Changes in Learning Environment during the Transition from Primary to Secondary School

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 369

Learning Environments Research 1: 369–383, 1999. © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER

CHANGES IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT DURING THE TRAN-SITION 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 changesoccurring as students transfer from primary to secondary school, including the role of studentsex and school size pathway as influencing factors in changes in learning environmentperceptions. The My Class Inventory (MCI) and Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction(QTI) were used in two data-gathering stages, one in the penultimate month of primaryschooling and the other in the fourth month of secondary schooling. The sample comprised1040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16 linked secondary schools. The primaryschools ranged from very small isolated country schools to larger city schools with hundredsof students. Five different school size transition pathways were defined for analysis: small-to-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 schoolsites within the same campus). Although the classroom climate in secondary schools wasperceived more favourably than in primary schools (especially in terms of less friction andcompetitiveness), the quality of teacher-student interaction was perceived to deteriorate onmost dimensions assessed by the QTI (e.g. a reduction in teachers’ leadership, helping/friendly, understanding and student responsibility/freedom behaviours). But changes inenvironment perceptions across transition varied with student sex and school size pathway.For example, perceptions of class satisfaction across transition deteriorated for girls, butimproved 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 earlyadolescence for some time has been a concern for school systems andresearchers (Anderman & Midgley, 1996; Australian Schools Council, 1992;Cotterell, 1982; Department of Employment, Education, Training and YouthAffairs, 1996; Ferguson & Speering, 1997; Hirsch & Rapkin, 1987; Midgleyet al., 1989, 1991). Much of this research has focused upon the problemsassociated with the transition from primary to secondary school that occursduring this stage of schooling, and some studies have highlighted deteriorationin students’ attitudes at this time, often describing the alienating nature ofsecondary schools for girls (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Hirsch & Rapkin,1987; Speering & Rennie, 1996). ‘Middle schools’ of different forms haveexisted in some countries for a long time (Hargreaves & Tickle, 1980) and

PETER D. FERGUSON AND BARRY J. FRASER370

recently there have been many school-based attempts at different middleschool structures within Australian contexts, as ways of addressing someof the problems identified in early secondary schooling (Henning, 1997;Kite, 1996). For the majority of students, the transition from primary tosecondary school remains some form of change from a generalistenvironment, in terms of both the physical classroom environment andteacher background, into one with a more subject specialist focus.

Previous research that has focused upon the primary-to-secondary schooltransition has identified detrimental effects that could continue in the secondaryschool (Speering & Rennie, 1996) and has highlighted the role that learningenvironment perceptions can have within this context (Ferguson & Speering,1997; Midgley et al., 1991). Speering and Rennie’s (1996) research on sciencelearning environments suggests that changes in learning environments acrosstransition and the role of the teacher within those environments has a lastingdetrimental effect on the attitudes of students, especially girls. An earlier studyby Feldlaufer et al. (1988) found that student perceptions of their teachersafter transition were less favourable than their perceptions of their primaryschool teachers, at least in mathematics classes. Another study involving asmall sample (Cotterell, 1992) suggested that the transition pathway taken bystudents, 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 bymaking use of learning environment instruments in studying changes acrossthe primary-secondary transition, including differential changes accordingto student sex and school size pathway. In particular, this research drew uponthe model developed by Wubbels et al. (1993) which was devised from earlierwork by Leary (1957) to map teacher interpersonal behaviour as a key aspectof the learning environment. This model has been used extensively in a rangeof international settings (Fisher & Rickards, 1997; Fisher et al., 1997; Goh& Fraser, 1996, 1998; Wubbels & Levy, 1993) to investigate eight specificaspects of teacher interpersonal behaviour. These aspects are measured bythe Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI), an instrument developedin The Netherlands and based on this model.

In some past studies (e.g. Goh & Fraser, 1998), the QTI has been usedin conjunction with other learning environment instruments derived fromthe work of Moos (1974, 1979), Walberg (1976, 1987), Fraser (1994, 1998)and Fraser and Walberg (1991). For the transition study reported in thisarticle, 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 & O’Brien, 1985; Goh et al., 1995), particularlyin primary school contexts. The versions of the MCI and the QTI used within


this study (both short versions) had the advantages of requiring less timefor completion by students and involving language appropriate for thetargeted age group (primary/early adolescence).

