W. Sean Kearney and Scott Peters - Published in NFEAS JOURNAL, 31(1) 2013-2014 - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982) - www.nationalforum.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

W. Sean Kearney and Scott Peters - Published in NFEAS JOURNAL, 31(1) 2013-2014 - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982) - www.nationalforum.com

on

  • 970 views

W. Sean Kearney and Scott Peters - Published in NFEAS JOURNAL, 31(1) 2013-2014 - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982) - www.nationalforum.com

W. Sean Kearney and Scott Peters - Published in NFEAS JOURNAL, 31(1) 2013-2014 - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982) - www.nationalforum.com

Statistics

Views

Total Views
970
Views on SlideShare
970
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

W. Sean Kearney and Scott Peters - Published in NFEAS JOURNAL, 31(1) 2013-2014 - Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982) - www.nationalforum.com Document Transcript

  • 1. NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 31, NUMBER 1, 2013 A COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM CLIMATE W. Sean Kearney Scott Peters Texas A&M University–San Antonio ABSTRACT This study examines student and teacher perceptions of classroom climate in order to identify factors that enhance or detract from student satisfaction. Surveys are analyzed from 1,431 students and 74 teachers from 36 fourth grade and 38 fifth grade classrooms across 14 elementary schools in Texas utilizing the My Class Inventory-Short Form (Fraser & O’Brien, 1985; Settlage, 2011). Hierarchical Linear Modeling analyses are employed to identify which classroom climate factors are significantly related to student satisfaction, and to isolate potential interaction effects between level 1 (student) and the level 2 (classroom) variables. The results of the analyses demonstrate student perceptions of cohesion and difficulty are positively related to student satisfaction, while friction and competition impact negatively upon student satisfaction. There is very little correlation between teacher and student perceptions of classroom climate, with teacher perceptions of classroom cohesion being the only teacher level factor that is significantly related to student satisfaction within this study. Implications are discussed. 20
  • 2. KEARNEY & PETERS21 Introduction L istening to students is an essential component of learner engagement and success (Dewey, 2009). Unfortunately, giving students a voice in their own education is increasingly rare in U.S. public education, particularly at the elementary level (Angus, 2006). In a counseling setting, an experienced clinician will begin by asking their client what they want to achieve from their counseling sessions, what their goals are, and what will make them satisfied with the experience. Based on the client’s feedback, the counselor uses his/her training to masterfully blend the client’s needs and desires with proven counseling techniques to help achieve the desired results. Similarly, successful businessmen and women must ensure they are meeting the needs and expectations of their clients if they hope to maintain their contracts. But should educators ask for feedback from elementary students? What knowledge might be gleaned from asking elementary students for feedback on classroom climate? The authors of this study set out to give voice to elementary students by asking for their feedback on classroom climate. Student perceptions are then compared with teacher perceptions to better understand the relationship between these groups. In so doing, the authors hope to add to the extant literature on classroom climate factors that contribute to student satisfaction at the elementary level. In order to inform our investigation, the discussion now turns to a review of the existing literature in this field. Literature Review Theoretical Basis Student involvement in their own education, specifically related to decision-making has a solid foundation. Piaget and Vygotsky provide theories of child development that underscore the value of student-centered learning (Tzou, 2007). Arguably one of the
  • 3. 22NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL strongest proponents of respect for the child as driver of their own learning was Maria Montessori. She felt that students learn best when they have a level of developmentally appropriate autonomy (Lockhorst, Wubbels, & Van Oers, 2010; Lapota, Wallace, & Finn, 2005; Montessori, 1967). The Montessori method fosters free and open discourse in which a student has a voice where meaningful learning can occur (Lockhorst, Wubbels, & Van Oers, 2010). Similarly, John Dewey viewed education as a democratic exercise, requiring student involvement in their own educational choices (Dewey, 2009). Another pedagogical innovator who has emphasized student involvement in their own education is Loris Malaguzzi. His development of the Reggio Emilia approach was founded on the idea that the child/student is capable of being an active participant in their own learning (Caldwell &Gandini, 1997). Malaguzzi espoused a less hierarchical structure in the classroom, replaced instead by a collaborative relationship between student and teacher. In the Reggio Emilia model, each student is treated as a part of the community of learning (Caldwell &Gandini, 1997). Many other authors have emphasized the importance of meaningful student involvement in their own education as curriculum designers, self-advocates, and evaluators in the classroom (Fielding, 2001; Fletcher, 2005; Friere, 1998; Klein, 2003; Wilson & Corbett, 2001). Importantly, there is data to support the value of soliciting student feedback. Rathunde andCsikszentmihalyi (2005) found that compared to traditional educational settings, schools in which student feedback was regularly solicited reported, “higher affect, potency… and intrinsic motivation,”than schools with lower levels of student feedback (p.363). Additionally, Kennedy, and Datnow (2011) have identified increased student involvement as a common trait found in highly effective schools, and WestlingAllodi (2007) found that when student feedback is utilized to improve classroom climate, learning outcomes improve.
