ABSTRACT
The strongest tradition in past learning environment research involved investigation of associations between students’ cognitive and affective learning outcomes and their perceptions of their classroom environments (Goh, Young and Fraser, 1995). Fraser (1994) reviewed 40 past studies of the effects of classroom environment on student outcomes involving various cognitive and affective outcome measures, various classroom environment instruments and various samples (ranging across numerous countries and grade levels). Learning environment was found to be consistently and strongly associated with achievement and affective outcomes; with better achievement on a variety of outcome measures occurring in classes perceived as having greater cohesiveness, satisfaction and goal direction; and less disorganization and friction. In McRobbie and Fraser’s (1993) research in science laboratory classrooms, affective outcomes were superior in situations in which there was greater integration between the work covered in laboratory classes and theory classes. A promising but neglected application of classroom environment instruments is their use as process criteria in evaluating new curricula. An evaluation of the Australian Science Education Project (ASEP) revealed that, in comparison with a control group, students in ASEP classes perceived their classrooms as being more satisfying and individualized and having a better material environment (Fraser, 1979). The significance of this evaluation is that the use of classroom environment variables revealed important differences between curricula, even when various outcome measures showed negligible differences.