This study investigated changes in students’ learning environmentperceptions across transition, and the role of student sex and change in schoolsize as influencing factors in changes in perceptions as students transfer fromprimary to secondary school. Students’ perceptions of the learningenvironment were collected in the final stages of primary school and again,for the same students, after their initial term in secondary school. Acomparison of the two data sets provided insights into how students’perceptions changed as a result of their first exposure to subject-specialisedlearning environments and teachers, and how these changes in perceptionsduring transition depended upon student sex and school size pathway.

The present research is important because it partially answers questionsrelated 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 ofteacher interpersonal interaction with students (the QTI). Second, theresearch involved a relatively large sample size of 1040 students from acrossa range of transition settings and many secondary subject areas, in contrastto earlier research involving small samples from a limited range of transitionexperiences (Cotterell, 1992; Speering & Rennie, 1996) or focusing uponspecific school subjects (Ferguson & Speering, 1997; Midgley et al., 1991).

1. METHODOLOGY

The study was longitudinal with two data-gathering stages, one at the endof Grade 6 (November of the last year of primary school) and one inGrade 7 (May of the first year of secondary school). The sample comprised1040 students from 47 feeder primary schools and 16 linked secondaryschools. The primary schools ranged from isolated country schools, with atransition cohort of only six students, to larger city schools with hundredsof students. All schools were coeducational and the number of male andfemale students was approximately equal. All schools were situated withinTasmania, Australia and the sample of schools was representative of therange of transition options experienced within this state.

Five different school size pathways were defined for analysis: small-to-medium, medium-to-medium, small-to-large, medium-to-large and ‘within-school’. The ‘within-school’ pathway consisted of schools with a K-10structure, but with separate primary and secondary school sectors on the


same campus. The ‘small’, ‘medium’ and ‘large’ classifications equated totransition cohort sizes, respectively, of under 10 students, 10–80 studentsand over 80 students.

Prior to analysis, any student who did not complete both pretest andposttest questionnaires was discarded. This left a total of 1040 students foranalysis. For the transition pathway comparisons, the sample size wasreduced to 1008 because 32 students followed ‘atypical’ pathways in thatthey moved to other schools within the study but outside of the district withinwhich the remainder of the cohort transited. It was thought that this groupcould 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 presentstudy incorporated some changes to the previous version to accommodateinsights gained during a pilot study. Students completed the instruments bothprior to and after transition. A pilot study involving 150 students wasundertaken for the purposes of refining the instruments. This was undertakenwith the transition cohort 12 months prior to the main study. The quantitativedata collected with the MCI and QTI were complemented by qualitative datacollected via interviews with teachers and students, as recommended byTobin and Fraser (1998).

The MCI assesses the five classroom climate scales of Satisfaction,Friction, Difficulty, Cohesiveness and Competitiveness (Fraser & O’Brien,1985). A sample item for each MCI scale is provided in Table I.

The eight specific aspects of teacher-student interaction measured by theQTI are organised according to an influence dimension (Dominance-Submission) and a proximity dimension (Cooperation-Opposition). Thesedimensions provide the model with an overall structure represented by theeight sectors shown in Figure 1. The dimension represented by a particularsector within the model should correlate most positively with those sectorsadjacent to it and most negatively with those opposite. The QTI assessesteacher-student interactional behaviour with the eight dimensions ofLeadership, 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 teachersand the subject specialist ones of the secondary schools, students completedthe MCI and the QTI for their primary class before transition and one oftheir secondary classes (and teachers) after transition. The secondary classeswere allocated by the researcher randomly across each class group so thatan equal representation of each subject environment and teacher resulted.


Table I reports the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient obtained at theprimary and secondary school levels for the sample of 1040 students foreach of the 13 MCI and QTI scales. These coefficients, which range from0.59 to 0.86, suggest that each environment scale has satisfactory internalconsistency when used with either primary or secondary students. The QTIscales of teacher Strictness and Student Responsibility/Freedom eachcontained one item whose language was misinterpreted by students. Theseitems were omitted to enhance scale internal consistency.