  • 4. KEARNEY & PETERS23 Student Satisfaction “Although (students) spend a great deal of time in their school, there is relatively little attention (given to) school satisfaction”(Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002, p. 203). Fortunately, there has been some promising research conducted recently in this area. Baker, Dilly, Aupperlee, and Patil (2003) have begun to explore how a child’s adjustment to schooling impacts their psychological well-being – their theory is that student who do not have a satisfactory experience in schools receive psychological harm that can follow them into adulthood. Griffith (2000) conducted a large- scale study of elementary school students (N=25,577) in which he examined the relationship between student satisfaction, student teacher relationships, and the level of order and discipline in the classroom. In this study, increases in student teacher relationships and classroom discipline were correlated with higher levels of student satisfaction (Griffith, 2000). Schooling that is connected with the local workforce appears to enhance student satisfaction. Caton, Brewer, and Brown (2000) facilitated a research study in which science teachers co-taught with local scientists to provide students with an increased understanding and hands on experience working with real scientists. Student satisfaction surveys indicate that this model of instruction dramatically increased the level of satisfaction students had with their own learning. There also appears to be a link between student and teacher satisfaction. In a study of over 17,000 students in Finland, Ervasti et al. (2012) found that when students are more satisfied with their schooling, teacher sickness and absence rate declines, but in classrooms where students report higher levels of dissatisfaction with their schooling, their teachers utilize more sick days. Thus, a number of studies have identified student satisfaction as a crucial outcome variable useful in measuring the success of various classroom initiatives. Nevertheless, student satisfaction remains an understudied classroom climate variable, and many authors have called for more
  • 5. 24NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL research in this area (McMahon, Wernsman, & Rose, 2010; Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002). Classroom Cohesion and Friction There appears to be a relationship between classroom cohesion and classroom discipline. In a study of 291 elementary and secondary teachers, Riley (2009) found that teachers who had implemented effective classroom management strategies were more likely to have positive relationships (cohesion) with their students. Similarly, a study conducted by McMahon, Wernsman, and Rose (2010) of 149 fourth and fifth-graders found those students who felt more connected with their teachers and classmates had higher levels of satisfaction than their less connected peers. Perhaps not surprisingly, there appears to be an inverse relationship between classroom friction and student satisfaction. An interesting German experiment was conducted in which saliva samples were taken from students daily in order to measure changes in cortisol (stress) levels. Additionally, students were asked to report on their satisfaction with peer and teacher relationships. The results demonstrated that the more friction existed in the classroom, the greater the level of stress the students experienced (Ahnert, HarwardtHeinecke, Kappler, Eckstein-Madry, &Milatz, 2012). Similarly, a Dutch study involving 1,090 students between ages 10 and 12 found that when students identified a negative classroom climate (i.e., conflict with peers) their satisfaction with schooling diminished (Verkuyten&Thijs, 2002). Classroom Competition Another factor to consider is the extent to which classroom competition impacts students’ learning environments. A study by Loukas, Suzuki, and Horton (2008) of 489 elementary and middle school students found that classroom competition was negatively correlated with school satisfaction. Similarly, Majeed, Fraser, and
