, students completed
the MCI and the QTI for their primary class before transition and one of
their secondary classes (and teachers) after transition. The secondary classes
were allocated by the researcher randomly across each class group so that
an equal representation of each subject environment and teacher resulted.

373

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

TABLE I
Sample item and Cronbach alpha reliability of each scale in the My Class Inventory (MCI)
and Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI).
Scale

Sample item

No. of
items

Reliability
Primary Secondary

My Class Inventory (MCI)

Satisfaction

Some pupils are not happy in

the class. ()

0.84

0.86

Friction

Many of the children in our

class like to fight. (+)

0.69

0.75

Competitiveness

Most children want their work to

be better than their friends work. (+)

0.67

0.76

Difficulty

In our class, the work is hard to do. (+)

0.59

0.74

Cohesiveness

Some people in my class are not

my friends. ()

0.74

0.79

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

Leadership

I learn a lot from this teacher. (+)

0.73

0.80

Helpful/Friendly

This teacher is friendly. (+)

0.81

0.85

Understanding

This teacher listens to me. (+)

0.80

0.86

0.61

0.66

This teacher knows what to do

when I fool around. ()

0.60

0.71

Dissatisfaction

This teacher is unhappy. (+)

0.75

0.76

Admonishing

This teacher gets angry quickly. (+)

0.79

0.80

Student Responsibility/ This teacher gives us a lot of free

Freedom
time in class. (+)
Uncertainty

Strict

Work for this teacher has to be

our best. (+)
5
0.60
0.68
Items designated (+) are scored 3 and 1, respectively, for the responses Yes and No. Items designated
() are scored in the reverse manner. n = 1040.

Table I reports the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient obtained at the

primary and secondary school levels for the sample of 1040 students for
each of the 13 MCI and QTI scales. These coefficients, which range from
0.59 to 0.86, suggest that each environment scale has satisfactory internal
consistency when used with either primary or secondary students. The QTI
scales of teacher Strictness and Student Responsibility/Freedom each
contained one item whose language was misinterpreted by students. These
items were omitted to enhance scale internal consistency.
Qualitative data consisted of students descriptions and comments in
response to a set range of open questions regarding perceptions of the
classroom environment and teacher behaviour before and after transition,
as well as reflections upon the transition process overall. These were much

374

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

Figure 1. The Model for Interpersonal Behaviour (Wubbels et al., 1993)

broader in scope than the learning environment focus of the MCI and QTI
and provided general background information. However, some of the
questions were designed to provide clarification for qualitative analysis,
especially aspects that the pilot study identified as uncertain or potentially
ambiguous. One of the researchers went to each class to introduce each
question verbally in turn before students wrote their responses. Students
were able to ask questions of the researcher.

2. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The first stage of data analysis involved a three-way MANOVA with
repeated measures on one factor. The set of 13 learning environment

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

375

dimensions in the MCI and QTI comprised the dependent variables, the
change in perceptions across transition (primary versus secondary) was the
repeated measures factor, and the other two factors were student sex and
school-size transition pathway. The MANOVA results are shown in Table
II. Although the MANOVA yields a total of seven effects (three main effects,
three two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction), only some of
these are relevant to the present studys research questions. The transition
effect encompasses the studys central question about changes across
transition. The two-way transition x sex and transition x school size
interactions provide essential information relevant to this studys questions
about whether changes across transition vary with sex and school size
pathway. On the other hand, the sex effect, the school size pathway effect
and the school size x sex interaction are not relevant to the studys research
questions. Although the three-way transition x sex x size interaction
potentially is relevant, it can be disregarded in further discussion because it
was not found to be statistically significant (Table II).
To reduce the Type 1 error rate, a three-way MANOVA for the whole
set of 13 scales was performed first, and then the individual three-way
ANOVA for each of 13 environment scales was interpreted only if the
MANOVA produced significant results. As the multivariate test using Wilks
lambda criterion yielded statistically significant results for the three effects
relevant to the research questions (change in students perceptions across
transition, the transition x sex interaction, and the school transition x size
interaction) the corresponding three-way ANOVA was examined for each
of the 13 learning environment dimensions individually for these three effects
factors (see Table III). The ANOVAs identified that the transition effect was
significant for all 13 scales, the transition x sex interaction was significant
TABLE II
Three-way MANOVA with repeated measures on one factor for the set of 13 learning
environment scales.
Effect
Transition (Trial)a

F
27.14**

Sex

4.35**

School Size Pathway

a

2.75**

Transition x Sex

2.68**

Transition x Sizea

1.87**

Size x Sex

1.02

Transition x Sex x Size

1.08
a
These three effects are of central importance for the research question of the present study. **p <
0.01. n = 1040.