Qualitative data consisted of students’ descriptions and comments inresponse to a set range of ‘open’ questions regarding perceptions of theclassroom environment and teacher behaviour before and after transition,as well as reflections upon the transition process overall. These were much

TABLE ISample 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 Reliabilityitems Primary Secondary

My Class Inventory (MCI)

Satisfaction Some pupils are not happy inthe class. (–) 9 0.84 0.86

Friction Many of the children in ourclass like to fight. (+) 8 0.69 0.75

Competitiveness Most children want their work tobe better than their friends’ work. (+) 7 0.67 0.76

Difficulty In our class, the work is hard to do. (+) 7 0.59 0.74

Cohesiveness Some people in my class are notmy friends. (–) 5 0.74 0.79

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

Leadership I learn a lot from this teacher. (+) 6 0.73 0.80

Helpful/Friendly This teacher is friendly. (+) 6 0.81 0.85

Understanding This teacher listens to me. (+) 6 0.80 0.86

Student Responsibility/ This teacher gives us a lot of freeFreedom time in class. (+) 6 0.61 0.66

Uncertainty This teacher knows what to dowhen I fool around. (–) 6 0.60 0.71

Dissatisfaction This teacher is unhappy. (+) 6 0.75 0.76

Admonishing This teacher gets angry quickly. (+) 6 0.79 0.80

Strict Work for this teacher has to beour 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.


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

2. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

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

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


dimensions in the MCI and QTI comprised the dependent variables, thechange in perceptions across transition (primary versus secondary) was therepeated measures factor, and the other two factors were student sex andschool-size transition pathway. The MANOVA results are shown in TableII. Although the MANOVA yields a total of seven effects (three main effects,three two-way interactions, and the three-way interaction), only some ofthese are relevant to the present study’s research questions. The transitioneffect encompasses the study’s central question about changes acrosstransition. The two-way transition x sex and transition x school sizeinteractions provide essential information relevant to this study’s questionsabout whether changes across transition vary with sex and school sizepathway. On the other hand, the sex effect, the school size pathway effectand the school size x sex interaction are not relevant to the study’s researchquestions. Although the three-way transition x sex x size interactionpotentially is relevant, it can be disregarded in further discussion because itwas not found to be statistically significant (Table II).

To reduce the Type 1 error rate, a three-way MANOVA for the wholeset of 13 scales was performed first, and then the individual three-wayANOVA for each of 13 environment scales was interpreted only if theMANOVA produced significant results. As the multivariate test using Wilks’lambda criterion yielded statistically significant results for the three effectsrelevant to the research questions (change in students’ perceptions acrosstransition, the transition x sex interaction, and the school transition x sizeinteraction) the corresponding three-way ANOVA was examined for eachof the 13 learning environment dimensions individually for these three effectsfactors (see Table III). The ANOVAs identified that the transition effect wassignificant for all 13 scales, the transition x sex interaction was significant

TABLE IIThree-way MANOVA with repeated measures on one factor for the set of 13 learningenvironment scales.

Effect F

Transition (Trial)a 27.14**

Sex 4.35**

School Size Pathway 2.75**

Transition x Sexa 2.68**

Transition x Sizea 1.87**

Size x Sex 1.02

Transition x Sex x Size 1.08aThese three effects are of central importance for the research question of the present study. **p <0.01. n = 1040.


for 11 scales, and the transition x size interaction was significant for threescales. Finally, comparisons were made between means scores in order tointerpret the significant effects. Also, qualitative data were used to aidinterpretation of the statistical analyses.

The MANOVA results in Table II replicate past research (Cotterell, 1992)in that changes in perceived learning environment occurred during thetransition from primary to secondary school, and that these changes variedwith student sex and school size/transition pathway.

When comparing pre-transition primary classes with post-transitionsecondary classes, generally students’ perceived some aspects of the changein learning environment in positive terms, and some in negative terms.Secondary school environments generally were perceived to be lessfavourable than primary schools in terms of less class Cohesiveness, lessLeadership, Helpful/Friendly, Understanding and Student Responsibility/Freedom teacher behaviours and more Uncertainty and Dissatisfied teacherbehaviours. Especially of interest is the reduction across transition in all thethree scales of the co-operation sector of Wubbels’ interpersonal model. The

TABLE IIIThree-way ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor for each of 13 MCI and QTIscales for Transition (Trial), Transition x Sex and Transition x School Size.