  • 6. KEARNEY & PETERS25 Aldridge (2002) conducted a study of 1,565 secondary students in India in which they identified competition as a factor that adversely impacts student satisfaction. This dissatisfaction with competition appears to be even more pronounced at the elementary level. Ellison, Boykin, Tyler, andDillihunt (2005) conducted a study of elementary students in low socioeconomic areas in order to assess their preferences for learning. Results indicated these students preferred collaborative learning over competitive learning. Interestingly, the African American students in this group had a significantly higher preference for collaborative learning than their Anglo peers. Classroom Rigor A final dynamic considered in the present study is classroom rigor. Wolf, Crosson, andResnick (2005) describe academic rigor as, “emphasiz(ing) students’ opportunities for high-level thinking and active use of knowledge” (p. 30). A study conducted by Overbaugh and Nickel (2011) involved 262 college students in a hybrid course. These authors utilized a pre-test post-test design to measure student competency and satisfaction. Their findings indicated that a challenging curriculum, whether on-line or face-to-face, increases students’ overall satisfaction with the course. This also appears to be true for elementary and secondary level students. Griffith (2000) conducted a study of more than 25,000 elementary and middle school students in which he found that the more challenging the level of work students received from their teachers, the more students enjoyed the class. Method Participants For the purpose of this study, a survey design was utilized in order to examine the relationship between teacher and student perceptions of classroom climate. The authors surveyed a total of
  • 7. 26NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL 1,431 students from 74 elementary classrooms (36 4th grade classrooms and 38 5th grade classrooms) utilizing the My Class Inventory – Short Form (Student Version) (Settlage, 2011; Sink & Spencer, 2005). Additionally, 74 teachers from the same classrooms completed the My Class Inventory – Short Form (Teacher Version) (Fraser & O’Brien, 1985). Instrumentation The My Class Inventory – Short Form (MCI-SF) was selected because it is available both in a student and teacher version. The MCISF has demonstrated itself to be both valid and reliable. Cronbach’s alpha levels of reliability are strong both for the instrument as a whole (α = .91) and for each factor within the instrument (Satisfaction, α = .88; Friction, α = .75; Competitiveness, α = .81; Difficulty, α = .73; and, Cohesiveness, α = .80) (Fraser, 1982; 1998; Fischer & Fraser, 1981; Fraser & Fischer, 1982a, 1982b, 1986; Fraser & O'Brien, 1985). The My Class Inventory – Short Form contains five factors that appear on both the student and teacher versions. These are: satisfaction, friction, cohesion, difficulty, and competition. Students and teachers respond to items by selecting either true, false, or neither true nor false (Fraser, 1991; Settlage, 2011). Sample items from each factor are provided below in order to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the terms. One control variable is also included in this study: class size. This variable was selected based on previous studies that have identified it as a useful predictor of student satisfaction and success (De Paola, Ponzo, &Scoppa, 2013; Fan, 2012). Data Analysis This study examines information from both student and teacher surveys. In order to avoid the problems of aggregation bias the authors determined it was necessary to analyze the data using a multi-level
  • 8. KEARNEY & PETERS27 analytic technique, specifically, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) (Raudenbush&Bryk, 2002). First, an estimation of an unconditional or intercept only model was conducted to determine the existence and degree of unexplained variance in student satisfaction between classrooms. Second, a level-1 model estimation was completed, which included ratings of student perceptions of classroom climate. Finally, a full level-2 model estimation followed with teacher perceptions of classroom climate serving as the level 2 predictor of the intercept and the level 1 slopes. Results Descriptive and Correlational Data The average class size was 19 students per class, with the smallest class having 11 students, and the largest class having 26 students. The number of years of teaching experience ranged from 1 to 33 years. The number of years of experience on campus for teachers ranged from 1 to 14 years. The percentage of students on campus who qualify for free or reduced lunch ranged from 10% for the wealthiest school in this study to 71% for the poorest school in this study (Texas Education Agency, 2011). Before utilizing the more complex statistical design of Hierarchical Linear Modeling, the authors were interested in identifying whether teacher and student perceptions of classroom climate were correlated with one another. In other words, are teachers and students perceiving the same thing? The results were surprising to the authors of this study. There was no significant correlation between teacher and student perceptions of satisfaction, competition, friction, or difficulty. The only factor in which teacher and student responses were significantly correlated with one another was on perceptions of classroom cohesion (β = 0.277; p = 0.017). Variability of Student Satisfaction Between Classrooms The one-way ANOVA with random effects model revealed