376

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

TABLE III
Three-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor for each of 13 MCI and QTI
scales for Transition (Trial), Transition x Sex and Transition x School Size.
Scale
Transition

F
Transition x sex

Transition x size

31.22**

4.11*

1.27

106.63**

4.06*

2.37*

34.92**

10.06**

1.02

129.64**

5.13*

2.32*

94.69**

0.23

1.79

22.01**

0.25

My Class Inventory (MCI)

Satisfaction
Friction
Difficulty
Cohesiveness
Competitiveness

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

Leadership

53.56**

Helpful/Friendly

65.87**

9.69**

1.97

Understanding

107.23**

9.44**

0.69

19.45**

0.13

3.10*

Student Responsibility/
Freedom
Uncertainty

83.47**

37.00**

0.82

101.54**

20.63**

1.40

66.93**

7.83**

0.54

Strict
40.19**
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. n = 1040.

9.78**

1.44

Dissatisfaction
Admonishing

for 11 scales, and the transition x size interaction was significant for three
scales. Finally, comparisons were made between means scores in order to
interpret the significant effects. Also, qualitative data were used to aid
interpretation of the statistical analyses.
The MANOVA results in Table II replicate past research (Cotterell, 1992)
in that changes in perceived learning environment occurred during the
transition from primary to secondary school, and that these changes varied
with student sex and school size/transition pathway.
When comparing pre-transition primary classes with post-transition
secondary classes, generally students perceived some aspects of the change
in learning environment in positive terms, and some in negative terms.
Secondary school environments generally were perceived to be less
favourable than primary schools in terms of less class Cohesiveness, less
Leadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding and Student Responsibility/
Freedom teacher behaviours and more Uncertainty and Dissatisfied teacher
behaviours. Especially of interest is the reduction across transition in all the
three scales of the co-operation sector of Wubbels interpersonal model. The

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

377

changes in teacher interpersonal style perceived by the students represent a

shift towards a more uncertain-aggressive teacher type and away from the
authoritative-tolerant ideal teacher profile (Wubbels & Levy, 1993).
However, secondary school environments were also perceived to be more
favourable than primary school environments in terms of more Satisfaction,
less Friction, Difficulty and Competitiveness and less Admonishing and Strict
teacher behaviour.
As the transition x sex and transition x pathway interactions were
significant (Table II), but the three-way transition x sex x pathway interaction
was not, it is appropriate to split the data separately by sex and by pathway
in order to make more meaningful interpretations. Figure 2 depicts the mean
scores split by sex for each environment scale for which a significant (p <
0.05) transition x sex effect occurred.
For the four MCI scales in Table III for which there was a significant
transition x sex interaction, changes in learning environment perceptions
across transition were more favourable for boys for Satisfaction and

Figure 2. Differential changes in learning environment perceptions across transition for

boys and girls (n = 1040 students).

378

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

Difficulty, but were more favourable for girls for Friction and Cohesiveness.
However, overall trends were similar for boys and girls. Boys experienced
an increase in Satisfaction (compared with a decrease for girls) and they also
perceived a slightly larger reduction in Difficulty and a smaller decline in
Cohesiveness during transition. Girls experienced a larger decrease in
Friction. For most of the variables, however, boys held a more negative view
both before and after the transition than did the girls, with the key difference
being that the starting point for boys was usually more negative. This was
possibly a manifestation of the general negativity which boys felt about
primary school.
The finding that boys reported an increase in Satisfaction, whilst girls
experienced a reduction in perceived Satisfaction, was supported by the
qualitative data which suggested that many boys were resentful and negative
about primary school. This resentment focused upon the sex of the teacher
(e.g. Our teachers are all bossy women), their perceived behaviour
management style (e.g. If you do something wrong in the morning, they
pick on you all day) or their perceived bias in curriculum decisions. (The
problem is that most of our primary teachers are intelligent females. They
get to choose what we do and usually they choose things that appeal to the
intelligent girls.) By contrast, the girls were happy with their primary classes
and their teachers. (Almost 20% of students nominated teachers as the thing
they missed most about primary school once they had left.)
Qualitative data suggested that boys and girls had different priorities when
describing positives about the school environment. Boys responses had a
facilities/activity focus, while the girls had more of a relationship focus. For
example, of the 42% of students who mentioned friends as the key
enjoyment factor of school, there were 23% more girls than boys. Of those
who responded the teacher, there were 83% more girls. By contrast, boys
were 40% more likely than girls to nominate aspects of school facilities or
equipment (often sports related). The one clear pattern emerging from the
qualitative data, that is of relevance to interpretations within this article, was
the importance that girls placed upon relationships within school contexts,
both those with peers and with teachers. For girls, any diminution in teacher/
student relationships is directly linked to reduced satisfaction with the class
and learning environment concerned. Boys, in contrast, were more concerned
with access to facilities and equipment and the nature of activities experienced.
Teacher relationships were rarely described as important (unless they were
particularly bad) and, when peer relationships were described as important,
this was often because they allowed for specific, shared activities (e.g. sport).
For the seven QTI scales with a significant transition x gender interaction
(Table III), boys perceived a more positive change than girls for the Under-