Scale FTransition Transition x sex Transition x size

My Class Inventory (MCI)

Satisfaction 31.22** 4.11* 1.27

Friction 106.63** 4.06* 2.37*

Difficulty 34.92** 10.06** 1.02

Cohesiveness 129.64** 5.13* 2.32*

Competitiveness 94.69** 0.23 1.79

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)

Leadership 53.56** 22.01** 0.25

Helpful/Friendly 65.87** 9.69** 1.97

Understanding 107.23** 9.44** 0.69

Student Responsibility/Freedom 19.45** 0.13 3.10*

Uncertainty 83.47** 37.00** 0.82

Dissatisfaction 101.54** 20.63** 1.40

Admonishing 66.93** 7.83** 0.54

Strict 40.19** 9.78** 1.44

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


changes in teacher interpersonal style perceived by the students represent ashift 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 morefavourable than primary school environments in terms of more Satisfaction,less Friction, Difficulty and Competitiveness and less Admonishing and Strictteacher behaviour.

As the transition x sex and transition x pathway interactions weresignificant (Table II), but the three-way transition x sex x pathway interactionwas not, it is appropriate to split the data separately by sex and by pathwayin order to make more meaningful interpretations. Figure 2 depicts the meanscores 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 significanttransition x sex interaction, changes in learning environment perceptionsacross transition were more favourable for boys for Satisfaction and

Figure 2. Differential changes in learning environment perceptions across transition forboys and girls (n = 1040 students).


Difficulty, but were more favourable for girls for Friction and Cohesiveness.However, overall trends were similar for boys and girls. Boys experiencedan increase in Satisfaction (compared with a decrease for girls) and they alsoperceived a slightly larger reduction in Difficulty and a smaller decline inCohesiveness during transition. Girls experienced a larger decrease inFriction. For most of the variables, however, boys held a more negative viewboth before and after the transition than did the girls, with the key differencebeing that the starting point for boys was usually more negative. This waspossibly a manifestation of the general negativity which boys felt aboutprimary school.

The finding that boys reported an increase in Satisfaction, whilst girlsexperienced a reduction in perceived Satisfaction, was supported by thequalitative data which suggested that many boys were resentful and negativeabout primary school. This resentment focused upon the sex of the teacher(e.g. “Our teachers are all bossy women”), their perceived behaviourmanagement style (e.g. “If you do something wrong in the morning, theypick on you all day”) or their perceived bias in curriculum decisions. (“Theproblem is that most of our primary teachers are intelligent females. Theyget to choose what we do and usually they choose things that appeal to theintelligent girls.”) By contrast, the girls were happy with their primary classesand their teachers. (Almost 20% of students nominated teachers as the thingthey missed most about primary school once they had left.)

Qualitative data suggested that boys and girls had different priorities whendescribing ‘positives’ about the school environment. Boys responses had afacilities/activity focus, while the girls had more of a relationship focus. Forexample, of the 42% of students who mentioned ‘friends’ as the keyenjoyment factor of school, there were 23% more girls than boys. Of thosewho responded ‘the teacher’, there were 83% more girls. By contrast, boyswere 40% more likely than girls to nominate aspects of school facilities orequipment (often sports related). The one clear pattern emerging from thequalitative data, that is of relevance to interpretations within this article, wasthe 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 classand learning environment concerned. Boys, in contrast, were more concernedwith access to facilities and equipment and the nature of activities experienced.Teacher relationships were rarely described as important (unless they wereparticularly 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-


standing, Dissatisfaction and Admonishing teacher behaviours during tran-sition. This was consistent with the qualitative data which showed that boysindicated that they felt that teachers were admonishing and “bossy” towardsthem. They suggested that they were continually “picked on” and often gavethe reason “because we aren’t girls” or “we can’t (or don’t) behave like girls”.

On the other hand, girls experienced a more favourable change acrosstransition for four QTI scales. Girls perceived less reduction in Leadershipand 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 teacherUnderstanding. This was due to a combination of the changing relationshipbetween teacher and student, the narrower, subject-defined focus bysecondary teachers and a reduction in personal contact with specific teachers.Teacher Understanding was a key issue for girls throughout and appearedoften in the qualitative data. For example, when asked “What do you missabout primary school?” (once in secondary school), many girls commentednostalgically about the altered relationship with the teacher. This includedmany comments referring to the degree of empathy which the teacherdemonstrated (e.g. “The teachers and the special care”, “The teachers wouldstick up for us when we got teased” and “The shared feelings”). By contrast,boys were pragmatic about the change (e.g. “I don’t really miss anything;that’s all finished”) or glad to be away from the primary teachers (e.g. “It ismuch better here because the teachers don’t pick on us all day”). Thisinterpretation is reflected in the QTI data for which shifts in the Under-standing 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 significanttransition x school size pathway interaction had emerged (see Table III andFigure 3), the least favourable changes were found for students moving fromsmall primary schools to either medium or large secondary schools. The mostfavourable changes occurred for the within-school pathway. Students movingfrom small primary schools perceived a larger decrease in Cohesiveness andStudent Responsibility/Freedom behaviour and a smaller decrease in Frictioncompared with the within-school pathway. Students from the within-schooltransition pathway experienced a large decrease in Friction and an increasein both Cohesiveness and Student Responsibility/Freedom behaviour.