  • 9. 28NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL that within this sample, variation exists in student satisfaction between classrooms ( 2 = 855.55, p< .001). The intraclass correlation (ICC), or the ratio of between-group variance to total variance, was .3441, indicating that 34.4% of the overall variation in student satisfaction lies between classrooms. One Way ANOVA Model in Equation Format: Level 1 (Student Level): Student Satisfaction = Level 2 (Classroom Level): 0j = 00 +u0j 0j + rij Impact of Student Perceptions of Classroom Climate on Student Satisfaction In the random coefficient model, variables at the classroom level were added to the level 1 equation to assess whether any of the student perceptions of classroom climate were related to student satisfaction. Findings demonstrate a statistically significant relationship exists between student satisfaction and classroom friction ( 10 = -0.27, t = -10.60, p< .01), cohesion ( 20 = 0.18, t = 5.31, p< .01), competition ( 30 = -.12, t = -4.88, p< .01), and difficulty ( 40 = 0.15, t = 3.85, p< .01). The standard coefficients reveal the level of impact that each of the independent variables had on the dependent variable of student satisfaction. Results demonstrate that for each 1 point rise in student perception of classroom friction, student satisfaction decreased by 0.27 points. The opposite was true of cohesion. For each 1-point rise in student perception of classroom cohesion, student satisfaction rose by 0.18. Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between competition and satisfaction, as for each 1-point rise in student perception of classroom competition, student satisfaction declined by 0.12. However, students in this sample were not adverse to rigor, as
  • 10. KEARNEY & PETERS29 the results indicate for each 1 point rise in student perception of difficulty of class work, student satisfaction rose by 0.18. Random Coefficient Model in Equation Format: Level 1 (Student Level): StudentSatisfaction = 0j+ (Cohesion) + 3j (Competition) + 2j rij(ResidualUnexplainedVariance) Level 2 (Classroom Level): 0j = 00 + u0j 1j= 10 2j= 20 3j= 30 4j= 40 1j(Friction) 4j + (Difficulty) + Impact of Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Climate on Student Satisfaction In the intercepts and slopes-as-outcomes model, teacher perceptions of classroom climate were added to the level 2 equation to measure whether teacher perceptions of classroom friction, cohesion, difficulty, or competition were related to student satisfaction. Findings demonstrate that a statistically significant relationship exists between teacher perception of cohesion and student satisfaction ( 05 = 0.20, t = 2.22, p< .05). However, teacher perceptions of friction ( 02 = 0.05, t = 0.38, p =n.s.), difficulty ( 04 = 0.28, t = 1.94, p =n.s.), and competition ( 03 = -0.10, t = -1.13, p =n.s.) did not make a significant contribution to the variance in student satisfaction (See Table 6). The coefficient score reveals that for each 1 point rise in teacher perception of classroom cohesion, student satisfaction scores rose by 0.20. Impact of Class Size on Student Satisfaction Researchers were also interested in identifying whether class
  • 11. 30NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL size impacted student satisfaction within this sample. Findings from the intercepts and slopes-as-outcomes model indicate that class size did not make a significant contribution to the variance in student satisfaction ( 01 = -0.02, t = -1.78, p =n.s.). Intercepts and Slopes as Outcomes Model in Equation Format: Level 1 (Student Level): StudentSatisfaction = 0j+ (Cohesion) + 3j (Competition) + 2j rij(ResidualUnexplainedVariance) Level 2 (Classroom Level): + 0j = 00 + 01j(Classsize) 03j(Tcompetition)+ 04j(Tdifficulty) + u0j 1j = 10 2j = 20 3j = 30 4j = 40 1j(Friction) 4j + (Difficulty) + 02j(Tfriction) + 05j(Tcohesion) + Discussion The statistical analyses presented above revealed some very interesting data. Student and teacher perceptions of classroom climate are not highly correlated with one another. The only area in which student and teacher perceptions were significantly related to one another was in the area of classroom cohesion. Additionally, both teacher and student perceptions of cohesion made a significant contribution to the variance in student satisfaction. Thus students are more satisfied with their class when they feel they are getting along with their classmates, and teachers are able to ascertain when this is so. This has important implications for teachers in that when a teacher becomes aware of a lack of class cohesion, this pejorative climate is likely to lead to a lack of student satisfaction with the class as well.
