Abstract
Research was conducted to determine if current reforms in calculus education are more inclusive of students of different genders, personalities, attributional beliefs, mathematical abilities, and computer attitudes. Two types of calculus reform are examined: a computer-assisted, student-centred and inductive reform based on the Calculus and Maple (C&M) package; and a teacher-only, teacher-centred and deductive reform. Both methods emphasise student participation in the learning and employ collaborative-learning groups mixed by ability and the assessed sociometric measures, but not mixed by gender. The classroom environments of the reform classes were assessed qualitatively using free-form surveys, interviews and classroom observations, and assessed quantitatively using the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI). The classroom environment of reform classes was compared qualitatively to the normal lecture environment. Students assessed the classroom environment as being significantly less favourable than preferred, confirming general dissatisfaction with socio-emotional aspects of university classes, even when adopting modern educational reforms. Differences in the actual and preferred classroom environments were observed in all class sub-divisions (i.e. gender, personality) and across all environment scales of the CUCEI. The research illustrates the psychosocial diversity of reforms for university classrooms and the desirability of evaluating such reforms using a learning environment inventory as well as conventional qualitative measures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aldis, G. K., Sidhu, H. S., & Joiner, K. F. (1999). Trial of Calculus and Maple with heterogeneous student groups at the Australian Defence Academy. International Journal of Computer Algebra in Mathematics Education, 6(3), 167-190.
Cochrane, T., Ellis, H. D., & Johnston, S. L. (1993). Computer based education in Australian higher education-A case study at the Queensland University of Technology. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Connors, M. A. (1995). An analysis of student achievement and attitudes by gender in computer-integrated and non-computer-integrated first year college mainstream calculus courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cooley, L. A. (1995). Evaluating the effects on conceptual understanding and achievement of enhancing an introductory calculus course with a computer algebra system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
Davis, B., Porta, H., & Uhl, J. (1994). Calculus & Maple. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Duit, R., & Confrey, J. (1996). Reorganizing the curriculum and teaching to improve learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 79-83). New York: Teachers College Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult) (2nd ed.). London: Hodder & Stroughton.
Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1-26). London: Falmer Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook 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 & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Fraser, B., & Treagust, D. (1986). Validity and use of an instrument for assessing classroom psychosocial environment in higher education. Higher Education, 15, 37-57
Fraser, B. J., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. New York: Pergamon.
Fredenberg, V. G. (1993). Supplemental visual computer assisted instruction and student achievement in freshman college calculus. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montana State University, Bozeman.
Howell, K. C. (1996). Introducing cooperative learning into a dynamics lecture class. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(1), 69-72.
Hughes-Hallett, D., Gleason, A., Flath, D., Gordon, S., Lomen, D., Lovelock, D. et al. (1994). Calculus (International ed.). London: J. Wiley.
Jaques, D. (1991). Learning in groups. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Joiner, K. F. (1999). Trialing and evaluating reform in calculus education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology, not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), 40-73.
Lefcourt, H. M., Von Baeyer, C. L., Ware, E. E., & Cox, D. J. (1979). The multidimensional-multiattributional causality scale: The development of a goal specific locus of control scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 11, 286-304.
Lefton, L. E., & Steinbart, E. M. (1995). Calculus & Mathematica: An end-user's point of view. PRIMUS, 5(1), 80-96.
Levine, T., & Donita-Schmidt, S. (1995). Computer experience, gender, and classroom environment in computer-supported writing classes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13, 337-357.
Loyd, B. H., & Gressard, C. P. (1984). Reliability and factorial validity of computer attitude scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 501-505.
Park, K. (1993). Comparative study of the traditional calculus course versus the Calculus and Mathematica course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Paulhus, D. L., & Van Selst, M. (1990). The spheres of control scale: 10 years of research. Personality & Individual Difference, 11(10), 1029-1036.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). An architecture for collaborative knowledge building. In E. De Corte, M. C. Linn, H. Mandl, & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Computerbased learning environments and problem solving (pp. 41-66). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Stoudt, R. A. (1996). Pushing the limits of cooperative learning. PRIMUS, VI, 277-287.
Taylor, P., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1993). Monitoring the development of constructivist learning environments. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Science Teachers Association, Kansas City, KS.
Teh, G. P. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1995). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the psychosocial environment of computer-assisted learning classrooms. Journal of Computing Research, 12(2), 177-193.
Tobin, K. G., & Gallagher, J. J. (1986). Nature and role of target students in science classroom environments. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), The study of learning environments, Volume 1 (pp. 76-85). Salem, OR: Assessment Research.
Tucker, A. C., & Leitzel, J. R. C. (1995). Assessing calculus reform efforts: A report to the community. Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
Watkins, D. (1987). Academic locus of control: A relevant variable at tertiary level? Higher Education, 16, 221-229.
Webb, N. M., & Kenderski, C. M. (1984). Student interaction and learning in small-group and whole-class settings. In P. L. Peterson, L. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan (Eds.), The social context of instruction: Group organization and group process (pp. 153-170). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joiner, K.F., Malone, J.A. & Haimes, D.H. Assessment of Classroom Environments in Reformed Calculus Education. Learning Environments Research 5, 51–76 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015635122875
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015635122875