Although school size pathway differences were not as clearly discerniblewithin the qualitative data (sex-based differences were much more obvious),typically students moving out of the small primary schools commented ondifferences in the physical size of the secondary schools, the presence of


“the people who mess around with smoking and drugs” and the changingrelationships with peers (e.g. “Friends just seemed to be closer in primaryschool”, and “Some of my friends have changed and have got snobby”).They were also more inclined to comment on the lack of “friendliness” ofthe secondary school students.

Students in the medium-medium and medium-large school size pathwaysperceived changes in learning environments across transition in a way thatwas less favourable than the within-school pathway but more favourablethan for students leaving small primary schools (see Figure 3). In particular,students moving from a medium-sized primary school to a large-sized highschool experienced small declines in Cohesion and Student Responsibility/Freedom behaviour.

3. CONCLUSION

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

Figure 3. Differential changes in learning environment perceptions across transition fordifferent school size pathways (n = 1008 students).


competitiveness than primary schools. But students also perceived adeterioration in the quality of teacher-student interactions (e.g. in terms ofless leadership, helpful/friendly, understanding and student responsibility/freedom teacher behaviours).

The interpretation of the differential changes in learning environmentperceptions across transition for boys and girls was that boys experiencedmore favourable changes on some dimensions, while girls experienced morefavourable changes on other dimensions. Boys reported more favourablechanges in perceptions than girls across transition in terms of an increase insatisfaction (compared with a decrease for girls), a larger decline in difficultyand a smaller decline in cohesiveness and understanding teacher behaviour,and a smaller increase in teacher dissatisfaction behaviour, and a largerdecrease in admonishing teacher behaviour. On the one hand, girls reportedmore favourable changes than boys in learning environment perceptionsacross transition in terms of a larger decrease in classroom friction, a smallerdecrease in leadership and helpful/friendly teacher behaviours, a smallerincrease in uncertainty teacher behaviour and a decline in strict teacherbehaviour (compared with an increase for boys).

Findings from this study also suggest that changes in learning environmentacross transition are related to school size and, therefore, school programsdevised to support students during the primary-to-secondary school transitionneed to take into account the degree of change which students undergo interms of school size. The present study suggests that students from small-sized primary schools experienced larger deteriorations in learning environ-ment dimensions than did the students from medium-sized primary schools.Also, students whose secondary school was on the same site as their primaryschool reported the most favourable changes in perceived learning environ-ment during transition.

REFERENCES

Anderman, E.M. & Midgely, C. (1996, April). Changes in achievement goal orientationsafter the transition to middle school. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research on Adolescence, Boston, MA

Australian Schools Council. (1992). National report on schooling in Australia. Mel-bourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.

Cotterell, J.L. (1982). Student experiences following entry into secondary school. Educa-tional Research, 24, 296–302.

Cotterell, J.L. (1992). School size as a factor in adolescents’ adjustment to the transition tosecondary school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 28–45.

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). (1996).Ending Alienation. THE GEN, June, 1–4.


Eccles, J.S. & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: developmentally appropriate class-rooms for early adolescents. In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin education, 3 (pp. 139–186). New York: Academic Press.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C. & Eccles, J.S. (1988). Student, teacher, and observer percep-tions of the classroom environment before and after the transition to junior high school.Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156.

Ferguson, P.D. & Speering, W. (1997). ‘Great expectations, grim realities’: secondary schoolinitiates’ perceptions of science. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science, Math-ematics & Technology Education and National Development, Proceedings of the1997 International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Educa-tion, Hanoi, Vietnam, 6–7 January, 1997. (pp. 189–198). Perth, Australia: Curtin Univer-sity of Technology.