  • 12. KEARNEY & PETERS31 Student perception of friction was a strong negative predictor of student satisfaction.This means that as student perception of friction rose, their satisfaction with the class declined. It is curious to note that teachers were not well attuned to this measure. It could be that friction between students may not be overtly expressed in a classroom setting. Thus when teachers do not see students actively engaged in fighting, they may assume that there is no friction, while student perception of friction between classmates is more nuanced. Classroom competition was also a negative predictor of student satisfaction. When students felt as if they were competing against their classmates, their satisfaction with the class went down. Once again, this was counter to the perceptions of teachers in the classroom. It could be that teachers in this study view student competition as a means of motivating their students, while students view direct competition with their peers as an additional stressor which reduces their overall satisfaction with the classroom. While students in this study may not want to compete with one another, they do not appear to be averse to rigorous work. An encouraging finding within this study is that as students’ perception of the difficulty of their class work rose, their satisfaction with the class improved as well. Thus simplifying the curriculum in order to curry favor would not appear to work with these students. Taken in conjunction with the results on competition, it would appear these students want to be challenged, but they do not want the results of their learning to be compared directly with their fellow students in a competitive fashion. The random coefficient model also explored whether class size played a role in determining the level of student satisfaction. The authors were somewhat surprised to find that contrary to the literature in this area (DePaola, Ponzo,&Scoppa, 2013; Fan, 2012), the students in this study did not express higher levels of satisfaction based on class size. This is likely due to the small degree of difference between class sizes for the classrooms within this study. While the smallest class in
  • 13. 32NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL this study had only 11 students, that was an outlier. The next smallest class had 18 students, and the largest class had 26 students. Thus there was truly only a meaningful range of 8 students’ difference per class, a difference that was not sufficient to reveal class size as a significant predictor of student satisfaction. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of asking students for their feedback on classroom climate. This is particularly important because teacher perceptions of climate so often differed from student perceptions. The way students get along with one another has a lot to do with student satisfaction. This may have policy implications for principals in regard to the role of counselors. Counselors may be well positioned to work with students to discuss issues that may be causing personal friction with their peers. Additionally, counselors may be able to provide training to teachers so that they are aware of school counseling resources. Perhaps the most important implication of this research is that elementary teachers who are wishing to maximize student satisfaction would be well served to provide a rigorous and challenging curriculum without placing students in direct competition with one another. Limitations The generalizability of this study’s findings are limited due to the fact that this study examined only 74 elementary classrooms in Texas. Additionally, differences in student demographics were not considered. The authors are interested in conducting follow up research in a wider array of classrooms, across multiple states and student populations, or internationally. Additionally, it may be important for future studies to examine a wider age group for student participants. This study focused on the perceptions of 4th and 5th grade students – but these may differ from perceptions of students who are slightly older or slightly younger than those who participated in this study. For example, it may be interesting to examine whether increased student competition continues to inhibit student satisfaction
  • 14. KEARNEY & PETERS33 at the secondary level, and whether these results differ by gender or other demographic factors. Conclusion Allowing students a voice in their own education and providing students with a positive classroom climate are both essential elements of effective schooling. The lack of substantial correlation between teacher and student perceptions of classroom climate highlights the need to solicit feedback from students rather than relying solely on teacher perceptions. Understanding the factors that contribute to student satisfaction can provide teachers with the information they need to improve student satisfaction. For the classrooms participating in this study, student perception of friction and competition were negatively related to student satisfaction, while increased cohesion and class work difficulty were positively related to student satisfaction. With this information in hand, teachers can then blend student feedback with empirically based pedagogical techniques to maximize student learning and success.
  • 15. 34NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL References Ahnert, L., Harwardt-Heinecke, E., Kappler, G., Eckstein-Madry, T., &Milatz, A. (2012). Student–teacher relationships and classroom climate in first grade: How do they relate to students’ stress regulation?Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 249-263. Angus, L. (2006). Educational leadership and the imperative of including student voices, student interests, and students’ lives in the mainstream.International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 368–79. Baker, J. A., Dilly, L. J., Aupperlee, J. L., &Patil, S. A. (2003). The developmental context of school satisfaction: School as psychologically healthy environments. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2),206–221. Caldwell, L. B.,&Gandini, L. (1997).Bringing Reggio Emilia home: An innovative approach to early childhood education.New York: NY. Teachers College Press. Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science & Mathematics, 100(1), 7-15. DePaola, M., Ponzo, M., &Scoppa, V. (2013). Class size effects on student achievement: heterogeneity across abilities and fields. Education Economics, 21(2), 135-153. Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: WLC Books. Ellison, C. M., Boykin, A., Tyler, K. M., &Dillihunt, M. L. (2005).Examining classroom learning preferences among elementary school students.Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 33(7), 699-708. Ervasti, J., Kivimäki, M., Puusniekka, R., Luopa, P., Pentti, J., Suominen, S., & Virtanen, M. (2012). Students’ school satisfaction as predictor of teachers’ sickness absence: A prospective cohort study. European Journal of Public Health, 22(2), 215-219.