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

379

standing, Dissatisfaction and Admonishing teacher behaviours during transition. This was consistent with the qualitative data which showed that boys
indicated that they felt that teachers were admonishing and bossy towards
them. They suggested that they were continually picked on and often gave
the reason because we arent girls or we cant (or dont) behave like girls.
On the other hand, girls experienced a more favourable change across
transition for four QTI scales. Girls perceived less reduction in Leadership
and Helpful/Friendly behaviours, a smaller reduction in teacher Uncertainty,
and a reduction in Strict behaviour (compared with an increase for boys).
Qualitative and quantitative data suggested that a key factor influencing girls
perceptions of changes was the relatively large reduction in teacher
Understanding. This was due to a combination of the changing relationship
between teacher and student, the narrower, subject-defined focus by
secondary teachers and a reduction in personal contact with specific teachers.
Teacher Understanding was a key issue for girls throughout and appeared
often in the qualitative data. For example, when asked What do you miss
about primary school? (once in secondary school), many girls commented
nostalgically about the altered relationship with the teacher. This included
many comments referring to the degree of empathy which the teacher
demonstrated (e.g. The teachers and the special care, The teachers would
stick up for us when we got teased and The shared feelings). By contrast,
boys were pragmatic about the change (e.g. I dont really miss anything;
thats all finished) or glad to be away from the primary teachers (e.g. It is
much better here because the teachers dont pick on us all day). This
interpretation is reflected in the QTI data for which shifts in the Understanding dimension were more pronounced for girls than boys.
When data were split by transition pathway for the three scales of Friction,
Cohesiveness and Student Responsibility/Freedom, for which a significant
transition x school size pathway interaction had emerged (see Table III and
Figure 3), the least favourable changes were found for students moving from
small primary schools to either medium or large secondary schools. The most
favourable changes occurred for the within-school pathway. Students moving
from small primary schools perceived a larger decrease in Cohesiveness and
Student Responsibility/Freedom behaviour and a smaller decrease in Friction
compared with the within-school pathway. Students from the within-school
transition pathway experienced a large decrease in Friction and an increase
in both Cohesiveness and Student Responsibility/Freedom behaviour.
Although school size pathway differences were not as clearly discernible
within the qualitative data (sex-based differences were much more obvious),
typically students moving out of the small primary schools commented on
differences in the physical size of the secondary schools, the presence of

380

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

Figure 3. Differential changes in learning environment perceptions across transition for

different school size pathways (n = 1008 students).

the people who mess around with smoking and drugs and the changing
relationships with peers (e.g. Friends just seemed to be closer in primary
school, and Some of my friends have changed and have got snobby).
They were also more inclined to comment on the lack of friendliness of
the secondary school students.
Students in the medium-medium and medium-large school size pathways
perceived changes in learning environments across transition in a way that
was less favourable than the within-school pathway but more favourable
than for students leaving small primary schools (see Figure 3). In particular,
students moving from a medium-sized primary school to a large-sized high
school experienced small declines in Cohesion and Student Responsibility/
Freedom behaviour.

3. CONCLUSION
This study identified both positive and negative changes in learning
environment perceptions during the transition from primary to secondary
school, but these changes varied with student sex and school size pathway.
For example, secondary schools were perceived as having less friction and

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

381

competitiveness than primary schools. But students also perceived a

deterioration in the quality of teacher-student interactions (e.g. in terms of
less leadership, helpful/friendly, understanding and student responsibility/
freedom teacher behaviours).
The interpretation of the differential changes in learning environment
perceptions across transition for boys and girls was that boys experienced
more favourable changes on some dimensions, while girls experienced more
favourable changes on other dimensions. Boys reported more favourable
changes in perceptions than girls across transition in terms of an increase in
satisfaction (compared with a decrease for girls), a larger decline in difficulty
and a smaller decline in cohesiveness and understanding teacher behaviour,
and a smaller increase in teacher dissatisfaction behaviour, and a larger
decrease in admonishing teacher behaviour. On the one hand, girls reported
more favourable changes than boys in learning environment perceptions
across transition in terms of a larger decrease in classroom friction, a smaller
decrease in leadership and helpful/friendly teacher behaviours, a smaller
increase in uncertainty teacher behaviour and a decline in strict teacher
behaviour (compared with an increase for boys).
Findings from this study also suggest that changes in learning environment
across transition are related to school size and, therefore, school programs
devised to support students during the primary-to-secondary school transition
need to take into account the degree of change which students undergo in
terms of school size. The present study suggests that students from smallsized primary schools experienced larger deteriorations in learning environment dimensions than did the students from medium-sized primary schools.
Also, students whose secondary school was on the same site as their primary
school reported the most favourable changes in perceived learning environment during transition.