Fisher, D.L. & Fraser, B.J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class Inventory. Science Edu-cation, 65, 145–156.

Fisher, D.L., Fraser, B.J. & Bassett, J. (1995). Using a classroom environment instrument inan early childhood classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(3), 10–15.

Fisher, D. & Rickards, T. (1997). Cultural and gender differences in teacher-student inter-personal behaviour in science classrooms. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science,Mathematics & Technology Education and National Development, Proceedings ofthe 1997 International Conference on Science, Mathematics and Technology Edu-cation, Hanoi, Vietnam, 6–7 January, 1997. (pp. 1–9). Perth, Australia: Curtin Univer-sity of Technology.

Fisher, D., Rickards, T., Goh, S.C. & Wong, A. (1997). Perceptions of interpersonal teacherbehaviour in secondary science classrooms: comparisons between Australia and Singa-pore. In D. Fisher & T. Rickards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics & Technology Educa-tion and National Development, Proceedings of the 1997 International Conferenceon Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Hanoi, Vietnam, 6–7 January,1997. (pp. 136–143). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Fraser, B. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Hand-book of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). 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. 527–564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Fraser, B.J. & O’Brien, P. (1985). Student and teacher perceptions of the environment ofelementary school classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 84, 567–580.

Fraser, B.J. & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: evaluation, an-tecedents and consequences. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1996). Validation of an elementary school version of the Ques-tionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Psychological Reports, 79, 515–522.

Goh, S.C. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Teacher interpersonal behaviour, classroom environmentand student outcomes in primary mathematics in Singapore. Learning EnvironmentsResearch, 1, ....–.....

Goh, S., Young, D. & Fraser, B. (1995). Psychosocial climate and student outcomes inelementary mathematics classrooms: a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Experimen-tal Education, 64, 29–40.

Hargreaves, A. & Tickle, L. (Eds.). (1980). Middle schools: origin, ideology and prac-tice. London: Harper and Row.


Henning, D. (1997). Prospect High School. In M. Falk, R. Radford & H. Smigiel (Eds.),Partnerships for professional learning: the innovative links roundtable in Tasma-nia (pp. 13–15). Hobart, Australia: Tasmanian Educational Consortium.

Hirsch, B.J. & Rapkin, B.D. (1987). The transition to junior high school: a longitudinal studyof self esteem, psychological symptomatology, school life, and social support. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1235–1243.

Kite, L. (Ed.). (1996). Implementing cross-curricular approaches in schools: case studyno. 2 (pp. 25–41). Canberra, Australia: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

Leary, T. (1957). An interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald PressCompany.

Midgley, C., Eccles, J.S. & Feldlaufer, H. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudestoward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal ofChild Development, 60, 981–992.

Midgley, C., Eccles, J.S. & Feldlaufer, H. (1991). Classroom environment and the transitionto junior high school. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments:evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 131–139). Oxford, UK: PergamonPress.

Moos, R.H. (1974). Evaluating treatment environments: a social ecological approach.New York: John Wiley.

Moos, R.H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: procedures, measures, find-ings and policy implications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Speering, W. & Rennie, L. (1996). Students’ perceptions about science: the impact of transi-tion from primary to secondary school. Research in Science Education, 26, 283–298.

Tobin, K. & Fraser, B.J. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of classroom learningenvironments. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of scienceeducation (pp. 623–640). Dordtrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Walberg, H.J. (1976). The psychology of learning environments: behavioral, structural, orperceptual? Review of Research in Education, 4, 142–178.

Walberg, H.J. (1987). Learning environment reconsidered: educational productivity andtalent development. In B.J. Fraser (Ed.), The study of learning environments, Volume3 (pp. 1–9). 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: Na-tional Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.

Wubbels, T., Creton, H., Levy, J. & Hooymayers, H. (1993). The model for interpersonalteacher behaviour. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you look like?:interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 13–28). London: Falmer Press.

Wubbels, T. & Levy, J. (1993). Do you know what you look like?: interpersonal rela-tionships in education. London: Falmer Press.

PETER D. FERGUSON BARRY J. FRASER

School of Education Science and Mathematics Education CentreUniversity of Tasmania Curtin University of TechnologyP.O. Box 1214 GPO Box U1987Launceston, Tasmania 7250 Perth, Western Australia 6845Australia Australia


Documents

Changes in Learning Environment during the Transition from Primary to Secondary School