  • 16. KEARNEY & PETERS35 Fan, F. A. (2012). Class size: Effects on students' academic achievements and some remedial measures. Research in Education, 87(1), 95-98. Fielding, M. (2001).Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 23,123-131. Fischer, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and use of My Class Inventory.Science Education, 65, 145-156. Fletcher, A. (2005). Meaningful student involvement: Guide to students as partners in school change. Retrieved from http://www.soundout.org/MSIGuide.pdf Fraser, B. J. (1982). Development of short forms of several classroom environment scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 221-227. Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents, and consequences (pp. 3-27). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity, and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-33. Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1982a). Effects of classroom psychosocial environment on student learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 374-377. Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1982b). Evaluation studies: Predictive validity of My Class Inventory. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 129-140. Fraser, B. J., & Fischer, D. L. (1986). Using short forms of classroom climate instruments to assess and improve classroom psychosocial environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 387-413. Fraser, B. J., & O'Brien, P. (1985).Student and teacher perceptions of the environment of elementary-school classrooms.Elementary School Journal, 85, 567-580.
  • 17. 36NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL Friere, P. 1998. Pedagogy of freedom: Hope democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers. Griffith, J. (2000). School climate as group evaluation and group consensus: Student and partent perceptions of the elementary school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 35-62. Kennedy, B., &Datnow, A. (2011).Student involvement and decisiondriven making developing a new typology.Youth and Society, 43(4), 1246-1271. Klein, R. (2003). We want our say: Children as active participants in their education. Sterling, VA: Trentham. Lapota, C., Wallace, N. V., & Finn, K. V. (2005).Comparison of academic achievement between Montessori and traditional education programs.Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(1), 1-9. Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., & Van Oers, B. (2010). Educational dialogues and the fostering of pupils’ independence: The practices of two teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 99-121. McMahon, S. D., Wernsman, J., & Rose, D. S. (2010). The relation of classroom environment and school belonging on academic self-efficacy among urban fourth- and fifth-grade students. Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 267-281. Montessori, M. (1967).Discovery of the child. New York: NY. Random House. Montessori, M. (2011).The absorbent mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford City Press. Overbaugh, R. C., & Nickel, C. E. (2011).A comparison of student satisfaction and value of academic community between blended and online sections of a university-level educational foundations course.The Internet and Higher Education, 14(3), 164-174.
  • 18. KEARNEY & PETERS37 Rathunde, K., &Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school student’s motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111(3), 341-371. Raudenbush, S., &Bryk, A. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Riley, P. (2009). An adult attachment perspective on the student– teacher relationship & classroom management difficulties.Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(5), 626-635. Settlage, J. (2011). Teaching science to every child: Using culture as a starting point. New York, NY: Routledge. Sink, C. A., & Spencer, L. R. (2005). My Class Inventory-Short Form as an accountability tool for elementary school counselors to measure classroom climate. Professional School Counseling, 9, 37-48. Texas Education Agency. (2011). Academic Excellence Indicator System, AEIS 2010-2011. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis Tzou, P. W. (2007). The tension between teacher control and children’s freedom in a child centered classroom: Resolving the practical dilemma through a closer look at the related theories. Early Childhood Education Journal. Verkuyten, M., &Thijs, J. (2002). School satisfaction of elementary school children: The role of performance, peer relations, ethnicity and gender. Social Indicators Research, 59,203-228. WestlingAllodi, M. (2007). Equal opportunities in educational systems: The case of Sweden. European Journal of Education, 42(1), 133-146. Wilson, B.,& Corbett, H. D. (2001).Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers they want.Albany Press, NY: State University of New York Press. Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., &Resnick, L. B. (2005).Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension discussion.Reading Psychology, 26(1), 27-53.