REFERENCES
Anderman, E.M. & Midgely, C. (1996, April). Changes in achievement goal orientations
after the transition to middle school. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Society for Research on Adolescence, Boston, MA
Australian Schools Council. (1992). National report on schooling in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
Cotterell, J.L. (1982). Student experiences following entry into secondary school. Educational Research, 24, 296302.
Cotterell, J.L. (1992). School size as a factor in adolescents adjustment to the transition to
secondary school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 2845.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). (1996).
Ending Alienation. THE GEN, June, 14.

382

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

Eccles, J.S. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation
in education, 3 (pp. 139186). New York: Academic Press.
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C. & Eccles, J.S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133156.
Ferguson, P.D. & Speering, W. (1997). Great expectations, grim realities: secondary school
initiates perceptions of science. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics & Technology Education and National Development, Proceedings of the
1997 International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hanoi, Vietnam, 67 January, 1997. (pp. 189198). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class Inventory. Science Education, 65, 145156.
Fisher, D.L., Fraser, B.J. & Bassett, J. (1995). Using a classroom environment instrument in
an early childhood classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(3), 1015.
Fisher, D. & Rickards, T. (1997). Cultural and gender differences in teacher-student interpersonal behaviour in science classrooms. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science,
Mathematics & Technology Education and National Development, Proceedings of
the 1997 International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hanoi, Vietnam, 67 January, 1997. (pp. 19). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Fisher, D., Rickards, T., Goh, S.C. & Wong, A. (1997). Perceptions of interpersonal teacher
behaviour in secondary science classrooms: comparisons between Australia and Singapore. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics & Technology Education and National Development, Proceedings of the 1997 International Conference
on Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hanoi, Vietnam, 67 January,
1997. (pp. 136143). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Fraser, B. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493541). New York:
Macmillan.
Fraser, B.J. (1998). Science learning environments: assessment, effects and determinants.
In B.J. Fraser & W.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education
(pp. 527564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B.J. & OBrien, P. (1985). Student and teacher perceptions of the environment of
elementary school classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 84, 567580.
Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Validation of an elementary school version of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Psychological Reports, 79, 515522.
Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environment
and student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments
Research, 1, .........
Goh, S., Young, D. & Fraser, B. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes in
elementary mathematics classrooms: a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 2940.
Hargreaves, A. & Tickle, L. (Eds.). (1980). Middle schools: origin, ideology and practice. London: Harper and Row.

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

383

Henning, D. (1997). Prospect High School. In M. Falk, R. Radford & H. Smigiel (Eds.),
Partnerships for professional learning: the innovative links roundtable in Tasmania (pp. 1315). Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Educational Consortium.
Hirsch, B.J. & Rapkin, B.D. (1987). The transition to junior high school: a longitudinal study
of self esteem, psychological symptomatology, school life, and social support. Child
Development, 58, 12351243.
Kite, L. (Ed.). (1996). Implementing cross-curricular approaches in schools: case study
no. 2 (pp. 2541). Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press
Company.
Midgley, C., Eccles, J.S. & Feldlaufer, H. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes
toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of
Child Development, 60, 981992.
Midgley, C., Eccles, J.S. & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom environment and the transition
to junior high school. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments:
evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 131139). Oxford, UK: Pergamon
Press.
Moos, R.H. (1974). Evaluating treatment environments: a social ecological approach.
New York: John Wiley.
Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Speering, W. & Rennie, L. (1996). Students perceptions about science: the impact of transition from primary to secondary school. Research in Science Education, 26, 283298.
Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learning
environments. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science
education (pp. 623640). Dordtrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Walberg, H.J. (1976). The psychology of learning environments: behavioral, structural, or
perceptual? Review of Research in Education, 4, 142178.
Walberg, H.J. (1987). Learning environment reconsidered: educational productivity and
talent development. In B.J. Fraser (Ed.), The study of learning environments, Volume
3 (pp. 19). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
Wubbels, T. (1993). Teacher-student relationships in science and mathematics classes
(What Research Says to the Science and Mathematics Teacher). Perth, Australia: National Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.
Wubbels, T., Creton, H., Levy, J. & Hooymayers, H. (1993). The model for interpersonal
teacher behaviour. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like?:
interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 1328). London: Falmer Press.
Wubbels, T. & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like?: interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer Press.
PETER D. FERGUSON

BARRY J. FRASER

School of Education
Science and Mathematics Education Centre
University of Tasmania
Curtin University of Technology
P.O. Box 1214
GPO Box U1987
Launceston, Tasmania 7250
Perth, Western Australia 6845
Australia
Australia

384

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.